Via Jeffrey Goldberg (No relation), Reuters offers this objective take on the bus bombing in Israel:
Police said it was a “terrorist attack” — Israel’s term for a Palestinian strike. It was the first time Jerusalem had been hit by such a bomb since 2004.
Goldberg writes:
Those Israelis and their crazy terms! I mean, referring to a fatal bombing of civilians as a “terrorist attack”? Who are they kidding? Everyone knows that a fatal bombing of Israeli civilians should be referred to as a “teachable moment.” Or as a “venting of certain frustrations.” Or as “an understandable reaction to Jewish perfidy.” Or perhaps as “a very special episode of ‘Cheers.’” Anything but “a terrorist attack.” I suppose Reuters will mark the 10th anniversary of 9/11 by referring to the attacks as “an exercise in urban renewal.”
The mind reels.
I thought the official term was "man-made disaster".
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe things I'd like to say about this might get my gold star revoked. Is Reuters staffed with human beings with souls? It takes a real kind of demonic effort to deny reality and come out with a sentence like that.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThose sound like terms dictated by the Reuters legal department in consultation with Muslim Brotherhood attorneys.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI wondered where Helen Thomas was working now.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThank you, Jonah & Jeffrey (J & J? Sort of like a Journalistic version of M & M?... ok, way off track here, it's past my bed time) for your public service in pointing this out. I will register my sharp opinion about it with Reuters presently!
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI'm too lazy to look it up, but I seem to recall Reuters having some loopy editorial policy against their writers referring to such acts as terrorism. One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter and all.
We're doomed.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI think the man is driven a bit demented by grief.
I grew up in Ireland during the heights of "The Troubles" (1969 - 1979 - approx). Honestly, I understand how a surfeit of grief can drive insanity.
Just sayin'. I don't know the man from Adam, but I may have a sense of the grief that's driving him, if driving him it is.
Of course, he may be scoring a cheap political point. It's hard to tell.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseOk, so if, according to Reuters, the bomb was a Palestinian strike (as opposed to a terrorist attack), then the Palestinians are engaged in a war against Israel. In which case Israel has the right to "strike" back against the Palestinians. If it's a strike, as opposed to terrorism, it's an official, "state" sponsored act. But the putative head of the Palestinian Authority has officially denounced the act. So I guess he'd disagree with Reuters' definition.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseConsider the source, and move on.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYes, that sucks and is offensive. But until some entrepreneur gives us an Fox-like equivalent to AP and Reuters, we're stuck complaining to the 8 people who will respond to blog posts like these.
We need to have an alternative to AP and Reuters...
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseReuters, a "news organization" - Palestine's term for a friendly propaganda outlet...
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYou say potato, I say pogrom,
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYou say tomato, I say terrorism,
Let's call the whole thing off.
Heh! I hope to see Reuters reporting reporting on a large number of "dead freedom fighters" resulting from Israel's response.
It's the Big Lie. You say it often enough, it must be true.
D. Edgren
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseUnfortunately, part of this is because "terrorism" has been so poorly defined the last 10 years (if not more). It gets used to mean guerrilla fighters and then things like that ridiculous silver dollar case that Instapundit has been linking to. (Ironically, that's how Silver Dollar City, the theme park in Missouri, got started. 100+ years ago some guy in that area was making his own silver dollars. Back then, the government just told him to knock it off. Now he'd be on trial for domestic terrorism, like this poor fellow...)
If people would just stick to terrorist meaning deliberately targeting civilians, then reporters wouldn't have an excuse to use weasel quotes.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWith respect, the number of degrees of irony interferes with this post.
Is Goldberg1 making fun of Goldberg2, or G1 and G2 making fun of Reuters, or commenters 1-17 making fun of G1 or G2 or R1, or ....
I think G1 agrees with G2, and G2 is mocking Reuters, but many commenters think G1 is mocking G2 because G2 agrees with R1 who is mocking Israel suggesting that Palestinians bombers are terrorists, .... but ...
SOMETIMES WE NEED TO BE SERIOUS!
Bad guys and Good guys : Which is which? BE SERIOUS!
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIf I remember correctly, awhile back Reuters adopted a policy of refraining from using the word "terrorism" out of fear for the safety of their correspondents in the Middle East. Always nice when your cowardice dovetails with your political correctness.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseDon't get your news from ideologically motivated liars. This should simplify your life by removing nearly all media, academics, and politicians from consideration or attention.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMark the 9/11 anniversary? Why bother? We haven't even finished the memorial...if we care so little, why should the world care at all?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSlip-slidin' away.
"The mind reels."...and the Soul aches.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThis really isn't unbelievable. It makes perfect sense. After all, Reuters is a "news service".
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse