Times coverage of the hostage crisis in Northern Africa has brought up some questions on the use of language.
A Manhattan reader, Moshe Adler, wrote to me questioning the use of the terms “Islamists” and “extremists” in an article on Jan. 15 by the reporters Adam Nossiter and Eric Schmitt.
He wrote: “I do not understand what either term means and the authors do not explain. These terms, while meaningless, sound ominous and lull the reader into thinking that the war by the French government against the rebels and the support by the U.S. of this war are justified. These terms should not be used.”
I agree with the reader that it is important to use such terms carefully and not interchangeably. I disagree, though, that the terms are meaningless. In fact, that is the crucial element here – each of these words has a specific meaning, as do words like “militant” and “terrorist.” The words do not, by any stretch of the imagination, all mean the same thing.
I asked Philip B. Corbett, associate managing editor for standards, to describe the way The Times uses each of these words.
“People seem to think we should have a long list of approved words and another one of banned words,” he said. “We don’t. For the most part, we use the dictionary like everyone else, and try to use language that is clear and accurate.”
Mr. Corbett noted that the newsroom dictionary (Webster’s New World College) defines Islamist as “an advocate or supporter of Islamic, esp. orthodox Islamic, political rule.” And that, he said, reflects how it is typically used in The Times.
As for extremist, he said, “opinions might differ on where exactly it applies, but I doubt many of our readers would object to applying it to people who kidnap and kill civilians, carry out public amputations, order floggings for smoking and playing music, stone people for sex outside marriage, etc.
“As for ‘militant,’ I think we use it pretty literally, to describe fighters in an insurgency, etc.”
The terms have not been treated interchangeably, and editors acknowledge that it is good to be on guard against doing so. Some Islamists are extremists, as has been the case with those most recently in the news; other are not.
I appreciate Mr. Adler’s e-mail because — although I find no fault with The Times’s usage that I have seen in recent days — it serves as a good reminder that these kinds of distinctions matter.
Those who are interested in language issues might enjoy Mr. Corbett’s “After Deadline” blog, his weekly critique of grammar, usage and style in The Times.
As one Times reader, Meghan Frick, noted on Twitter last week, “There are few things I love more than the New York Times’ weekly nitpick of its own grammar and style.”
There are few things I love more than the New York Times’ weekly nitpick of its own grammar and style. //t.co/NhxRPfsy #missediting