“One Man’s Terrorist . . .”

Editorial Compliance with Jihadi Demands

Aug 12, 2026

This excerpt will also appear in the discussions of Infidel Month. It chronicles the process whereby, after 9/11, the press increasingly adopted the principle that it not use the terrorism word when describing 9/11 and subsequent jihadi assaults. In other words, specifically in response to threats, the western media complied with Caliphator demands not to call Jihadis terrorists. The earliest stage in the grooming of a dhimmi news media.

Day XII. September 19. Failure of 21^st Century Information Professionals III: Media

Among its many effects, 9-11 revealed an issue in journalism that had remained hidden from most news consumers, but which became a major topic of discussion and journalistic opinion in the subsequent years. For some years already, Western news agencies had adopted an increasingly formal rejection of the word “terrorism/terrorist.” It was, they argued, “too emotive” and notoriously difficult to define.^[1] Its use in describing persons or acts unfairly prejudiced the news consumer against those so designated. After all, “One man’s terrorist is another’s freedom fighter.”

With this practice, news agencies aligned themselves with a position staked out in academia by the new and advocacy-driven “field” of Peace and Conflict Studies, and by the Saïd-dominated “Middle East Studies Association.”^[2] Martin Kramer, serious critic of the postcolonial academy, noted the absence of “terrorism” in the MESA statement on 9-11 and its hefty program of talks at its conference that year:

For years the academics’ response to terrorism has been to act as amplifiers for the “grievances” behind it. For the professors, terrorism was a kind of political protest—and since they sympathized with its supposed motives, they expelled the word “terrorism” from their lexicon. This weekend’s [MESA] conference demonstrates the neglect: With the exception of a hastily announced special panel, nothing in the program deals with terrorism.^[3]

In other words, mainstream news media had become practitioners of “peace journalism,” lining up with a postcolonial paradigm weaponized against the victims of the jihadi attack. Given how “peace journalism” had disoriented the Israelis at the approach of the Al Aqsa Intifada,^[4] it was a highly dubious direction in which to move.

Few expressions better qualify as an astoundingly stupid statement than “One man’s terrorist . . .,” not because there are no cases where one man’s terrorist is another’s freedom fighter, not because it is absurd (just a false dichotomy^[5]), but because in this case editors applied it to exactly the wrong situation. A great deal here hangs on what one means by “freedom.” In some cases, “resistance” and its attendant terror comes not from fighting for independence and autonomy, but for dominion. So anyone claiming that an imperialist movement that repeatedly attacks civilian populations marked for subjection should not be called “terrorists,” because they might be “freedom fighters,” shows little respect for either language or empirical reality. Here, the “enlightened” Western mind meets triumphalist religiosity in the raw and cannot see it for what it is. For the Caliphate is not about freedom; it is literally about “submission”―Dar al Islam.

Reuters Refuses to Use Terrorism Label for 9-11: One Man’s Terrorist . . .

And yet, no matter how wildly inappropriate the use of this meme by journalists to avoid calling jihadis terrorists, many people in the twenty-first century sagely nodded their heads. While initially a flippant remark meant to épater les bourgeois, the proverb became increasingly adopted as an axiomatic principle in journalism. As we have seen, the first place it was systematically applied was in Western coverage of the Middle East conflict between Palestinians and Israelis in the 1990s, the Oslo years.^[6] Then on the morrow of 9-11, Americans discovered that their attackers might also be freedom fighters. In an in-house memo, Reuters chief editor Stephen Jukes instructed those responsible for news production not to use the terror word to describe 9-11. If someone else used the word, one could quote the person, but for its own journalists, Reuters deemed “terrorism” an inappropriate term:

We all know [sic] 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. . . . To be frank, it adds little to call the attack on the World Trade Center a terrorist attack.^[7]

Jukes issued a FAQ in October of 2001, which elaborated the argument behind the policy:

As part of a long-standing policy to avoid the use of emotive words, we do not use terms like “terrorist” and “freedom fighter” unless they are in a direct quote or are otherwise attributable to a third party. We do not characterize the subjects of news stories, but instead report their actions, identity and background so that readers can make their own decisions based on the facts.^[8]

For the first time, this principle that so galled Israelis―they called it an inability to distinguish between arsonist and fire-fighter―was applied on a major scale in the United States. Not accidentally, the first agency to formally insist on not using the “terrorist” designations for those “freedom fighters” whom admirers called the “Magnificent 19,” was European―Reuters . . . quickly followed by the BBC, whose Chief Deputy Editor Mark Damazer disingenuously explained:

However appalling and disgusting it was, there will nevertheless be a constituency of your listeners who don’t regard it as terrorism. Describing it as such could downgrade your status as an impartial and independent broadcaster.^[9]

In other words, out of deference to those of our viewers who don’t think of the attacks on the US as terrorism, we will avoid using the term, lest this constituency (who apparently could not care less about impartial and independent broadcasting), think badly of the BBC.

