…sits atop the New York Times‘ story on Mugniyah:
Bomb in Syria Kills Militant Sought as Terrorist
A militant who was sought as a terrorist? What the heck does that mean? Is the Times saying that Imah Mugniyah was not, in point of fact, a terrorist? Is there a person in the world who does not more perfectly deserve that appellation, or has the Times joined Reuters in refusing to use it? Sloppy thinking and sloppy writing. They go together.
