Those who might have given the Associated Press's Jimmy Golen the benefit of the doubt early this morning for writing that the Boston Marathon bombings "raised alarms that terrorists might have struck again in the U.S." are going to have a tougher time doing so with his 8:15 a.m. report, in which he wrote that "the blasts among the throngs of spectators raised fears of a terrorist attack." In context, readers can insert "that it was" to replace "of." (If he meant to write "that there will be another terorrist attack," he would have. He didn't.)
The first several paragraphs of Golen's report (since revised; the referenced report is saved here for future reference, fair use and discussion purposes) follow they jump:
As noted earlier this morning, CNN, the Washington Times, and others have called yesterday's bombing a "terrorist attack." Despite the President's reluctance to use the T-word in his statement, the broadcast networks have been reporting since shortly after the President's statement that the White House is calling the bombings a "terrorist attack."
Incredibly, it seems as if Golen doesn't want to call the bombings a "terrorist attack" unless it involved a suicide bomber, based on these several paragraphs later in his report:
A European security official said Tuesday initial evidence indicates that the attacks were not the work of suicide bombers.
"So far, investigators believe it was not the work of suicide bombers, but it is still too early to rule it out completely," said the official, who spoke from the United States on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak about the U.S. investigation.
Uh, nobody has ever said anything about a suicide bomber. It's virtually inconceivable in a crowd of hundreds that a suicide bomber as detonator would go unnoticed. Why waste space on this except to discount the idea that this was "terrorism"? What is in the world -- Is it not "terrorism" unless a suicide bomber was involved?
Additionally, Golen seems to take a shot at Congresspersons who have been briefed who have the nerve to use the T-word:
With scant official information to guide them, members of Congress said there was little or no doubt it was an act of terrorism.
So how does Golen know that these members of Congress have "scant official information"?
As I asked this morning: "What is it with the AP's reluctance" to call the bombings what they are, no matter who the perpetrators were -- "terrorism"?
Cross-posted at BizzyBlog.com.
