asking myself…well how did I get here?
Why is that Fox News insists on calling suicide bombers, “homicide bombers”? Doesn’t the act of bombing people necessarily entail homicide? Isn’t the term suicide bomber more descriptive of the type of tactics being used? Ted Kaczynski, Timothy McVeigh, and Eric Rudolph were homicide bombers too, but they were not suicide bombers. I just don’t see what journalistic value comes from obscuring the bombers methods.
Join the fray by commenting, tracking what others have to say, or linking to it from your blog.
That makes sense, but why use a redundant term like homicide bombers? If their goal is to take the focus off of the terrorists, they should just call them bombers or terrorists. Homicide Bomber just sounds ignorant and calls into question the validity of the report, as well as the fairness and balance of the entire organization.
Fox has never been fair or balanced by themselves. Their strategy has always been to be sufficiently right to balance thier perceptions of where they believe the rest of the media was.
Unless otherwise specified, all content is made available under the Creative Commons License.
Your comment, “I just don’t see what journalistic value comes from obscuring the bombers methods.” does explain your confusion a little. There is no JOURNALISTIC value in these tactics. This is used as a sales ploy. I don’t remember who, but someone said the Title “suicide” bombers gave these partictular terrorists an aire of nobility, and this person said that the bonbers should be somehow stripped of the title. Fox News is following this lead in hopes of getting more simmilarly ignorant viewers to watch their newscast, and if more are watching, the more they can charge for advertising.
So, financially it makes a little sense, but not as much as comming up with a title for these bombers that would strip the supposed “nobility” from them and not obscure their methods.