This is the reason why FoxNews is winning the war against the other networks. They generally define things by their objective reality. "Suicide bombers" become the more precise "homocide bombers" because they are trying to destroy other human lives as their main objective. Chechen "rebels" or "separatists" are now just plain old "terrorists" regardless of their cause. Just this morning, NPR made the moral equivalent of the murderous terrorist attacks in Israel against civilians with the targeted bombing of a terrorist Hamas training camp. Academics are notorious for this too. Just today, I taught my students about slavery and told them all about the relativists who want to argue that African slavery much better than American slavery. Now, while I’ll concede that conditions may have differed, they ignore the objective reality that owning another person without their consent and denying their natural rights is a self-evident wrong. If my 15-year olds understand this, why don’t the journalists and historians?

Related with the first comment:

BBC world is broadcasting in their radio news a report from the Russian demonstration against terrorism directly followed by a report of a ’Palestinian demonstration’ against the IAF strike that sent 14 HAMAS jihadis to hell, citing an Arafat underling who speaks about an ’Israeli terror attack’.

Apparently the BBC has found their very own way to connect Beslan with Palestine, it’s disgusting.

Actually, I am going to admit that I stand slightly corrected. Lester Holt on MSNBC referred to the rebels as "terrorists" last evening.

Unfortunately, he then proceeded to interview some Muslim journalist, and they had a laugh about the "old saying" that, "one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter." They both agreed that the objective reality of terrorism is not what’s important here but rather one’s relative perspective.

In my car, I masochistically listen to NPR in which a woman from the LA Times made the moral equivalency between the Russian government and the actions of the terrorists, whom she sought to excuse many times, arguing vehemently that they were not Arabs.

In other media bias, Rene Montaigne of NPR today was interviewing two Republicans who had switched their vote for Kerry and appeared in Moveon.com ads. I don’t know why they were being interviewed, but that wasn’t the real problem. Montaigne proceeded, in the course of her questioning to clarify John Kerry’s stance on the Iraq War!!! She said, "Kerry may have voted to support the AUTHORIZATION of military force, which is, of course, NOT THE SAME as voting for war. How do you feel about that? (Her emphasis)" Thanks for the clarification from an objective journalist while interviewing people. Absurd.

Some economic bias from NPR this morning. It reported that the UCLA school of business (not exactly Wharton or Michigan, now is it, in terms of polls that anyone listens to) said that the U.S. might have a recession in the next two years. Sounds kind of frightening and maybe you should change your vote from Bush, until the reporter finally admits that the report saw about a 10% of a recession and actually predicted quite impressive growth of around 4.3%!!!

Finally, I know that 1,000 servicepeople have died in Iraq. Do you know how? I’ve heard it about 37,897,965 times in the last day. Thanks for the update. Thanks also to NPR for telling us the "death toll is on the rise" and that most deaths occurred after military operations were "supposedly" over. Well, duh! Did you ever hear of terrorists launching dastardly sneak attacks, car bombs, and roadside bombs against our brave troops over the last few years? I’m tapped out on the liberal media for now.

Nice observations. Furthermore, is it ever possible for a death toll to be on the decline? I would assume that more people will die here (and everywhere) than will be resurrected. Just going out on a limb ...