1. "To say that a terrorist might be a freedom fighter is political - pure ideology, not a statement about good writing style."

No, in the general sense it's a fact, you can be fighting for freedom while using terrorist tactics. For specific references, it wouldn't be the ABC doing it, it would be the groups & their supporters. The ABC doesn't want to use language that assumes a politcal position - that's the whole *point*; each side will use terms that portray the other in a negative light. Terrorism, despite being a factual designation has a negative connotation and also has a wide scope. A group that blows up a checkpoint or legitimate military targets could still be called a terrorist group; even the war in Iraq could be considered large scale terrorism.

2. If this article is an indicator, then the group supporting Israel's actions is being oversensitive. How pervasive are Palestinian labels? The word isn't meaningless, but the issue is controversial.
3. Maybe it's there because it's easily forgotten.
4. It's implied. (It's a guideline not a news report.)
5. Then it wouldn't be a problem. (And we have no idea what ellipses or anything else she might have said, not that it matters.)
6. I suppose you can take that up with those calling themselves freedom fighters. And it is rather silly to think that people are happy to kill other people, or themselves without any (real or perceived) grievances.
7. It says not to use "labels that may seem too extreme or too soft, depending on your point of view". Naturally those that see certain labels these ways and have a personal connection to the conflict could be offended. If a term isn't the best word, why should it be used? But the greater problem is the risk of enshrining a politcal view into language or defining facts into existence.

"[S]o should a journalist take care in labelling someone a 'terrorist'."
But it doesn't always happen, people are biased, and they will thoughtlessly adopt the terms of those they agree with.

It would surprise no one to discover that the ABC is on the side of the Terrorists. The lure of Terrorism is the need to be part of something bigger than oneself and something more violent. It is not the houris. They are the excuse. The lure is the thrill of violence. Football Hooligans do not do it for houris. Keith

The ABC writes:

'Remember, one person’s “terrorist” is usually someone else’s “freedom fighter”.'

Fran Feldman appears to misunderstand this comment:

'There maybe some good stylistic reasons to use an alternative to the "T" word, but the “freedom fighter” reason is not one of them.'

That sentence in the style guide doesn't suggest or instruct that 'freedom fighter' be used as an alternative to 'terrorist'. Rather, it demonstrates that labels can easily carry political or ideological implications. This context is implied by the following sentence:

'“Terrorism”, “terrorist”, “militant”, “gunman”, etc. are all labels.'

This document isn't prescribing the use of labels like "freedom fighter" - it's proscribing the use of labels associated with particular points of view. Thus Feldman's points 1, 4, 5, 6 and 7 proceed directly from a poor reading of the style guide.

The word terrorist has a dictionary definition. The Australian Government has designated certain organisations as terrorist. Why does the ABC think they need be more "politically correct" than the dictionary or the Australian government - unless they have their own political agenda?
BTW - the ABC political agenda is fairly clear from the slant on many of its reports.

The ABC seems to be displaying terminology-sensitivities only where the Palestinians are concerned. Organizations may be proscribed as 'terrorist' by the government and/or the UN,- but the individual engaging in terrorism is using his/her free-will. Elevating the status of the terrorist by calling them anything else simply encourages others to perpetrate such acts. Often there are monetary rewards involved for the families,plus a (dead) 'hero'-status from their handlers and community and then the world's media treats them with respect on top of it? Why would suceptible individuals not be seduced to keep on doing it,- anywhere and everywhere someone will put them up to it?
A perpetrator of terror is a terrorist,- no qualifications please!

professional journalism which requires clarity is paramount.

the fact is that the ABC glaring omission,
the ongoing terrorism in iraq and elsewhere,
is testimony to the need for the
"ABC Style Guide" to be
in need of immediate and proper editing.