Among American journalists, for whom such “dispassion” would alienate all but the most “universalist” of their audiences, the practice aroused indignation and mockery.^[10] But in the coming years, Reuters’s position became the industry standard, formally adopted by the top US papers: the Washington Post, the New York Times, the Boston Globe (below). When home-grown jihadis hit London on July 7, 2005, the BBC, the Guardian, and Reuters all initially used the word terror to describe the attacks, but quickly “recovered.” The BBC issued a memo formally discouraging the use of “terrorism” to describe the attacks on the London subway by Muslims born and raised in England, and quietly tried to change previous headlines so as to hide their initial “error.”^[11]

This may seem like an academic game of little serious import beyond the hurt feelings of (in this case) Americans, who feel themselves the object of a heinous attack on working men and women and find “activist” and “militant” far too bland to describe the perpetrators. When Jukes noted frankly that “it adds little to call the attack on the World Trade Center a terrorist attack,” he appeals to the obvious―everyone knew it was. But, again as the Israelis had already complained, this terminological policy brought with it more problematic practices, including humanizing the ~~terrorists~~, and framing their deeds as resistance against oppression and a struggle for freedom.^[12] And sure enough, the doctrine of not using “terrorist” became so deeply engrained among some journalists that some even cleaned up the language of independent sources as well.^[13]

Among the many things this high-minded journalistic discourse obscured (I think, intentionally) was how ferociously the ~~terrorists~~ (jihadis) themselves, and especially their defenders/apologists (da-īs), objected to the use of the term “terrorists” to designate them. Indeed, they apparently felt so strongly about the terminology, that they were willing to kill journalists who called them terrorists, a phenomenon war correspondents in Lebanon knew as early as the 1970s.^[14] Just in case they needed reminding, Reuters’s Gaza correspondent Nidal al-Mughrabi issued a travel advisory for journalists, cautioning his colleagues: “Never use the word ‘terrorist’ or ‘terrorism’ in describing Palestinian gunmen and militants” lest offence be given to locals who consider them “heroes of the conflict, and ideals.” From the perspective of Da’wa Caliphators, the problem was not the crime (terrorism), but how it gave jihadis a negative image, one that reflected badly on both their fellow Caliphators behavior as well as their own emphasis on an exclusively “moderate, peaceful” Islam.

Of course, those who find any public criticism insulting tend to consider them offenses that demand violent retaliation. “Call my jihadis ‘terrorists,’ and I’ll savage you, even if you’re the Foreign Minister of France.”^[15] “Call our religion violent and we’ll riot and kill both infidels and Muslims in protest.”^[16] Playing the enforcer for the jihadis, the Muslim Street that rioted so often in the mid-aughts, insisted that the terrorist label not be applied to their co-religionists.

It mattered not that the accusation of terrorism was true, in a form rarely this unalloyed―deliberately targeting civilians for political advantage. For the Caliphators, the purpose was to remove a deep moral stain (in the eyes of the targeted enemy), to forbid them to express effective disapproval of Muslim terrorists. The media complied, using “emotive” as a neutral term to submit to the jihadi demand: Muslims felt very strongly about journalists depicting jihadi acts as terrorism. [On the other hand, these sensitive Muslims had no scruples about accusiing Israel of everything heinous, and this media, so solicitous of the feelings of Muslims, had no problem running their most emotive accusations as credible claims. -rl] The media avoided the term not to remain “impartial” and “non-emotive” but in order not to emotionally provoke the terrorists and their supporters.

