Editorial Standards

Latest News Today maintains rigorous editorial standards. Our team verifies information from trusted sources and provides context to help readers understand complex stories.

Last Updated: Sunday, May 17, 2026 at 04:12 PM
Category: Id

Editor's Note

Latest News Today provides comprehensive coverage and analysis of breaking news stories. This article is part of our ongoing coverage of wbna6073827, bringing you verified information from trusted sources with added context and expert perspective.

Why This Matters: Understanding the full context of this story helps readers make informed decisions and stay updated on developments that impact our community.

'Terrorists' is what they are

Why are so many in the media afraid to call terrorists what they are, terrorists?  Instead, many use softer, more heroic, and I would say less accurate words like “insurgents,” “militant” or “rebel.”

Why are so many in the media afraid to call terrorists what they are, terrorists?  Instead, many use softer, more heroic, and I would say less accurate words like “insurgents,” “militant” or “rebel.”

Reuters is involved in a flap now with a Canadian newspaper chain about some Canadians journalists’ changing Reuters’ euphemisms for the word terrorism or terrorists. 

Reuters saying that they don't use “emotive words” when labeling someone.  Emotive? 

Why don't they just say we're unwilling to relay the news in the most accurate way possible? 

They're not alone.  Many of the mainstream papers, television broadcasts do it as well. 

Let's be clear: I am talking about the targeting of civilians by suicide bombers or other cold-blooded murderers. 

Let's take a look at the dictionary definitions: 

  • Webster's defines terrorism as violence committed by groups in order to intimidate a population or government into granting their demands.
  • Oxford defines terrorist as anyone who attempts to further his views by a system of coercive intimidation. 

It sure sounds like the shoe fits for al Qaeda terrorists in Iraq and elsewhere in the world, for the Chechens who massacred children at that school, and Palestinians who target civilian buses and malls.

  • A “rebel,” according to both dictionaries, is one who “takes arms against the government or ruler.  That wouldn't really apply to indiscriminate targeting of civilians.” 
  • Both sources say that an “insurgent” is “one who revolts against civil authority, a rebel not recognized as a belligerent”—basically a freelance rebel.  Same problem: It's nowhere near as accurate as terrorists when you're talking about people trying to kill civilians. 
  • “Militant” is another media favorite.  That's about as nondescript as you can get.  That’s someone “engaged in warfare or combat,” according to both dictionaries.  But again, engaged in warfare against civilians? 

It's not that these terms are always wrong. They're just nowhere near as right as “terrorist.”  It's time for the media to step up to the plate and stop treating these killers with respect they don't deserve.