Calling the Oregon protesters 'occupiers' instead of 'terrorists': Washington Post opinion

Oregonian (editorial):

As of Sunday afternoon, The Washington Post called them "occupiers." The New York Times opted for "armed activists" and "militia men." And The Associated Press put the situation this way: "A family previously involved in a showdown with the federal government has occupied a building at a national wildlife refuge in Oregon and is asking militia members to join them."

Not one seemed to lean toward terms such as "insurrection," "revolt," anti-government "insurgents" or, as some on social media were calling them, "terrorists." When a group of unknown size and unknown firepower has taken over any federal building with plans and possibly some equipment to aid a years-long occupation - and when its representative tells reporters that they would prefer to avoid violence but are prepared to die - the kind of almost-uniform delicacy and the limits on the language used to describe the people involved becomes noteworthy itself.

Read the full article here. Discuss below.