And Some Thoughts About Using Honest Language

">Link
A correspondent notes the dishonest use of language in reporting on the war against islamofascism:

On NPR's morning headlines today we learn that "militia men" and "rebel
fighers" in the "impoverished Sadr City section of Baghdad" killed many innocent
Iraqis and a U. S. soldier. Chechen "rebels" were named in the killing of
335 children and parents in a Russian school. Yet NPR quotes a "militant
Hamas leader" who says the Israelis are TERRORISTS who struck a Hamas hideout in the Gaza strip.

Thanks to the same correspondent for pointing me to this Daniel Pipes column, which expands on the problem. Pipes lists some of the favorite euphemisms the old media use for "terrorists:"

--Assailants - National Public Radio.
-- Attackers - the Economist.
-- Bombers - the Guardian.
-- Captors - the Associated Press.
-- Commandos - Agence France-Presse refers to the terrorists both as
"membres du commando" and "commando."
-- Criminals - the Times (London).
-- Extremists - United Press International.
-- Fighters - the Washington Post.
-- Group - the Australian.
-- Guerrillas: in a New York Post editorial.
-- Gunmen - Reuters.
-- Hostage-takers - the Los Angeles Times.
-- Insurgents - in a New York Times headline.
-- Kidnappers - the Observer (London).
-- Militants - the Chicago Tribune.
-- Perpetrators - the New York Times.
-- Radicals - the BBC.
-- Rebels - in a Sydney Morning Herald headline.
-- Separatists - the Daily Telegraph.

And my favorite:-- Activists - the Pakistan Times.