From the WSJ: Recently New Zealand's National Business Review published an article on the Reuters "news" service (not available online), in which we made an appearance:
Not every observer gives the operation such a clean bill of journalistic health. Even commentators who might be expected to applaud Reuters, such as the Wall Street Journal's online opinion editor, James Taranto, routinely poke fun at the service, mocking its "even-handed" reporting of many terrorist incidents.
Middle Eastern reporting, concedes Mr [Simon] Walker [Reuters' global director of communication], continues to be a "very sensitive area."
And yes, one of the issues "we get a lot of flack about from the Journal in particular" is the editorial tendency not to use the word "terrorist" without the obligatory rabbit's ears [scare quotes], or better still replace it altogether with value-free nouns like gunman or bomber.
Not that Reuters intends changing its stylebook.
"We'll continue to stick to that rule assiduously. Fundamentally it's about wanting to avoid emotion in language. We wish to be reporting facts, avoiding emotional language designed to label. So we won't put those labels in ourselves.
Now, check out the first two paragraphs of a Saturday Reuters dispatch titled "Survey Finds Church-Going Americans Less Tolerant":
Church-going Americans have grown increasingly intolerant in the past four years of politicians making compromises on such hot issues as abortion and gay rights, according to a survey released on Saturday.
At the same time, those polled said they were growing bolder about pushing their beliefs on others--even at the risk of offending someone.
The Washington Times published an edited version of the story:
Churchgoing Americans grew less patient in the past four years with politicians making compromises on such issues as abortion and homosexual rights, according to a survey released yesterday.
At the same time, those polled said they were growing bolder about sharing their beliefs with others--even at the risk of offending someone.
Which version would you say employs more "emotional" language?
Comments