When is a Dirty Bomb Attack Not a Terrorist Attack?

“The exercise, called Liberty RadEx, is the largest drill of its kind sponsored by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to test the country’s capability to clean up and help communities recover from a dirty bomb terrorist attack.”

#imag1 Critics have been accusing The Philadelphia Inquirer of failing to accurately report on terrorism and terrorists for years and have pointed to the failure of the newsroom to use word terrorist when it is clearly called for as evidence.

Now The Inquirer has reached a new low.

It won’t even use the word terrorist when reporting or ersatz, simulated terrorist attacks.

In a news item with the title ‘Dirty bomb’ drill under way in Phila.” Inquirer staffers wrote that “About 700 officials, experts and responders from a range of federal, state and local agencies will take part in a 5-day drill starting today simulating the cleanup following a dirty bomb blast near Independence Hall.”

Why didn’t the article read “cleanup following a dirty bomb terrorist attack near Independence Hall”?

Who else would launch a dirty bomb attack? Community activists?

The Inquirer does not use the word “terrorist” even once when reporting on the ‘Dirty bomb’ drill.

Here is another, specific instance where the word terrorist would have fit naturally into the story: “It said the drill is unique in that it simulates the transition from the emergency phase of such an attack to the recovery phase.”

If The Inquirer’s editors and staff writers weren’t so committed to avoiding the word terrorist the line would have read as follows: “It said the drill is unique in that it simulates the transition from the emergency phase of a terrorist attack to the recovery phase.”

Read Entire Story in Ruthfully Yours

activists, newsroom

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *