Up at Mick Hartley's, Mick Hartley posts a would-be justification by Don Wycliff of the Chicago Tribune for not using the word 'terrorist':
Our eschewal of the word "terrorist" was in keeping with a stylebook policy adopted several years ago, a policy that is in keeping with the journalistic purpose of the news pages: to provide as complete, thorough and unbiased an account as possible of the important news of the day.I've got news for Don Wycliff. There are other words like this, 'freighted with negative judgment': not only 'torturer' and 'rapist'; but, for a different kind of example or two, 'civilian casualties' and 'occupation'. Perhaps for the latter, we should say 'sojourn'. To put the same thing otherwise, Wycliff's is a bullshit explanation. See, also, Mick's comment.No intellectually honest person can deny that "terrorist" is a word freighted with negative judgment and bias. So we sought terms that carried no such judgment.
