From: "Mark" 

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_0075_01C58674.FD704990
Content-Type: text/plain;
        charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

I've noticed a variety of choices at the WaPo, the NYTimes seems to shy =
away from "t" for the most part, preferring
"insurgents" and = "militants,"but Reuters rarely uses
"terrorist" at all, and never = without "scare quotes"
or prefixed with "so-called."=20

I believe I read that it's BBC policy not to use "terrorist"
which = obviously felt "wrong" to their own reporters in regards
to an attack on = London -- a feeling that management quickly rebuked and
corrected after = the fact.=20

Raises the bile, for sure.
  "Gregg N"  wrote in message =
news:42d32ac9{at}w3.nls.net...
  Mark wrote:=20
Both the BBC and Reuters have stricken the "T" word from their =
vocabulary -- =20
a couple of overzealous BBC reporters slipped up when the bombs went off =

in-country, and no doubt close to their locations, but management = quickly=20
sanitized their pieces (I guess they thought that no one would notice = their=20
weasel-like behavior)
  It got me wondering about other publications. It appears the =
Washington Post  prefers "bomb attacks" to "terrorist
attacks", in = connection with the London attacks:


    "LONDON, July 11 -- One by one, leading members of Britain's House =
of Commons from a wide range of political parties rose on Monday =
afternoon to pledge their solidarity with the people of London over last =
week's bomb attacks and to shower praise on one man: Prime Minister Tony =
Blair."


  although I have seen them use the "T" word as well. Meanwhile, the New =
York Times appears to use the "T" word to refer to them. From
today's = paper,


    "LONDON, July 11 - The official death toll from last week's =
terrorist attacks in London rose to 52 on Monday, and the authorities =
began making their first formal identifications of the victims."


  Gregg


------=_NextPart_000_0075_01C58674.FD704990
Content-Type: text/html;
        charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable








I've noticed a variety of choices at =
the WaPo, the=20
NYTimes seems to shy away from "t" for the most part, preferring
= "insurgents"=20
and "militants,"but Reuters rarely uses "terrorist" at
all, and never=20 without "scare quotes" or prefixed
with = "so-called." 
 
I believe I read
that it's BBC =
policy not to=20
use "terrorist" which obviously felt "wrong" to their
own reporters in = regards=20
to an attack on London -- a feeling that management quickly rebuked and=20
corrected after the fact. 
 
Raises the bile, for
sure.

  "Gregg N" <invalid{at}invalid.invalid>">mailto:invalid{at}invalid.invalid">invalid{at}invalid.invalid>
= wrote in=20
  message news:42d32ac9{at}w3.nls.net...Ma=
rk=20
  wrote:=20
  
Both the BBC and Reuters have stricken the
"T" word from their = vocabulary -- =20
a couple of overzealous BBC reporters slipped up when the bombs went off =

in-country, and no doubt close to their locations, but management = quickly=20
sanitized their pieces (I guess they thought that no one would notice = their=20
weasel-like behavior)
  It got me wondering about other publications. It =
appears=20
  the Washington Post  prefers "bomb attacks" to "terrorist =
attacks", in=20
  connection with the London attacks:
  "LONDON, July 11 -- One by one,
leading members of=20
    Britain's House of Commons from a wide range of political parties =
rose on=20
    Monday afternoon to pledge their solidarity with the people of =
London over=20
    last week's bomb attacks and to shower praise on one man: Prime =
Minister=20
    Tony
Blair."although I
have seen them =
use the "T"=20
  word as well. Meanwhile, the New York Times appears to use the "T" =
word to=20
  refer to them. From today's paper,
  "LONDON, July 11 - The official death toll from last =
week's=20
    terrorist attacks in London rose to 52 on Monday, and the =
authorities began=20
    making their first formal identifications of the=20
 
victims."Gregg

------=_NextPart_000_0075_01C58674.FD704990--

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5
 * Origin: Barktopia BBS Site http://HarborWebs.com:8081 (1:379/45)

SEEN-BY: 633/267 270 5030/786

@PATH: 379/45 1 633/267