I wonder if Reuters will now face pressure to repeal their explicit policy retaliation by crazy fundamentalists?

the policy of our Editorial group to avoid using emotional terms such as "terrorist" in their news stories. This policy has served Reuters and, more importantly, our readers well by ensuring access to news as it occurs, wherever it occurs. As a global news organization reporting from 160 countries, Reuters mission is to provide accurate and impartial accounts of events so that individuals, organizations and governments can make their own decisions based on the facts.

Nonetheless, in an internal memo reminding our journalists of our policy in the immediate aftermath of the September 11 attacks, a statement was made that "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter." This wording caused deep offense among members of our staff, our readers and the public at large, many of whom felt this meant Reuters was somehow making a value judgment concerning the attacks.

Of course, al-Reuters realizes full well that choosing to *avoid* the use of the word terrorist is just as value-laden and emotional a decision as using it in the first place.

Perhaps the Indians at Reuters will start tilting this policy in the opposite direction w.r.t. Pakistani terrorism, and slowly turn this ship back towards starboard (it's been leaning hard port for a while...)

Or perhaps they'll be culled from the Arundhati Roy set...

GC: I wonder how old the policy is? With some news agencies, these policies go back to the cold war, when it wasn't in the US interest to have their allies (like UNITA or Renamo) described as terrorists either.

With the BBC, which has had a similar policy for a long time, they always follow it up by describing the actions of the group, including murder of young children through a bomb. They just wont label a group, only particular activities.