Language is ideology.
Even international news agencies are not exempt from this rule.
When language tries to do what geography does with maps, the ideological coefficient may even double up.
For instance, is Turkey a "Western" country or not?
Let's a take a look at three stories posted by the largest agencies about the same news yesterday:
"Syria’s Foreign Ministry says Damascus is expelling Western diplomats. Ministry spokesman Jihad Makdessi said Tuesday the list of diplomats includes the ambassadors of the United States, Britain, Turkey, France and others."
"Syria's government banned 17 Western diplomats (...). The declaration of diplomats from the United States, Canada, Turkey and several European countries as unwelcome was a retaliation for the expulsion of Syrian envoys from their capitals last week following the massacre of more than 100 civilians by suspected Assad loyalists."
"Syria’s government declared on Tuesday that the ambassadors and staff of several Western countries as well as Turkey were personae non gratae."
So, simply, AP and Reuters accept Turkey as a Western country, while AFP excludes Ankara from the West.
Whether it is a coincidence or not, the ideological choice of words by these agencies overlaps the official foreign policies of respective governments.
As we all know, the White House and 10 Downing Street traditionally support Turkey's EU membership by recognizing Ankara as a part of the West, while France has always had opposed it with different reasonings, including the geographical one ignorantly formulated by Nicolas Sarkozy.
Such examples show that we, journalists, are generally too much assertive when we argue that we are always unbiased. Language makes long-lasting objectivity almost impossible. But what could be done in this instance? Maybe the terms "West" and "Western" shouldn't have been used in this context at all, as they are Eurocentric from the start...