George Washington, Terrorist

Submitted by Scott Ryan (United States), Sep 8, 2004 at 14:25

Of course I don't believe that George Washington and the Continental Army were terrorists, I'm an American. But I wouldn't be surprised if the British did.

"Terrorist" is a very biased word. A good journalist works very hard to overcome bias to accurately present the facts of the story. To find fault with the lack of use of the word "terrorists," is to proclaim a desire for more skewed reporting. (On the other side of the coin, I don't see the Pakistan Times' use of "activist" as accurate reporting either. I certainly hope that was a translation mistake.)

What about swear words? I haven't read all the articles cited, but I'm guessing none of the reporters referred to the perpetrators by rude name calling. Why not? Because foul language has no place in a news article. --Readers can draw their own conclusions and apply their own labels...

---

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".