Mark Curtis's blog

Sunday Political Brunch - The Politics of Words -- October 8, 2017


CHARLESTON, WV – The recent mass killings in Las Vegas have left us in a quandary. With no clear-cut motive at hand, and no apparent religious or political bent (at least that we now know), then what do we call this, other than “mass murder”? The question for now is whether the Las Vegas massacre should be called an act of terrorism. Let’s “brunch” on that this week.

“Let’s Go to the Dictionary” – Miriam-Webster offers a number of definitions - some vague, some more precise. has a legal definition: “the unlawful use or threat of violence especially against the state or the public as a politically motivated means of attack or coercion.” It also offers a definition for students: “the use of violence as a means of achieving a goal.” Under the first definition, Las Vegas would not rise to terrorism because - as of now - there is no evidence it was politically motivated. On the other hand, it would clearly be terrorism under the student definition, because the violence was a means to the goal of killing people.

“And, There Are More Contradictions” – The picture doesn’t get any clearer when we look at statutes. Nevada state law defines terrorism as "any act that involves the use of violence intended to cause great bodily harm or death to the general population." That makes the Las Vegas massacre sound like a domestic terrorist act to me. But when you look at the FBI definition, it has the added caveat, “to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.” Well, if there is no political objective, then maybe this isn’t terrorism after all. We clearly have contradictions.

“Different Standards” – If there is a mass bombing in the Middle East and if ISIS or Al-Qaeda claims credit, it’s immediately called an act of terrorism. But even back in 1995, when the Oklahoma City Federal Building was blown up killing 168, people were not that quick to call it terrorism. Part of that reluctance, I think, is the discomfort that people have in recognizing an act of “domestic terrorism.” Maybe our national pride includes a kind of denial mechanism which insists that “such things don’t happen on our soil.” Of course, in the Oklahoma City case, the motives and suspects were not clear at the start; but when it became clear that this was attempted revenge for the federal government’s siege at Waco, Texas, exactly two years prior, the bombing was officially labeled “domestic terrorism.”

“So, What Is This?” – For starters, I labeled the Oklahoma City bombing a terrorist attack from day one. Why? Well, the target was a United States District Courthouse; the result was mass-casualties that frightened the immediate community and the entire nation; and a weapon of mass destruction was involved. The same was true for the Olympic Park bombing at the 1996 Olympics in Atlanta, an event which I covered firsthand. Yes, in Las Vegas, they are still searching for a political motive (and may never find one), but based on the Oklahoma City and Atlanta benchmarks, I’d label Las Vegas as domestic terrorism.

“Stretching the Imagination” – The other night on NPR I was listening to journalist Masha Gessen, who takes the opposing view from mine. She does not believe Las Vegas should yet be described as a terrorist act. I respectfully disagree. Gessen also disputes that the Boston Marathon bombings, (another tragedy I covered), were an act of terrorism. How she can conclude that is beyond my imagination. The Tsarnaev brothers were self-radicalized and certainly had a political bent, with the goal of killing innocent Americans for their cause. They need not have been actual members of ISIS or Al-Qaeda, but their motives lay with the political sympathies and ideology of those organizations. Gessen said calling them terrorists aggrandizes and elevates them beyond being mere criminals. I couldn’t disagree more. They were terrorists, period!

“Illegal; Undocumented; or Unauthorized?” – Words have nuanced meanings. I get that. Sometimes arguing semantics can have profound (and unintended) consequences. A case in point is the debate on how to describe immigrants who are in this country in violation of the law. For many years, they were simply described as “illegal immigrants,” but then came a backlash. Their advocates chastised the press for calling them illegals, when they have been convicted of nothing. The preferred term became “undocumented.” The problem with that is that many people who are in the U.S. unlawfully have plenty of documents - from school report cards to medical insurance cards - all because they have been granted many of the benefits of legal status. I never liked the term “undocumented.” Now, I hear a compromise description, “unauthorized immigrants.” I can live with that, even though I still believe “illegal” is an accurate, non-judgmental description. Look, you are either here by legal authority, or you are not. It can’t be both.

“Why These Debates Matter” – In the world of journalism, accuracy and clarity are among the highest goals. If someone enters this county without going through proper channels, that’s a violation of the law (albeit a civil statute). Is that person a criminal? Not necessarily. (Think of a 6-year-old child brought here by a parent, who is “illegal,” “undocumented,” or “unauthorized.”). But that person is here illegally. Here’s an analogy. I get alerts in my car if I hit 80 miles per hour (as I did the other day) where the speed limit was 70 miles per hour. Did I do something illegal? Yes. Am I a criminal? No, probably not, unless I was caught, convicted of a crime, and sanctioned. But, yes, I was in fact driving illegally.

