One desk at Reuters, from the news editor to the copy editor on down, was either trying too hard or not enough. Article dateline — Johannesburg, South Africa. Friday, September 21st. No news made there on that day by George Bush, who was not, as reported in the article's third paragraph, orating. Nor had the president committed "an embarrassing gaffe," as one might otherwise presume by Reuters' headline.
The body of the article made Bush's intended usage clear inasmuch as it directly quoted Bush. "Part of the reason why there is not this instant democracy in Iraq is because people are still recovering from Saddam Hussein's brutal rule," the president explained, asked in a press conference about Baghdad's sluggish parliament. "I heard somebody say, 'Where's Mandela?' Well, Mandela's dead because Saddam Hussein killed all the Mandelas." Hee-haw! The Reuters copy deigned to interpret this as "allud[ing] to the former South African leader's death in an attempt to explain sectarian violence in Iraq," first draft perhaps naming all living members of the Nelson Mandela family, shortened for space.
Reuters, Reuters. How does one politely correct a practitioner's practice? President Bush was referring to the absence of prominent liberals living inside Iraq under Saddam Hussein, not the actual Mandela. One should hope that Reuters staff have some basic familiarity with classical rhetoric, and know the difference between a) literalism; and b) proper names assigned to demonstrative classes, or antonomasia. But that raises the possibility of a publisher, who markets news, choosing lampoons over verity — and then, inept ones. Exit Reuters, which either doesn't know any better or doesn't care.