On "militants" and "terrorists"

The news is out of Damascus: The man blamed in attacks that killed hundreds of Americans and Israelis has been killed in a car bombing. And the news report refers to him a "militant."

Readers ask about the use of "terrorist" when it comes to news reports of suicide bombings and acts of violence. Stories out of Northern Ireland, Spain and the Middle East often bring impassioned e-mails and phone calls from readers arguing that the word should be applied to those individuals who carry out such attacks. (The question comes so often that it's posted under the FAQs on the right side of this page.)

Robert Thomas of Whittier asked it most recently. In an e-mail sent a week ago with the subject line "militant or terrorist," Thomas wrote: "As a longtime L.A. Times reader, I am puzzled as to The Times' use of these terms.  Is there an editorial policy on this topic, and if so, what is that policy?"

The words "terrorism" and "terrorist attack" are used for those acts of violence that specifically target civilians to achieve a political goal -- though when possible, editors prefer to use a precise description of what happened, such as "a suicide bombing," "a kidnapping," or "a rocket attack." As editors see it, many groups around the world sponsor or carry out terrorist acts; however, many of those groups also carry out actions that do not fit the definition -- attacks on military forces, for example, or they engage in peaceful activities at the same time. That is one reason editors prefer to inform by describing the action, and try to avoid applying to a group or a person a label that might be less than precise.

Given that reasoning, Thomas responded, "Your reassurance that editors do use the word 'terrorism' or 'terrorist attack' begs the question: who instigates such acts if not terrorists?  Isn't this nouning and adjectivizing a passive form of writing that ignores part of the story? And if we do not call the instigators by that name, are we not hiding something about their acts?  Just because they and their supporters consider them martyrs to some great cause doesn't make it right for us to deny the truth of what their actions make them."

No, say editors: Describing precisely the act and the method of violence does the opposite of hiding something about the acts. In fact, say editors, in many ways, the word "terrorist" has been so overused as to be rendered almost meaningless.

Editors, though, have grappled with when and when not to use "terrorist." Some find "militant" too mild in many circumstances; "extremist" is another less-than-perfect alternative.

Melissa McCoy, deputy managing editor who oversees questions of style and usage at The Times, says, "We use the term militant because it is the most neutral term available to us that best describes an individual who carries out an act of violence in support of a cause. That person may be acting on his own or as part of an organized group or military arm.  But regardless of his affiliation, he is someone who is ready to fight to achieve his goals. His actions may not necessarily be aimed at civilians."

The word "terrorist" does appear when it's a part of quotations and in titles; a few groups and individuals -- Osama Bin Laden, the 9/11 hijackers, Al Qaeda -- can be called "terrorist" without qualification. Often, though, when the word is included in stories, readers object to the apparent inconsistency.

Otherwise, emphasizes chief of copy desks Clark Stevens, “we try to avoid it; preferably, such people are defined and described by their specific actions -- bombers, hijackers, kidnappers.” One recent example of the reporting of such violence was the news of a suicide attack in Israel. The Times' stories on Feb. 5 started this way: "A Palestinian blew himself up Monday in an Israeli town near the Egyptian border, killing a woman and wounding 10 other people in the first suicide attack in Israel in just over a year. Police prevented a second blast at the same strip mall in the southern desert town of Dimona by fatally shooting another attacker as he reached for his explosives-laden belt."

Presenting the facts that way gives readers the specifics of what happened and lets them make their own judgment as to whether it constitutes terrorism.