The use of the word “terrorist” is mandatory in all approprite contexts

When is a dirty bomb attack not a terrorist attack?
By Moshe Phillips

moshe phillipsCritics have been accusing The Philadelphia Inquirer newspaper of failing to accurately report on terrorism and terrorists for years and have pointed to the failure of the newsroom to use word terrorist when it is clearly called for as evidence . .

The Inquirer won’t even use the word ‘terrorist’ when reporting on a simulated attack.

In a news item with the title “‘Dirty bomb’ drill under way in Phila.” unnamed Inquirer staffers wrote that “About 700 officials, experts and responders from a range of federal, state and local agencies will take part in a 5-day drill starting today simulating the cleanup following a dirty bomb blast near Independence Hall.”

Why didn’t the article read “cleanup following a dirty bomb terrorist attack near Independence Hall”?

Who else would launch a dirty bomb attack? Community activists?

Terrorists! Who else would blow up an Oklahoma government building, murdering almost 200 people? That’s why USA Today called it . .

USA Today post

. . wha!?!? Bastards!

The Inquirer does not use the word “terrorist” a single time when reporting on the ‘Dirty bomb’ drill.

Here is another, specific instance where the word terrorist would have fit naturally into the story: “It said the drill is unique in that it simulates the transition from the emergency phase of such an attack to the recovery phase.”

If The Inquirer’s editors and staff writers weren’t so committed to avoiding the word terrorist the line would have read as follows: “It said the drill is unique in that it simulates the transition from the emergency phase of a terrorist attack to the recovery phase.”

So the Oklahoma City Police, they called the McVeigh attack . .

OkCityPol Rpt

. . gah!! Chickenshits! Liars!!