This is boilerplate leftist navel gazing, which they’re especially prone to after terrorism attacks. Even when they’re finally talking about it, they aren’t really talking about it.
Here’s the relevant drivel from this piece:
Some of my fellow word people, in discussing this same issue, have arrived at a less extreme conclusion than mine: Just use the T-word consistently, they say. Maybe that was once the right advice, but words and their connotations change over time with their usage, and therefore so must news organization policies.
The big problem with illegal immigrant wasn’t that reporters applied it inconsistently—the term simply became too judgmental, too toxic for neutral copy. So, in 2013, the Associated Press Stylebook dropped it.
Likewise, I think we’ve reached the same point with the T-word. Reuters—a less influential force in American journalism style than the AP—agrees with me.
There you have it, we are simply not using the word “terrorist” consistently!
I would argue that the MSM has a problem of frequency when it comes to calling terrorists what they are. Since the attack in Nice, I’ve read and heard a lot about a “truck attack” and a “lone wolf,” but “terrorist” has been used as sparingly as if rent were being paid for its utterance.
The notion that being “too judgmental” when merely referring to terrorists is problematic is quite, well, insane. This just adds another dangerous layer of make-believe to the denial dance that the press does in concert with left-leaning politicians.
There is a lot that is nuanced in this complex, dangerous world. Figuring out who the terrorists are and labeling them as such isn’t one of them, however. This is all very simple, and anyone fancying him or herself a deep thinker because he or she introduces complexity to something simple isn’t very bright.