The mainstream press keeps showing a pattern of softening the language it uses for hostile actors, and recent coverage of violent extremists and foreign dictators proves the problem is not a one-off lapse but a recurring habit.
If you remember The Washington Post calling ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi an “austere religious scholar,” you know what happens when elite outlets try too hard to sound objective. That one line became a punchline because it exposed a deeper editorial tendency to sanitize violent actors with lofty phrasing. Now, with the death of Iran’s brutal dictatorial supreme leader, both The New York Times and The Post are back to remind readers that patterns repeat.
This is not picky nitpicking; words matter. When major papers use academic-sounding or neutral labels for terrorists and tyrants, they reshape how the public perceives threats. A description that strips away brutality makes foreign enemies easier to rationalize, and that has political and strategic consequences for citizens and policymakers alike.
Media defenders will say nuance and context are necessary, and they are right in principle. But nuance is not the same as euphemism, and context should illuminate, not obscure. Calling a mass-murdering jihadi an “austere religious scholar” strips context instead of supplying it, and the same editorial instinct shows up when coverage treats dictators with an odd, deferential tone.
The problem shows up in predictable ways: careful syntax that downplays responsibility, long profiles that humanize without balancing the harm, and headlines that prefer vagueness to blunt accuracy. Those choices are made by editors and they reflect newsroom culture more than happenstance. Over time, they contribute to a comfortable narrative about dangerous people that does not match reality.
There is also a domestic political effect. When the press repeatedly softens language toward enemies of freedom, it signals a worldview that can bias reporting on threats to our allies and to American security. Readers who rely on those outlets get a filtered version of events that can lull public opinion away from decisive action. That matters in elections and in the decisions leaders make when the stakes are national.
Journalism should hold power to account, no matter where power sits, and that includes violent nonstate actors and foreign autocrats. Responsible reporting requires honesty in labels and proportionality in context. If a leader is brutal and dictatorial, say so plainly; if an extremist leads a campaign of terror, do not dress it up in scholarly language.
Editors will argue for balance and for avoiding inflammatory wording, but balance is not an excuse for false equivalence. There is a real difference between sober description and sanitizing euphemism. Readers deserve clarity so they can judge policy honestly, not prose that buffers unpleasant facts behind academic terms.
Public trust in the press is fragile, and habits like these make skepticism rational. When journalists repeatedly stray into euphemism, conservative and independent readers alike wonder whether those outlets see the world through a partisan or intellectual lens rather than through facts. Rebuilding trust requires repeated, demonstrable commitments to plain speech and accurate framing.
At bottom, this is about standards and choices. Newsrooms choose how to describe villains, and those choices echo beyond headlines. If the press wants to restore credibility, it should start by refusing flattering language for terrorists and dictators and by calling brutality what it is. Plain, accurate reporting is not partisan; it is essential.
