What is the motivation of journalists in trying to mangle language — such as going out of their way to refer to terrorists as “militants,” as one Mumbai story on yesterday’s Times of London Web site seemed to do? Do they somehow wish to express sympathy for these murderers, or perhaps make their crimes seem almost acceptable? How are we going to effectively confront terrorists when we can’t even identify them as such?
(via memeorandum)
Dry Bones notes some context that’s missing from much of the coverage of the terror.
Back to Tom Gross:
But then the terrorists in Mumbai didn’t need to make any public announcements. They knew that many deluded Western journalists and academics will do that job for them, explaining that the West is to blame, especially the Zionists.
Which, I think may explain Dry Bones’s observation too.
Crossposted on Soccer Dad.
I have my own take on the language used to describe these animals.
http://elisson1.blogspot.com/2008/12/just-slight-lexical-adjustment.html