AP Pussyfoots Around Extremism, Revises Use of the Word ‘Islamist’
If the media focused half as much on actually covering radical Islam, as they do with trying to placate radical Islamists, then they might actually be able to reclaim the mantle of legitimate journalism.
Instead, we have this…
The term “Islamist,” the AP clarified in a Thursday afternoon alert to online stylebook subscribers, should not be used as “a synonym for Islamic fighters, militants, extremists or radicals.”
The AP first added the term to its stylebook in 2012. The definition initially read:
“Supporter of government in accord with the laws of Islam. Those who view the Quran as a political model encompass a wide range of Muslims, from mainstream politicians to militants known as jihadi.”
The Council on American-Islamic Relations, an American advocacy group sometimes labeled “Islamist” by critics, previously lobbied for the AP to drop the term. In a January op-ed CAIR’s communications director, Ibrahim Hooper, wrote the term “has become shorthand for ‘Muslims we don’t like’” and “is currently used in an almost exclusively pejorative context.”
As of Thursday’s update, the AP definition reads:
“An advocate or supporter of a political movement that favors reordering government and society in accordance with laws prescribed by Islam. Do not use as a synonym for Islamic fighters, militants, extremists or radicals, who may or may not be Islamists.
Rather than focusing on the real issues here, the AP is doing everything in its power to avoid pointing out the relationship between radical Islamists and terrorism. Similar to the Benghazi terror attack, in which the media found every possible angle to focus on other than the link between Islamic extremists and the attacks. They pointed to Mitt Romney for his statements, they pointed to Newsweek’s ‘Muslim Rage’ cover, at the author, Ayaan Ali Hirsi, and they pointed it at an obscure film that was at that time unknown to the general public.
The relationship between radical Islam and terrorism has been consistent and perpetual, and it has long been evident prior to today.
During the Iran hostage crisis in 1979. At the World Trade Center bombing in 1993. At the embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998. With the USS Cole bombing in 2000. At the Fort Hood massacre in 2009. And of course, September 11th.
This to name a few.
The rage is tangible, and it is very closely associated with radical Islamists.
What the left clearly needs are more people of reason, more people like Kirsten Powers who wrote at the time of the Benghazi attack:
“We were attacked because there are crazy religious fanatics who hate the United States. We didn’t ask for it.”
Say it along with her – Crazy. Religious. Fanatics.
Muslim rage. Radical Islamists.
Do not fear it. Fearing words only serves to embolden the enemy, and they know it.
While we continue to fight over those words, radical Islamists continue to point their RPG’s at our foreign diplomats, storm our embassy walls, burn American flags, call for beheadings and public hangings, and on and on. All the while, the media criminally continues to whistle through the graveyard, dropping words from their vocabulary, and essentially dropping the ability to report on reality.
The liberal media refuses to stand up to radical Islam, and they refuse to accurately portray the level of rage being executed in the name of the tenets of radical Islam. They are afraid.
Journalism is a profession. Stop acting like amateurs.
At some point, you will have to grow a spine when it comes to the threat of radical Islam.
At some point, you will have to stop pussyfooting and tiptoeing your way around the subject matter.
In the end, at some point you will have to address reality, and not continue to long for some fantasy world that exists only in your minds.