One other facet of the Russian hostage story also provoked considerable reader response: It was the Tribune’s use of the words “militant” or “rebel,” but not “terrorist,” to refer to the hostage-takers in news stories. “How can you . . . describe these folks as anything but ‘terrorists’?” asked Jim Ihlenfeld of Aurora, in one of the more temperate such messages. Our eschewal of the word “terrorist” was in keeping with a stylebook policy adopted several years ago, a policy that is in keeping with the journalistic purpose of the news pages: to provide as complete, thorough and unbiased an account as possible of the important news of the day. No intellectually honest person can deny that “terrorist” is a word freighted with negative judgment and bias. So we sought terms that carried no such judgment.Why do I even bother attempting to point out the idiocy, as well as the fatal implications of, moral relativism when its adherents do such a better job on their own?
Wednesday, September 15, 2004
Terrorists have feelings too...
From NO BIAS AT THE TRIBUNE, NOT EVEN FOR REALITY:, at Touchstone's Mere Comments site, we read about the Chicago Tribune's distorted view of journalistic common sense. From the Tribune: