Just about NYT story that involves the Islamic State includes something like this:
On one level I understand why they still do it. Most Americans not use "Daesh" for the Islamic State. ISIS is the only one that has really caught on. (I suspect that ISIL would have fallen into disuse by now if it wasn't President Obama's preferred term for the group). So when they quote some foreigner referring to "Daesh", I guess the Times feels the need to explain what that is.
However, in the above example, was SAMA television broadcasting in English? No, SAMA only broadcasts in Arabic. So the whole quote was a translation from Arabic. Why not translate the word "Daesh" as well?
“These attacks confirmed that the U.S. clearly supports the terrorism of Daesh,” SAMA television, a state-run news outlet, said, using an Arabic acronym for the Islamic State, also known as ISIS or ISIL.How long do they have to explain to their readership that "Daesh", means the Islamic State, which is also known as ISIS or ISIL?
On one level I understand why they still do it. Most Americans not use "Daesh" for the Islamic State. ISIS is the only one that has really caught on. (I suspect that ISIL would have fallen into disuse by now if it wasn't President Obama's preferred term for the group). So when they quote some foreigner referring to "Daesh", I guess the Times feels the need to explain what that is.
However, in the above example, was SAMA television broadcasting in English? No, SAMA only broadcasts in Arabic. So the whole quote was a translation from Arabic. Why not translate the word "Daesh" as well?
