And people wonder why I don't trust the media...

[partly]

This was the headline: Insurgent Blasts Kill at Least 27 in Iraq

What's wrong with that you say? Let's look at the definition of the word "insurgent":

Insurgent
1. a person who revolts against civil authority or an established government; especially : a rebel not recognized as a belligerent
2. one who acts contrary to the policies and decisions of one's own political party

belligerent"
1. One that is hostile or aggressive, especially one that is engaged in war.


So, what the headline really says is:

"Non-hostile Rebel" Blasts Kill at Least 27 in Iraq

I'm glad that the media is so impartial that it uses words that don't mean what they represent. I think that Orwell was only off by a letter. Maybe he should have called it News-speak.

Comments

[k-kinnison.livejournal.com]

I suppose we could call them Terrorists, Jihadists, or Guerilla fighters. Often in the media terms are used that have a better connotation then the correct ones

[donnickcottage.livejournal.com]

I think insurgent was always the wrong word. Indescriminate murderers is more accurate, I don't believe these people have any thoughts about governments new or old. Like anything else though, one word is used and a hundred people interpret it a hundred ways.

[finabair.livejournal.com]

*giggle* Well, maybe they WERE non-hostile. I mean, the bombs were just doing their job...nothing personal...

I think the media tend to believe they need a greater variety of words to convey the same meaning so that the viewers aren't quite so aware they're saying the same things over and over and over and calling it 'news'. So they co-opt a few new words every month by using them slightly off-label until Webster gives in and just adds the definition to the dictionary.