As much as I appreciate Honestreporting's mission, some of their letters really annoy me. Today, under the headline: Reuters Admits Appeasing Terrorists, we're told of a remarkable series of events that start with Canwest deciding to edit Reuters's lines to make it clear that Hamas is a terrorist organization involved in a campaign of violence and NOT a militant group involved in a revolt against Israeli occupation.
Reuters asked Canwest to remove "Reuters" from the byline, citing the need to protect reporters' lives against "confusion" about what was reporting.
Honestreporting concludes its little expose by saying:
Reuters admits to regulating their language to appease the terrorists ― and that's an open admission of pro-Palestinian bias.
This is correct, after a fashion, but it overlooks the central point: journalists that work among Palestinians fear for their lives if they don't report in a biased way. The valid conclusion from this isn't that Reuters hates Israel, it's that truth in journalism is another casualty of terrorism. Yes, the result is anti-Israeli bias, but the critical issue is that reporters are intimidated into spinning the news.
What should happen is that someone - an independent news organization or watchdog - should survey reporters in the area and ask them if they choose their words or their news to stay on good terms with terrorist organizations, including Fatah. They should ask what precisely they fear by not playing by the rules, and they should ask what the consequences are.
Reuters, the New York Times, AP, etc., can not do this themselves, as the suggestion there is danger would in and of itself create danger.
Comments