Thus, behind the Western language of peace, impartiality and understanding lay a different set of reasons for avoiding the term “terrorism,” especially when it came to Muslim attacks on infidel civilians: the fear of retaliation. Behind the principled neutral language and the rather problematic insistence on “leveling the playing field” lurked something more disturbing and more shameful for journalists to admit: fear and intimidation. “We don’t want to jeopardize the safety of our staff,” the head of Reuters explains to the inquiring journalist. “Our people are on the front lines, in Gaza, the West Bank and Afghanistan [NB: all Muslim lands]. The minute we seem to be siding with one side or another [sic], they’re in danger.” In the real world, however, journalists are only in danger if their publications seem to be siding with jihadi targets; they are not in danger if they are seen to be siding with the jihadis. In other words, “if we call jihadis who attack civilians ‘terrorists,’ our journalists are in danger from those very terrorists who, closely following how we cover their behavior, will attack us for violating their demands for coverage.”

Apparently―who knew?―“jihadis care what the West thinks of them[NSH1] .”^[17] So much so, they are ready to use violence against journalists to get the coverage they want. So what motivated the Western media’s widely accepted policy on “terrorism”: principles or intimidation? And what were the cognitive consequences of that policy? Over the subsequent years, a distinct pattern emerged: more and more news editors adopted the Reuters principles and rationale for not using the term “terrorism” to refer to jihadis, even as the evidence for intimidation became ever more abundant.

Palestinians Celebrate 9-11 and Intimidate Media into Not Reporting

The intimidation of Western news media by terrorists concerned with their “image” came to the fore in the Palestinian territories in the wake of 9-11. Western film crews based in Israel filmed Palestinians celebrating the event, and openly praising Bin Laden for his blow against the US. This reaction would come as no surprise to anyone who followed the Palestinian media, where the US is only second to the Israelis as a target of hatred, and the celebration of massacred enemy civilians was an act of high culture.^[18] But, in the immediate aftermath of 9-11, with widespread expressions of sympathy for the US coming even from Muslim countries that were openly hostile to the US like Iran, with the POTUS, directed by Muslim advisors, assuring the American people that Muslims around the world were appalled by the attacks of 9-11, these celebrations made the Palestinians look bad. Arafat, sensitive to image as always, shut down the demonstrations and staged a photo-op of him supposedly donating blood to the pulverized victims.^[19]

As for the footage, Palestinian authorities, including the Tanzim, the military arm of the PA, did everything they could to prevent its circulation. They stopped camera crews at the site from filming; they called the camera crews who had filmed the celebrations into the PA offices and informed them that they would be held personally responsible if this footage was shown. Ahmed Abdel Rahman, Arafat’s Cabinet secretary, said the Palestinian Authority “cannot guarantee the life” of any member of the camera crew, if they broadcast the footage. AP, pressured both by the PA and their own cameramen, decided not to show the footage.

Publicly, AP Chief of Bureau Dan Perry protested somewhat entreatingly: “I ask the assurances of the Palestinian Authority that you will protect our journalists from threats and attempts at intimidation and that no harm would come to our freelance cameraman from distribution of the film.^[20] Privately, he admitted to an inquiring journalist that the AP had to fold: “We are acting to assure the safety of our staff. The safety of our staff is paramount. At this point, we believe there to be a serious threat to our staff if the video is released and we have protested this to the PA.”^[21]

The incident confirmed what the events of the previous October in Ramallah had already illuminated: the al Shabab and PA officials play tough-cop/nice-cop, to control the news media and make sure that any news that might harm the Palestinian “image” in the West does not get out. Here, on the topic of 9-11, the AP’s cautious response of pulling the footage resembles the behavior of journalists covering the Palestinians the previous year: Compliance with Palestinian demands, with a whimper of protest.^[22]

And on the backs of this MSNM [mainstream news media] compliance, George Bush, five days later, could assure the American people that “Muslims all across the world were as appalled and outraged as you at last Tuesday’s attacks.” Lethal journalism’s silence permitted triumphalist Muslims to hide their malevolent Schadenfreude at this blow to the US even as they asserted their innocence. Indeed, they could accuse as racist and Islamophobic anyone who brought up this disturbing behavior, as blaming the victim (Islam and the vast majority of moderate Muslims) for deeds that have nothing to do with the “Religion of Peace.”

