Once again, Miami Herald has described the Islamic State (ISIL) the people that crucify, behead and rape as simply ‘militants.’
What will it take for the Herald and other similar ‘mainstream’ media to use the term ‘terrorist’ when describing such people? Why do they insist, as they have for years and years, to use the term ‘militants’? Isn’t there a difference in meaning of the two terms? Of course there is, a significant difference.
So why does the Miami Herald and other ‘mainstream’ media use what to me seems like the incorrect and inappropriate term? One can only speculate.
Are the Miami Herald and others who use the incorrect term afraid that the terrorists will sue them?
Are they trying to make readers think that terrorists and militants are the same? If they are, to what end? And what of honest, law-abiding, non-terrorist militants? What are we to think of them?
Are we to think of them as terrorists? Newspapers and other media decry the devolution of language, yet the persist in contributing to it. Why?
Steve Liebowitz, Miami