Washington Post cannot bring itself to use the t-word

Leo Rennert
The terrorism suspect is under arrest and has confessed.  A horrific terrorist attack in the heart of New York City has been averted.  But you wouldn't know it reading the Washington Post, a newspaper that wears blinders on the term.

The May 5 front page headline reads:  "Probe's focus shifts to Pakistani Taliban -- Suspect charged in Failed Bombing -- 30-yer-old immigrant said to be cooperating with officials."

The front-page story mentions that the suspect received bomb-making training in a region of Pakistan known as a "militant hotbed."  And it vaguely refers to "Saturday night's attempt."

What's missing of course is any hint that a suspected terrorist was about to launch a  terrorist attack in Times Square on a Saturday night when the place was packed with civilians.   

Now compare the Post's conspicuous avoidance of the "T" for terrorism word with how the New York Times reported the story in its May 5 edition.  The Times didn't flinch from the "T" word.  Its headline reads:

"Terrorism Suspect, Charged, Admits to Role in Bomb Plot -- He Tells of Training in Pakistant -- Taliban Eyed."  Plain for any Times reader  to see that this was an attempted terrorist attack.    

High up in its main story on the front page, the Times  then informs its readers that the suspect may have ties to "international terrorist groups" and that he was the target of a "majorterrorist  investigation."  Again, the Times doesn't pussyfoot around.

Also, as Times readers perused the front page, they were told that the suspect was charged with several ''terrorism-related crimes."  The Post makes no mention of terrorism in its recitation of the charges filed against him.

Finally, way down in the Post's main story when it already has jumped to an inside page and most readers probably have moved on to other articles, there finally is a very bleated acknowledgment that this was the latest in a "series of  attempted terrorist attacks."

But while the world contemplates a jihadist terrorist reach into the heart of New York, the Post  treats its readers to a childishly evasive hide-and-seek game about an obvious terrorist event?   The Post, on its front page, sees no terrorism, hears no terrorism, speaks no terrorism. 
The terrorism suspect is under arrest and has confessed.  A horrific terrorist attack in the heart of New York City has been averted.  But you wouldn't know it reading the Washington Post, a newspaper that wears blinders on the term.

The May 5 front page headline reads:  "Probe's focus shifts to Pakistani Taliban -- Suspect charged in Failed Bombing -- 30-yer-old immigrant said to be cooperating with officials."

The front-page story mentions that the suspect received bomb-making training in a region of Pakistan known as a "militant hotbed."  And it vaguely refers to "Saturday night's attempt."

What's missing of course is any hint that a suspected terrorist was about to launch a  terrorist attack in Times Square on a Saturday night when the place was packed with civilians.   

Now compare the Post's conspicuous avoidance of the "T" for terrorism word with how the New York Times reported the story in its May 5 edition.  The Times didn't flinch from the "T" word.  Its headline reads:

"Terrorism Suspect, Charged, Admits to Role in Bomb Plot -- He Tells of Training in Pakistant -- Taliban Eyed."  Plain for any Times reader  to see that this was an attempted terrorist attack.    

High up in its main story on the front page, the Times  then informs its readers that the suspect may have ties to "international terrorist groups" and that he was the target of a "majorterrorist  investigation."  Again, the Times doesn't pussyfoot around.

Also, as Times readers perused the front page, they were told that the suspect was charged with several ''terrorism-related crimes."  The Post makes no mention of terrorism in its recitation of the charges filed against him.

Finally, way down in the Post's main story when it already has jumped to an inside page and most readers probably have moved on to other articles, there finally is a very bleated acknowledgment that this was the latest in a "series of  attempted terrorist attacks."

But while the world contemplates a jihadist terrorist reach into the heart of New York, the Post  treats its readers to a childishly evasive hide-and-seek game about an obvious terrorist event?   The Post, on its front page, sees no terrorism, hears no terrorism, speaks no terrorism.