by: Ann at August 12, 2002 06:32 PM

I agree. Influenced by an early John Strasbaugh item in NYPress's billboard section (the first media-outlet group blog, I believe), I've generally called the attacks "the September massacres."

"Terrorist attacks" sure has the virtue of directness though!

Posted by: Jim Henley at August 12, 2002 07:44 PM

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/kathleenparker/kp20020619.shtml

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/kathleenparker/kp20020706.shtml

Posted by: Henry Hanks at August 13, 2002 05:38 AM

Get over it. Focusing any attention on the semantics of what people call 9/11 is petty and insulting. As long as people know what you're talking about, why does it matter?

Posted by: Lisa at August 13, 2002 08:40 AM

"Terrorist attacks" doesn't work anyway. It's too vague. When someone speaks of "the terrorist attacks" without additional context, you're left wondering what exactly they mean. The attack that killed five americans a few weeks ago? 9-11? Whatever horrors went down in Israel during the last week?

"Terrorist attacks" is motivated by an admirable desire to avoid mitigating language like you'll find in AP reports that label suicide bombers as "militants" but never terrorists. Nevertheless, it's too vague to really do the job, unless speaker and listener are both a like "nine-eleven" as long as it's not pronounced "ninmoniker like "nine-eleven"?

Posted by: M. Smith at August 14, 2002 09:56 AM
Post a comment









Remember personal info?






= true; } else { document.comments_form.bakecookie[1].checked = true; } //--> document.comments_form.bakecookie[1].checked = true; } //--> = true; } else { document.comments_form.bakecookie[1].checked = true; } //-->