Ronald Reagan Was an "Insurgent"

Phillip Blanchard · **Posted:** Wed Nov 05, 2003 8:40 am

Memo to Los Angeles Times staff, as reported by LA Observed:
We have, in recent days, referred to those attacking American forces in Iraq as "resistance fighters." Although this term is not inaccurate on its face, it conveys unintended meaning. To many, it romanticizes the work and goals of those killing GIs. We should avoid using it outside of quoted material.
The terms "insurgents" and "guerrillas" are also accurate descriptors and are preferred in this context. Please use them instead.***Actually, "insurgent" is wrong any way you look at it . There is no use denying that some Iraqis are fighting an occupation force. They are not "rebels." (I would also question whether they are guerrilla fighters in a strict sense, but that's a discussion for another day.) "Insurgent" is best reserved for its political meanings; Howard Dean fits the definition of an insurgent Democrat. "Insurgent" also sometimes describes a rebel who is not violent.

tommangan · **Posted:** Wed Nov 05, 2003 12:10 pm

Isn't it safe to say we don't know precisely who is conducting the attacks? And if so, would any of our characterizations of them be correct? This is similar to the marching orders not to say "the suspects opened fire" when there are no suspects -- that is, people the police have identified as likely to have been involved in the crime.

Phillip Blanchard · **Posted:** Wed Nov 05, 2003 3:56 pm

<blockquote>quote:<hr>Originally posted by tom mangan:
Isn't it safe to say we don't know precisely who is conducting the attacks? And if so, would any of our characterizations of them be correct? <hr></blockquote>Right. Unless we know the "truth," just report that someone attacked U.S. positions. But we both know that's not going to happen.[ November 05, 2003: Message edited by: blanp ]

Testy Copy Editors

Ronald Reagan Was an "Insurgent"

Who is online

What They're Saying

Useful Links