Fight Media Newspeak

More fine work from Michelle Malkin:

The third anniversary of Sept. 11 is upon us. We remain at war -- and the media remain in denial.

How many times have you picked up a newspaper and read about terrorist attacks perpetrated not by Muslim terrorists, but by generic "militants" or "guerrillas" or "rebels" or, as Middle East scholar Daniel Pipes noted the Pakistan Times called them, "activists"?

Contrast the media whitewashing of our Islamofascist enemies with the press coverage of the Waco, Texas, siege in 1993 -- which constantly reminded us that David Koresh and his Branch Davidian followers were members of a "peculiar religious sect" (New York Times, March 3, 1993) and "a group of religious zealots with a known propensity for violence" (Washington Post, March 2, 1993) who were steeped in a "culture of Christian extremism" (San Francisco Chronicle, April 20, 1993).

A Nexis search of the terms "Branch Davidian" and "religious" and "cult" in The New York Times for the year 1993 yielded 151 hits. The vast majority of these references were in headlines and news articles, as opposed to editorials, letters or book reviews. A Nexis search of the terms "al Qaeda" and "religious" and "cult" in The New York Times for the year 2004 yielded just one article -- a magazine piece in March.

The mainstream media pounded President Bush for trying to explain that the War on Terror is unwinnable in a conventional sense. The mainstream press itself proves the president's point every time its reporters disguise the deadly fanatical nature of our opponents in this global war. How are we to win a war against blood-spattered enemies whom our own free press continues to protect through politically correct sanitization?

It wasn't no-name militants or wayward guerrillas who have butchered, beheaded and slaughtered thousands of innocents over the last three years alone.

The rest of the column lays out highlights from the long litany of Moslem atrocities perpetrated over the past 25 years, and offers this rebuke: "They tell us to ‘never forget.' First, let's stop misremembering"

No reasonable person would dispute the importance of the press in a democracy, but there is no formal checks and balances system in place to reign in the Fourth Estate when it abuses its power. Complaints from conscientious consumers can, however, make a difference. Next time you see Islamic terrorists euphemized into "militants," "guerrillas," "gunmen," "rebels" or "activists," take ten minutes to send a complaint to the outlet's ombudsman or a letter to the editor. The press' liberal bias may be endemic and incurable, but it should not be uncontested.

UPDATE: Daniel Pipes lists the euphemisms and the euphemizers:

Assailants - National Public Radio.

Attackers – the E conomist.

Bombers – the Guardia n.

Captors – the Associated Press.

Commandos – Agen ce France-Presse refers to the terrorists both as "membres du commando" and "commando."

Criminals - the Tim es (London).

Extremists – U nited Press International.

Fighters – the Washington Post.

Group – the Australian.

Guerrillas: in a New York Post editorial.

Gunmen – Reuters.

Hostage-takers - the Los Angeles Times.

Insurgents – in a N ew York Times headline.

Kidnappers – the Observ er (London).

Militants – the Chicago Tribune.

Perpetrators – the Ne w York Times.

Radicals – the BBC.

Rebels – in a Sydney Morning Herald headline.

Separatists – the Christian Science Monitor.

And my favorite:

• Activists – the Pakistan Times.