« Shoe Attack on President Applauded by Anti-Israel Favorite of BBC/NPR | Main | Gaza Fauxtography »

December 24, 2008

"Militant" According to MSNBC


What is a "militant"?

It is not news that MSNBC and other media outlets routinely refer to terrorist groups like Hamas and Hezbollah which target unarmed civilians as "militants". In the mainstream media, "militant" has become the new word for "terrorist".

But now MSNBC is referring to the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) as "Zionist militants". An brief about President Bush's pardon of Charles Winters -- a Miami produce exporter who, in contravention of the 1939 Neutrality Act, transferred two airplanes to Israel's defense forces during its 1948 war to survive -- mischaracterizes Israel's efforts to avoid destruction by invading Arab armies as the resistance of Zionist "militants."

According to MSNBC parlance, then, Hamas "militants" who have vowed to destroy Israel by targeting civilians are no different than IDF's 1948 "militants" who vowed to survive and avoid destruction.

It is a moral equivalence which tells a lot about the underlying mindset of the editors.

Posted by rh at December 24, 2008 10:31 AM


MSNBC, the News station with the "Power of Change".

Yeah, changing reality into douchebaggery.

Posted by: Karl at December 24, 2008 04:21 PM

Typical. Give Islamic terrorists a form of legitimacy by refusing to call them what they are, terrorists, and giving them the title of "militants". Then to insult the standing army of a sovreign nation by calling them militants as well. Typical liberal media tactics. Just shows the world where they stand, with the murdering forces of Islamic terrorism.

Posted by: Doyle Bays at December 26, 2008 08:08 AM

In my opinion, this one doesn't seem so bad. The U.S. hadn't recognized Israel yet, and the army was really still coming into being from the paramilitary organizations that were there before. It's not like "militant" in this context implies that they weren't fighting in an above-board war.

Posted by: Adam at December 28, 2008 02:11 PM

The "Public" editor of the rag NY Times devoted an article to define the debate amongst "journalists" regarding the use of the word terrorist. While he clearly disagreed with his employer, his appologetic reasoning was wimpy.

I dont recall The Rag, whom I'm assuming is anti-death penalty, commenting on beheadings, or Taliban attacts, supression of women, limited personal freedoms and the like. But God forbid Israel attempts to defend itself or gets tired of telling its citizens' children to wear helmets as protection from rockets, then the terms militants or terrorists are sure to be employed.

Posted by: andy at December 29, 2008 06:53 PM

Guidelines for posting

This is a moderated blog. We will not post comments that include racism, bigotry, threats, or factually inaccurate material.

Post a comment

Remember Me?

(you may use HTML tags for style)