No, even though I think the dictionary definition of that word clearly applies to him.
A breathtaking journey into the mind of a liberal "journalist."
Not a “political act”. He clearly stated his motives.
Same-same ‘journalist’.
Journalists is now a term for fiction writers and spin doctors. It’s an obsolete and hateful term and we should quit using it.
The terrorist who murdered five cops was engaging in violence for political objectives - terrorism. #BLM criminals act like thugs when they block traffic, rob, burn, loot, assault civilians, and attack cops. If Obama-voters don’t like being called “thugs” and “terrorists”, perhaps they could stop acting like thugs and terrorists. Otherwise, their actions fully justify the so-called bias in words that accurately describe them.
OK...not a terrorist. Got it.
He was a black soldier in a black war against whites.
~ Am I arguing, then, that journalists (like me) should be calling Johnson a terrorist? No, even though I think the dictionary definition of that word clearly applies to him. ~
A breathtaking journey into the mind of a liberal “journalist.”
A quote from Søren Kierkegaard (not verbatim, I am relying on memory) “No profession, in the eyes of God; is lower than that of ‘journalist’.
Journalist is now a biased term. But I have no issues using it.
The word Journalist is dead and gone. We no longer have them. What they were replaced with is corrupted biased propagandists.
Except when it comes to Christian businesses who won’t serve the GAYSTAPO who deliberately target them.
No, Adam of the article, terrorist isn’t a biased word; it’s a meaningless word, along with all of the other words used as the usual knee-jerk, hackneyed, worn out through reckless overuse pejoratives by the left to describe one who dissents from their orthodoxy. It joins racist, nazi, fascist, and all the other favorites describing conservatives, but which are more illustrative of the left’s intellectual bankruptcy.
These whorespondence are complicit and enablers of terrorism. They’re traitors to the people and the Republic.
Spoken by a member of the terrorist leftist media.
Well, bless your little pea-pickin heart, you vomitous worm, for instructing us on language use to suit you! My, equally valid. suggestion is to replace your use of the term 'journalist' with the more appropriate term of 'hack', as in a hack writer, someone who putzes around with words but has no real skill!
Eschewing both terrorists and illegal immigrants alike is in keeping with a broader and widely accepted best practice for journalists: Avoid labels! When possible, describe what people do instead of labeling what you think they are.
Apparently he just slips that in because he doesn't like the phrase "illegal immigrant." He makes no real case against using it.
And indeed, the line between "what people do" and "what [you think] they are." isn't a clear one.
Aren't people what they do? And can what they do be dismissed because it's what some other people you don't like think they do or are?
Some of the comments are pretty good:
It's 2016. Why are we even still using words?
I think "drone strike candidate" works well in place of "terrorist".
Maybe journalists should use the universal blanket term "a$$hole."
If we're not going to refer to people who are Islamist-inspired civilian killers as terrorists, then Islamic extremists really is the only logical option.