Here's a nice commentary by L. Brent Bozell, III, regarding the left-leaning liberal news organization Reuters' attempt at establishing the moral equivalency of the hijacker and the hijacked.

[size=4][b]No Time For Moral Equivalence[/b][/size=4]
by L. Brent Bozell III
September 27, 2001

Despite the outpouring of media patriotism these past two weeks, nobody expected that the long march through the terrorist menace would commence without some journalists sounding disturbing old notes of moral equivalence. The crews are still clearing debris in New York and Washington, [u]yet already the Reuters wire service has declared there’s no moral difference between the hijackers and the hijacked[/u].

Someone inside Reuters who's truly appalled sent the Washington Post's Howard Kurtz an internal memo from Stephen Jukes, the wire service's global head of news: "We all know that one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter and that Reuters upholds the principle that we do not use the word terrorist...[u]To be frank, it adds little to call the attack on the World Trade Center a terrorist attack[/u]."

To be frank, this man has no moral compass, not to mention any rational idea of what the word "freedom" means.

A bewildered Kurtz asked Jukes: Why this neutrality between murderers and victims? "We're trying to treat everyone on a level playing field, however tragic it's been and however awful and cataclysmic for the American people and people around the world," Jukes replied. "We're there to tell the story…We’re not there to evaluate the moral case."

Thankfully, many journalists who work for Reuters are as horrified by this posture as the other 99.9 percent of Americans. Perhaps some of them lost friends or family in the attack, or have just enough empathy to understand how Jukes sounds to the suffering. "I'm sorry your child, or your parent, or your spouse, or your college roommate was blown to smithereens, but however awful that may seem to you, their killers are people, too."

Then Jukes moved on to the practical benefits of complete indifference: "We don't want to jeopardize the safety of our staff. Our people are on the front lines, in Gaza, the West Bank and Afghanistan. The minute we seem to be siding with one side or another, they're in danger." This cowardly principle has not been endorsed by any other American news outlet that sends journalists into foreign regions dominated by thugs. [b]Reuters "took sides" in the Oklahoma City bombing by describing it as a "terrorist" attack[/b]. Somehow, now the bombings of two cities and the deaths of thousands of innocents don’t rise to the level of “terrorism.”

See remainder of the commentary at:
[url]http://www.mediaresearch.org/columns/newscol/col20010927.html[/url]

Eric The(Exasperated)Hun[>]:)]