“Thoughts” – I am in no way trying to equate what happened in Las Vegas with an illegal border crossing or a speeding ticket. What I am trying to illustrate, though, is a daily newsroom battle over what to call and how to describe events, and, yes, how things get labeled. While I sharply disagree with fellow journalist Masha Gessen on how we define terrorism, I appreciate the debate and thoughtful context, as we try to bring clarity, accuracy, and fairness to our audience.

What are your thoughts? Do journalists get caught up in nonsensical hair-splitting word games, or are these debates important? Just click the comment button at

© 2017, Mark Curtis Media, LLC.

Mark Curtis, Ed.D., is a nationally-known political reporter, analyst and author based in West Virginia, appearing nightly on the five Nexstar Media TV stations serving the Mountain State.

Photo: Getty Images

Sunday Political Brunch - The Politics of Distraction -- October 1, 2017


CHARLESTON, WEST VIRGINIA – It was another weird week for the White House (and for politics in general). Last week, I wrote that President Trump – whose poll numbers had been rising – was just one Tweet away from turning the uptick into a setback, and that Tweet was soon forthcoming. Let’s “brunch” on that this week.

“NFL Penalty” – It didn’t start with a Tweet, but a Tweet surely escalated the situation. Last Friday night at a campaign rally in Alabama, Trump said of a football player who kneels or sits in protest during the national anthem: "Get that son of a bitch off the field right now. He's fired. He's fired!" The ensuing days brought protests both on and off the playing field – not to mention the Trump-Tweet firestorm that seized up social media from Facebook, Twitter, and beyond. In the world of politics, the protests and Trump's comments just seemed to suck all the oxygen out of the room for the President's immediate agenda. When one issue distracts, the priorities of the whole agenda are in peril.

“No Sweet Home Alabama” – Trump was in Alabama to campaign for Senator Luther Strange (R-AL), who was trying to win a full term after having been appointed to fill the seat once occupied by Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL), who is now the U.S. Attorney General. In spite of Trump's endorsing and campaigning for him, Strange lost the Republican Senate primary on Tuesday to controversial former Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore. In essence, it was the first Congressional election defeat for Trump, as the GOP has won every House special election since he took office. Plus, Judge Moore was backed by former Trump aide Steve Bannon, recently ousted from the White House inner circle. Ouch!!!

“Put a Cork in It” – Senator Bob Corker (R-TN) surprised a lot of people this week, when he announced he would not seek a third term in the U.S. Senate. Corker, who chairs the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, has often been at odds with President Trump. However, Tennessee has been a solidly red state of late, so I suspect that the GOP will retain this seat in 2018 and that Corker's departure won’t hurt the balance of power in the Senate. On the other hand, the President has thirteen months to stir up more controversy, so the balance of power in the 2018 midterm elections should not be presumed.

“Legislative Score Card” – With the defeat of the Obamacare repeal (once again), the White House is still left with no legislative victories eight months into the administration. The only win remains Senate confirmation of Neil Gorsuch as Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. Yes, that is a huge win because it could have an impact decades after President Trump is gone, but it’s an appointment – not a policy victory. Now tax reform is on the table, with an uncertain outcome ahead. Overall this has not been a good year for White House-Congressional relations, and Republicans own “all three legs of the bar stool.”

“The Taxing Business of Tax Reform” – The White House promises to cut taxes for the most heavily taxed middle class Americans. (Already, almost half of Americans pay no federal income tax or get what they have paid refunded.) The Trump tax reform bill also would reduce seven income tax brackets to just three, and would significantly cut the corporate income tax rate. The goal is to make the U.S. more competitive in the global marketplace. We’ll see. But the big issue here is not really taxes; it’s whether President Trump can get any significant legislation passed through both the House and Senate that he can sign into law.

“Other Distractions” – As if the President needed any more headaches, his Secretary of Health and Human Services, Tom Price, embarrassed the administration by taking expensive chartered flights at taxpayers' expense. Secretary Price said that he would reimburse the government; but, given that he had failed in the attempt to repeal Obamacare, one wondered how long he would last. As it turns out, not very long! On Friday, Price tendered his resignation; and Trump accepted it. If you are keeping score, Trump has already had public issues concerning his Attorney General, his Secretary of State, and now his Secretary of Health and Human Services. Does Trump need any more of this? He might have been wise to just let the Price matter go; but that’s not really Trump's style.

“What All of This Means?” – The 2018 elections are just thirteen months away. Yes, Republicans have strong leads in both the House and Senate, but will they hold? The fact that President Trump has had no significant legislative wins should sound the alarm bells for the Republican National Committee. It should also awaken the Democratic National Committee to the opportunity for members of the lethargic minority party to make some gains, rather than just sitting around feeling sorry for themselves. Politics is a business grounded in seizing opportunity, and I’m not sure the national Democratic Party sees that yet for 2018.

Is President Trump too easily driven to distraction? Just click the comment button at

© 2017, MarkCurtisMedia, LLC.

Photo courtesy: Getty Images

Syndicate content