The “Responsible” Mainstream Media Adopt Reuters’ Policy on the T-Word

While the Europeans had fewer problems, at least right after 9-11, with avoiding the T-word, both in the case of al Qaeda and Hamas, US papers tended to adhere to peace-journalism’s dogma when dealing with Israel, but deploring al-Qaeda’s attack on the US, as terrorist. After 9-11, the number of suicide attacks on Israeli civilians multiplied at an unprecedented rate, killing and wounding almost ten thousand Israelis, the proportional equivalent in the US of almost half a million people, almost 80% of whom were civilians. After calling Bin Laden and his jihadis terrorists, US papers now faced accusations of hypocrisy, especially from angry pro-Israel readers, for refusing to call this growing, devastating storm that engulfed Israel, “terrorism.”

In September 2003, on the second anniversary of 9-11, the ombudsperson for the Boston Globe, Christine Chinlund wrote her reflections on the problem. Noting the clear negative connotations of the word, she expressed concerns that, “especially after 9-11 . . . the terrorist tag effectively banishes its holder from the political arena. More than ever, it condemns rather than describes.” Invoking a false dichotomy whereby a word cannot both accurately describe and, thereby, condemn a group―the very essence of “terrorism” in civil discourse―she argued it was inappropriate to use the term with a group like Hamas:

To tag Hamas, for example, as a terrorist organization is to ignore its far more complex role in the Middle East drama. The word reflects not only a simplification, but a bias that runs counter to good journalism. To label any group in the Middle East as terrorist is to take sides, or at least appear to, and that is not acceptable. The same holds true in covering other far-flung conflicts. One person’s terrorist is another’s freedom fighter; it’s not for journalists to judge.^[23]

How does the provision of “some social service functions” by Hamas “complicate” the argument that they are terrorists? What does one have to do with the other? Nazis had lots of social service functions for their own race, even as they exterminated others, and Bolsheviks had a lot of services for their own people, even as they starved ten million Ukrainians.

Like Jukes at Reuters, Chinlund considers not even “appearing” [to the jihadis] “to take sides,” as a highest priority. Like Jukes, she cites as an unquestioned consensus the slogan “One man’s terrorist is another’s freedom fighter.” And like Jukes, she misapplies it. For like Al Qaeda, Hamas not only are terrorists, but they are decidedly not “freedom fighters.” According to abundant evidence journalists studiously keep from their audiences, it’s not Palestine they want to build, but Israel they want to destroy; not Palestinians they want to free, but Jews they want to subjugate (at best), or preferably exterminate.^[24]

Two weeks after Chinlund’s Boston Globe piece, the Washington Post’s ombudsman, Michael Getler, contributed his paper’s take on the “terrorist” issue, elaborating on Chinlund’s distinction in order to legitimate calling al Qaeda terrorist, but not Hamas. After going over the delicacy of the issue of the T-word, Getler distinguishes:

Hamas conducts terrorism but also has territorial ambitions, is a nationalist movement and conducts some social work. As far as we know, al Qaeda exists only as a terrorist network. It is composed of radicals from several Islamic countries. The Palestinian resistance is indigenous. Al Qaeda launched a devastating surprise attack on the United States. Israelis and Palestinians have been at war for a long time. Palestinians have been resisting a substantial and, to Palestinians, humiliating, Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza since they were seized in the 1967 war. That resistance has now bred suicide bombers. These are terrorist acts, not to be condoned. But the contexts of the struggle against al Qaeda and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict are different. News organizations should not back away from the word terrorism when it is the proper term. But as a rule, strong, descriptive, factual reporting is better than labels.^[25]

Of course, Hamas does not limit its territorial ambition to the West Bank and Gaza Strip, but to every last inch of the land between the river and the sea, a goal that existed long before the “occupation resulting from the ’67 war.” Indeed, if one listens, their ambitions extend to the entire world.^[26] Their “social work” involves recruiting for “martyrdom operations”; their “education” involves brainwashing children with genocidal hatred; and their [NSH2] charter eagerly looks forward to an apocalyptic slaughter of Jews.^[27] And yet, their victim narrative, wherein their attacks should be viewed as resistance to a humiliating occupation, now permits American papers to continue to stick it to Israel by not calling her enemies who attack her civilians “terrorists,” even as they get to complain about jihadi terrorists attacking their American homeland.^[28] On such considered reasoning did the Boston Globe and the Washington Post justify their selective use of the T-word for Al Qaeda, but not Hamas.^[29]

Caliphator Intimidation and the T-Word

Claiming the high moral ground, neither Chinlund nor Getler allude to the fear factor. On the contrary, they discuss all this in terms of the highest-minded independence: Getler quotes his paper’s foreign editor David Hoffman, “We should always strive to satisfy our own standards and not let others set standards for us.” In the shuffle, one might miss the key detail: the standards that “others” try to set for them and that they reject here are Israel’s (call terrorists terrorists); the standards they adopt as their own, are those of Hamas (don’t you dare). The WMSNM, in adopting their “principled” stand against the T-word, effectively took the side of jihadis who were the ones objecting to infidel journalists calling them terrorists.

