The language of objectivity: Reuters’ internal editorial discussions on terminology in the Arab–Israeli conflict, 1967–1982

Abstract

Influenced by British journalistic traditions, Reuters is a global news agency embracing impartiality as a corporate norm rather than a professional standard. This impartiality, reflected in a careful choice of vocabulary, is meant to satisfy all of Reuters’ subscribers. However, our study of Reuters’ archives demonstrates that this corporate objectivity is not an absolute principle, but the subject of internal debates and tensions, often provoked by subscribers’ reactions to particular news items. This is especially so in the case of the long-lasting and highly demanding coverage of the Arab–Israeli conflict. Focusing on the 1967–1982 period, when the internal debates at Reuters proved to be particularly tense, our archival research revealed that discussions between the London headquarters and the Middle East offices revolved around four major issues, which are the focus of this article: (1) emotive wording, (2) naming of borders and capitals, (3) use of the term ‘Palestinian’ and (4) the ‘terrorist’ and ‘guerrilla’ labels. Analysis of the real-time recording of editorial difficulties faced by Reuters over the Arab–Israeli conflict in the 1960s and 1970s demonstrates how crucial, yet Quixotic, is Reuters’ ambition to reach consensus on a language of objectivity.

Mimicry, Fragmentation, or Decoupling? Three Scenarios for the Control Function of EU Correspondents

“…Broadly speaking, and without wishing to wash over the multiple nuances that characterise the different media systems found in Europe and beyond, we encounter three types of public understandings of the role of journalists in European media systems: (a) partisans, as in the polarised-pluralist model in Southern Europe and subsequently in some of the post-communist Central and Eastern European countries; (b) defenders of the public good, as in the corporatist-democratic model in Northern Europe; and (c) fact-checkers and critical but distanced watchdogs, as in the British or Anglo-Saxon system, that lies somewhere in between the liberal and democratic-corporatist ideal types of media systems identified in Hallin and Mancini's seminal 2004 work (Allern and Pollack 2019; Goodman and Boudana 2019; Hallin and Mancini 2004 and 2017; Jakubowicz and Sükösd 2014; Schudson 2001; Williams 2006; Örnebring 2013).…”

AN ANALYSIS OF NAMING IN JOURNALISM: sexual and gender dissidence in Folha de S. Paulo

“…Objectivity is another aspect linked to naming, as researched by Goodman and Boudana (2016). The use of identifiers such as terrorist and Palestinian was analyzed, always in light of objectivity and language.…”