In a previous thread, MOChassid mentioned a recent Daniel Pipes article that has been doing the rounds, in which he criticises the world press for "shying away" from using the word 'terrorist' in the reports about Beslan. He cites 20 examples of different news outlets using euphamisms, and links to them.
Because of bitter, Israel-related experience, many of us may have accepted Pipes' claims at face value. I know I certainly did. However, one of the Crooked Timber contributors has followed up Pipes' 20 media references one by one, and shown that the words 'terrorist' or 'terrorism' are in fact used in most of them, together with other objectionable words such as 'assailants,' 'attackers,' 'bombers,' 'commandos,' 'fighters' etc.
Readers on Crooked Timber have held a lengthy debate about whether Pipes' criticism of the press still holds true, and whether the word 'terrorist' really must be used to the exclusion of all others, even if that means repeating the same word 20 times in as many lines. Either way, this is a good reminder that just because an argument is true 100 times does not mean it is true 101 times.