The New York Times gets it. The Associated Press gets it. The Washington Post doesn't, nor does Reuters nor the BBC. The first two (correctly) use the term "terrorist" to describe the perpetrators of the horror that occurred in Russia; the last three two can't bring themselves to use the word. The WaPo does come close; it uses the word to characterize statements from Russian president Vladimir Putin and Russian police, but substitutes the less accurate "guerillas", "insurgents", or "attackers" to describe the terrorists. Reuters uses the word once, in a direct quote from one of the children. The Beeb manages to avoid using it altogether. At least some of the major players are willing to call terrorism terrorism; now we need to work on the rest.
posted on September 04, 2004 07:05 PM
No other name for the situation than all-out terrorism. Some get it, some don't. That's the way of the world.
Check out what I wrote about Russia and the Chechen terrorists last Thursday (9-2) on my blog.