But almost every article also uses TERRORIST

Submitted by Brian Houston (United States), Sep 8, 2004 at 10:32

This article gives the impression that the media doesn't use the word terrorist. In fact, in every article mentioned here, with the exception of the Reuters and BBC piece (also I didn't check the Times (London), Chicago Trib, and Sydney Morning Herald becasue I didn't want to register) uses the term terrorist is some part of the article.

This means TERRORIST was used in each of the articles you cited for the following sources:

Economist
Guardian
Associated Press
Agence France-Presse
UPI
Washington Post
Australian
New York Post
LA Times
NY Times (twice)
Christian Science Monitor
and even in your favorite, Pakistan Times.

So, there is no omission of the word terrorist, there is simply linguistic diversity. Are these terrorists not also Attackers, Radicals, Bombers, Extremists, Criminals, and so on? Probably the most common term used for your Terrorists are Hostage-Takers. Why? Becuase the Chechen group took hostages.

I can't see how anyone would consider, particularly today, the term Terrorist to be missing from the media landscape.

---

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".