Just read this over at Hrun's site. It is somewhat related to the post I put up yesterday about BBC bashing. Basically the champion of truth and justuce that is Bill O'Reilly took umbrage with some of the language used by the New York Times to describe al-Zarqawi.
The letter from the editor of the Times to O'Reilly is excellent and I think offers a reasonable defence for the media in not using the word, 'terrorist' every time it mentions one. There is no conspiracy, it is simply that they don't think that using the word is necessary. Perhaps it is because we have the wonderfully rich language that we do (apologies to non-English speakers) and so we can use other words. Journalists are there to inform, but they are also writers and so I am sure that many wish to craft a piece such that it isn't overly repetative for the sake of engaging the reader's brain.
As a sidebar, how many of you think that 'militant' is a neutral way to describe someone? For me the word already has negative connotations and so calling someone a militant is not a way of excusing them in some bizarre fashion. Is this just an interpretation issue?