It's so difficult for some journalists to deal with - "terrorist" and other terminology that risks carrying a judgement along with. After all, we must not judge. The Rantingprofs take on this piece in the Toronto Star that has the problem. They even provide us a handy and sensible definition:

"Terrorism is violence or the threat of violence against civilians (some prefer "non-combatants" and I can live with that) for political purposes by a sub-national group. Why do bright people have such a hard time with that?"

Read the rest as well. I think one of the (many) reasons reporters eschew this language is the old standby reason - sheer laziness. Taking a side means investigating an issue deeply enough to hold to it with moral fortitude and correctness when challenged - a difficult task under the best of circumstances in many of the contentious arenas reporters are required to engage themselves in. Far easier to stay on the outside, feign neutrality and then gain the satisfaction of victimhood and moral superiority when attacked by one side or the other when they, in fact, invariably get it wrong and, correctly, appear morally blind. Perhaps in some cases, they also simply allow themselves to be carried along by the prevailing sentiment in their milieus, which may go to explain why some reporters who have been on the scene for long years still wind up on the wrong side of an issue.

A few previous posts on the "T" word and press responsibility here, here, here and here.

Side note: Just getting back in the swing of things after my vacation. And now between getting into the busy season at work and deciding to get my business web site in shape, blogging will continue to be light, but hopefully regular. Thanks for bearing with me!