The issue of fear of terrorists as the motivation for not so calling them, emerged clearly in a controversy that broke out the following year. The (conservative) news chain, CanWest, began to substitute the word “terrorist” for “militants, insurgents, activists,” when they published pieces taken from the feed of larger, more politically correct, news agencies. On September 14, 2003 they added the descriptor “terrorist group” to a discussion of the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade, the PLO’s brigades fighting the Oslo Jihad with suicide attacks on civilians. Despite the dead give-away of their name―warriors fighting for Jerusalem’s holiest site (Al Aqsa), committing suicide to kill Israeli civilians (martyrs)―the mainstream of information professionals presented the group as largely secular, insurgent, freedom fighters.^[30]

Alerted to CanWest’s actions, Reuters tried to stop them. In so doing, they claimed, CanWest was “taking sides” (the Israeli side, a “right-wing” thing to do), by describing the Al Aqsa Martyrs’ Brigade as terrorists. A spokesman for the AP, the other major international Anglophone news agency, rejected any change like this because it would “make an AP report unbalanced, unfair or inaccurate.”^[31] In other words, “We, the major news outlets, are the authoritative voice offering balanced, fair, and accurate coverage, while you, CanWest, by bringing in emotive words, are guilty of taking sides and fanning the flames of war.”

CanWest fought back:

Terrorism is a technical term . . . a tactic: the deliberate targeting of civilians in pursuit of a political goal. Those who bombed the nightclub in Bali were terrorists. Suicide bombers who strap explosives to their bodies and blow up people eating in a pizza parlour are terrorists. The men and women who took a school full of hostages in Beslan, Russia, and shot some of the children in the back as they tried to flee to safety were terrorists. We as journalists do not violate our impartiality by describing them as such. Ironically, it is supposedly neutral terms like “militant” that betray a bias, insofar as they have a sanitizing effect. Activists for various political causes can be “militant,” but they don’t take children hostage.^[32]

In other words, they countered, when the press uses euphemisms for “terror” (and “jihad”), they fail to properly inform their public, and make “unbalanced, unfair and inaccurate” reports that in fact take the side of the terrorists.

Reuters’s global managing editor David Schlesinger responded with the standard talking point: “Our editorial policy is that we don’t use emotive words when labeling someone. If they [CamWest] want to put their own judgment into it, they’re free to do that. But then they shouldn’t say that it’s by a Reuters reporter.” CanWest responded: “If you’re couching your language in order to protect certain people, are you telling the truth? And if they’re terrorists, aren’t you putting us all in danger by mislabeling them as they demand? And if so, why do it?”

The answer became clearer as a result of some follow-up by Ian Austen at the (still serious) New York Times.^[33] Schlesinger explained Reuters’s concerns to him about any “confusion that might endanger its reporters in volatile areas or situations.” In other words, to spare our journalists retaliation from terrorists who do not want us to call them that, we cannot be associated with the use of the T-word. Shades and echoes of Riccardo Cristiano pointing his finger at Mediaset to Arafat: “Please, oh you dear friends whose reprisals we fear, don’t misunderstand, we here at Reuters don’t describe you as terrorists. It’s the CanWest folk.”^[34]

No wonder Reuters editors above all wanted anonymity. They were ducking. Never mind that, by covering themselves from the fire of those objecting to their self-censorship, “in the name of objectivity and non-emotivity,” they were “perversely hid[ing] a defensible concern for the safety of their reporters behind an idiotic moral relativism.”^[35] Never mind that, in effect, this policy, adopted by many other information professionals, provided a soporific that continued to stupefy the West as things got worse.

