If Reuters really wants to use, "militant group" instead I wouldn't object to strongly
And I don't have a problem with "terrorist group." I think you can make a case for either one. My problem is with the insistence by some that Reuters MUST use "terrorist," otherwise they're condoning the terrorism or, even worse, siding with the terrorists.
If Reuters changed their story because of intimidation that is a bad thing, but it would hardly be the first time.
The NGOs take the same approach. They avoid antagonizing the terrorists because they can't do their jobs if they make themselves targets. I think you can make a case for trying to stay off the hit list. If the media and NGOs aren't allowed in these places, seems to me that's a worse net effect than saying "militant" rather than "terrorist." After all, we say "the n-word" to avoid actually saying the n-word. Everybody knows what everybody means but no one is assaulted by the language. I don't think that's a bad thing. The media and the NGOs are doing a job, after all. If we don't want them there, then we should say so, otherwise let them do their jobs as they see fit. It doesn't do us any good to have no journalists over there or dead journalists. |
