Heard this today on talk radio...
Basically, Reuters (read: liberal media machine) has implemented a policy to not offend the Terrorists with emotive words in their headlines and bylines like terrorism and terrorists.
I also heard (though haven't personally confirmed this) that the majority owner is Arabic. If so, that would certainly be interesting.Quote:
Our editorial policy is that we don't use emotive words when labeling someone
Here is the full article.
Pretty much the same article here.
The Majority owner of what? National Post (of Canada)?
Somehow I doubt that Conrad Black would be thrilled at being suggested at being Arabic...
If you mean Reuters, from their website (hard to say how accurate it may or may not be):
That all said, I can somewhat understand the point Reuters is trying to make. If I wrote an article that said that all AO users are "terrorist hackers" rather than just hackers, the image of terrorist is different. Even using "hackers" (which thanks to the media has it's own image) would be a distortion. Security professionals or ethusiasts might be more "generic"; maybe just computer users.Quote:
oundation and early development
In October 1851 Paul Julius Reuter, a German-born immigrant, opened an office in the City of London which transmitted stock market quotations between London and Paris via the new Calais-Dover cable. Two years earlier he had used pigeons to fly stock prices between ****** and Brussels, a service which operated for a year until the gap in the telegraph link was closed.
Reuters, as the agency soon became known, eventually extended its service to the whole British press as well as to other European countries. It also expanded the content to include general and economic news from all around the world. The reputation of its service was enhanced by a succession of reporting scoops. For example, in 1865 Reuters was first in Europe with news of President Lincoln’s assassination in the United States.
As overland telegraph and undersea cable facilities developed, the business expanded beyond Europe to include the Far East in 1872 and South America in 1874. In 1883 Reuters began to use a ‘column printer’ to transmit messages electrically to London newspapers and in 1923 pioneered the use of radio to transmit news internationally. In 1927 it introduced the teleprinter to distribute news to London newspapers.
In 1925 the Press Association, the UK press agency, took a majority holding in Reuters Ltd. and in 1939 the company moved its corporate headquarters to its present location at 85 Fleet Street, London.
During both World Wars, Reuters came under pressure from the British government to serve British interests. In 1941 Reuters deflected this pressure by restructuring itself as a private company. The new owners, the British national and provincial press, formed the Reuters Trust, with independent trustees. The Trust preserves Reuters independence and neutrality. The principles of the Trust were maintained and the power to enforce them was strengthened when Reuters became a public company in 1984. (See Reuters Independence and Trust Principles).
Modern developments
Reuters continued to modernise rapidly in the latter half of the 20th century. The introduction of a succession of computerised products for international traders transformed the business. The Stockmaster service (1964), which transmitted financial data internationally, quickly proved a success and began this transformation.
In 1973 a further innovative development was the launch of the Reuter Monitor which created an electronic marketplace for foreign exchange. This service expanded to carry news and prices covering securities, commodities and money and was further enhanced in 1981 with the launch of the Reuter Monitor Dealing Service.
Following a dramatic increase in profitability, Reuters was floated as a public company in 1984 on the London Stock Exchange and on NASDAQ in the US. On listing, the Company had a market capitalisation of some £700 million. Subsequently, Reuters made a series of acquisitions including Visnews (1985 - renamed Reuters Television), Instinet (1986), TIBCO (formerly Teknekron) and Quotron (both in 1994).
Reuters continued to grow rapidly, widening the range of its business products and expanding its global reporting network for media, financial and economic services. Recent key product launches include Equities 2000 (1987), Dealing 2000-2 (1992), Business Briefing (1994), Reuters Television for the financial markets (1994), 3000 Series (1996) and the Reuters 3000 Xtra service (1999).
In 1995, Reuters established its ‘Greenhouse Fund’ to take minority investments in a range of start-up technology companies, initially in the United States. In July 1999 TIBCO Software completed an IPO on NASDAQ; Reuters retains a substantial proportion of the shares. Reuters announced in early 2000 a range of major initiatives designed to accelerate its use of internet technologies, open new markets and migrate its core business to an internet-based model. In May 2001 Instinet completed an IPO on NASDAQ; Reuters retains the majority of the shares.