To complete his scorn for the public’s intelligence―fully justified given that so few even bothered to object―Schlesinger uttered his notable oxymoron: My goal is to protect our reporters and protect our editorial integrity. In fact, he was protecting his reporters at the cost of his editorial integrity. Rephrased, Schlesinger was saying: “our media do not call a terrorist group ‘terrorist’ because the terrorists threaten our journalists with violence, and that determines our unprincipled editorial policy.” And yet, despite these public secrets being widely known among journalists, neither the New York Times reporter, nor most of the journalistic profession (aside from the “right wing” editors at CamWest and critics like Michael Kinsley and Daniel Pipes) bothered to challenge this counterfactual rationalization.

Nor was the ban on the T-word limited to the news media: it pervaded the information professions even unto Western (infidel) intelligence services. Melanie Phillips argued that the mentality that lay behind this combination of political correctness and self-censorship, had completely blinded MI5 to the homegrown radicalism that eventually produced both Al Qaeda as an international jihadi network, and the 7-7 attacks themselves. And yet, if we cannot, should not, hurt the feelings of violent zealots who target civilians with that “emotive word,” then whose feelings should we offend? Why should we defer to the people who complain violently when we insult them, and dismiss the complaints of their victims as efforts to silence criticism?^[36]

A decade later, the response of the New York Times to criticism that it was the only important US paper in January 2015 not to show the Charlie Hebdo cover with a depiction of the Prophet, revealed the extent to which intimidation lay behind the legacy media’s principled self-censorship, especially in the international news agencies. Mark Cooper, a journalism professor at the University of Southern California, criticized the Times harshly on his Facebook page for its failure to publish a picture of the Charlie Hebdo cover:

Exactly how many people have to be shot in cold blood before your paper rules that you can show us what provoked the killers? Apparently 23 shot including 11 dead is not enough. What absolute cowardice. These MSM managers act is if they are running insurance companies, not news organizations.

Dean Baquet, the executive editor of the New York Times, pugnaciously defended his paper’s decision not to publish, calling Cooper an “asshole” [!] for claiming it was fear of reprisal,^[37] and insisting that his paper declined showing the publication purely out of concern for the feelings of Muslim readers who might take offense: “But let’s not forget the Muslim family in Brooklyn who read us and is offended by any depiction of what he sees as his prophet. I don’t give a damn about the head of ISIS but I do care about that family and it is arrogant to ignore them.”^[38] Note here the combination of noble concern for the feelings of the hypothetical (and presumably moderate and even patriotic) Muslim family in Brooklyn, bravado about any threats from ISIS, and contemptuous response to the “asshole” critic.

A week later, however, in a follow-up article at the Huffington Post, a former chief editor of the New York Times, Bill Keller, belied such bravado by letting slip the real reason why the Times had censored what everyone else showed.

An editor running a large, high profile, global news organization has to consider the potential consequences for reporters, photographers, translators and other staff. It’s easy for an editor in New York or Washington to take a stand (or strike a pose) but the dangers fall on journalists in the field. If you’ve had a few of your people murdered, as The Times has, this is not a concern you take lightly.^[39]

And apparently, it’s easy for the executive editor of the New York Times to strike a pose of indifference to jihadi threats and abiding concern for local Muslims when the journalists “investigating” are so lacking in curiosity.

On the contrary, Keller’s frank remark confirmed Cooper’s wry (and apparently painful) dig about the New York Times acting like an insurance company. It offers an important key to many controversies over coverage of triumphalist Islam, including the one between Reuters and CamWest: the newspapers hide behind claims of objectivity to concede to the demands of (to side with) the terrorists. And Baquet’s obscenity aimed at Cooper for stating the obvious is a classic response of the honor-driven in the face of accurate criticism.^[40] In all matters of honor, loud and energetic denial is a norm.

The big news agencies, the ones with overwhelming influence on the news we in the free world get, are also the most vulnerable to threats. They are the ones with journalists in unsafe places and hence most likely to bend to threats. Caliphators win, and their useful infidels, trying to justify their compliance, pull the wool over our eyes with their chatter about objectivity, not “taking sides,” and not letting “others” (namely those fighting Caliphators) set their policies.

One person’s coward is another’s “principled” journalist. And, as this pseudo-ethics permeated the information profession, one person’s journalist was another’s propagandist.^[41]

rlandes’s Substack

Discussion about this post

Ready for more?