In October 2001 Reuters completed the largest acquisition in its history, buying most of the assets of Bridge Information Systems.
In March 2003, Reuters acquired Multex.com, Inc., a provider of global financial information.
Updated: May 2003
Hey sweetie:
Fear the media..... They are the controlling factor when they have the _only_ source of information to the masses. If you can control the information then you can control the thoughts.... The rest is pretty obvious..... ;)
Quote:
Originally posted here by Tiger Shark
Hey sweetie:
Fear the media..... They are the controlling factor when they have the _only_ source of information to the masses. If you can control the information then you can control the thoughts.... The rest is pretty obvious..... ;)
Yeps. There is a quote from Dan Rather (yuck) from many years ago...he actually said it was his duty to form public opinion!!! God forbid we should all get our opinions from Rather. :rolleyes:
I like you more every day..... Any chance you can get Neg sent back home???? ;)Quote:
God forbid we should all get our opinions from Rather.
I find it very amusing that after many years of having a monopoly on information the big three and the libs are now whining like hell that people actually watch Fox.... With the advent of that one TV station all of a sudden there's a right wing biase..... The dichotomy is that if their message was acceptable to the viewers then they wouldn't seek out a different channel like Fox.... But they do.... which says what? The message they are portraying is "out of line" with the 'rank and file"..... Too bad I say... Be reasonable or get out of the game.....
The main problem here is that the article in the National Post stated that the article was written by a Reuters reporter. The Reuters reporter didn't use the word "terrorist" (for whatever reason).
The National Post has every right to call whomever they please a "terrorist", but they don't have the right to put that word in someone else (a Reuters journalist)'s mouth.
You should be the first one to agree with me, Tiger... on AO, you'd get bitch-slapped for doing something like that.
CanWest Global (publisher of the National Post and a dozen of other newspapers) already got in trouble with Associated Press (another big player) for doing the same on an article in the Ottawa Citizen: the article was presented as a AP article, but again wording was changed (the Citizen admitted it shouldn't have done that, btw).
That's like me quoting you but changing your wording: not done.
The same happened with the war in Iraq: some called it an "invasion", some called it a "liberation". Fine with me, but if I write an article in which I call it an "invasion" and you publish my article but change all my "invasion"s to "liberation"s, then I have every right to complain.
That doesn't say anything about whether, when or where the word "terrorist" can be used or not, of course. If Reuters doesn't want to use it for whatever reason, that's their business. Nobody's forcing CanWest to buy (literally) their stories, but if they buy them they either should edit it and say they did so, or keep it like it is.
And I like her more every day, too, Tiger :p
Tiger - if it were completely true about what you said of the media, we'd all be bleeding heart liberals, but you're absolutely correct on the most basic level. Thank the stars that there *are* a few of us out here who still follow the addage of believing nothing of what we hear and only 10 percent of what we see. Folks like Rather, Phillips, and even Cronkite wield entirely too much power in today's society, and when folks who try to avoid the spin and hype come along, they're devoured. Our media is pathetic.
Putting the article aside -- "islamic extremist's" don't like when we call them terrorist's and I don't like it when they call us infidel's. We're even. :D
Ahh the "liberal" media empire. I love how everyone blames the liberal media when they are owned by a few. Check out News Corporations and you will see how much old Murdoch owns. (As of December 2001)
http://www.thenation.com/special/bigten.html
Its an interesting chart, if you dont take anything else from it.
The FCC fails to regulate as they are intended. For instance when I was a lad it was hard if not impossible for foreign investors to own a broadcasting company based on US soil. Guess we were all scared of the soviet ability to shape puplic opinion to their will using media. That's gone now.
Not all of those companies provide content. I was NOT for the Time Warner or Viacom expansions or Viacoms recent hostile takeover attempt at Disney. We need to watch more carefully who lets these mergers go through and what politicians are behind them.
Murdoc controls 30 percent with ATT controlling 8 percent of the News Corporation holdings.
Liberty Media also owns 18 percent of News Corporation. All in all Murdoc is pretty small compared to parent companies holding NBC, CBS, ABC etc...