Some news report had intentionally add quotation marks on terrorists when report China's recent terrorists attack in Kunming, do you think this is a double standard on the western news media?

There are double standards in some reportage of terrorism in China by overseas media, but there is also a duty to journalistic ethics that shouldn't get overlooked. One reason "terrorism" is reported as such when a story breaks is that there might not be any independent verification of authorities' claims. This is especially the case with clashes in remote parts of Xinjiang where reporters are scarce and information is tightly controlled. I'm not sure it applies to Kunming, but many Weibo posts and photos of the attack were taken down by censors. No group has claimed responsibility for the attack yet and there was doubt over the identity of the Kunming attackers, who were dressed in black, when the story first broke. I believe now all major overseas media outlets are calling it terrorism without quotation marks. Another reason is that a massacre isn't always linked to terrorism. Is it right to call the 2009 Fort Hood shooting "terrorism" because the shooter was Muslim but not the 2011 Arizona shooting because the gunman was not Muslim? A similar case could be made that a Uyghur-led attack is inevitably labeled "terrorism," but a Han assailant who stabs children or blows up a bus is "taking revenge on society." The obvious difference is the political motive behind violence. But until there is a claim of responsibility or solid link made to terrorism, the media has a fine line to tread.

I'll answer my own question. We had some interesting discussion regarding this issue on my usual Chinese forums before I posted this question here. As many answers already noted, some of my fellow Chinese also pointed out that the quotation could simply mean 1) it's an actual quote; 2) the fact is unconfirmed. I think those are good possibilities, but I lean towards double standard. The quotation mark using in a title is too ambiguous for a news report. If the news report indeed wants to indicate it's an actual quote, it could very well write the title as: 28 Died in "terrorists attack" according to Chinese Xin Hua agency Or if the fact is unconfirmed, the title could read: 28 Died in a possible terrorist attack Both are perfectly good titles with clear information and make strong impression. If one news report had used the quotation mark, I wouldn't be so disheartened. Multiple news reports choose to use quotation marks knowing full well that it could be interpreted as quote end quote Not Real Terrorist, especially when there are plenty of other good expression to explain the situation. I learned it here, quotation mark around a word, instead of a sentence in a conversation, is exclusively to express sarcasm. It's not used to emphasize the word or even to quote. Quotation marks used here could be interpreted as, Chinese civilian lives just don't mean much, and we can make some fun out of their government using the word "terrorism".  A news report should be clear, straight forward, without room of speculation. And yet, reading the answers here, we already have 4 or 5 interpretation. Either it is bad journalism, or it means what I think it means: double standard. You can find excuses for these news agency all you like, but for me, that's just sad and disappointing. === At this point, we don't know it is terrorist attacks or not, no organization had stepped out and take responsibility. But if the killing is politically motivated, if the killing is meant to scare and hurt the innocent people in the name of some misguided idealism, it is terrorism all the same. === Update: After writing this answer, and had correct my assumption about quotation mark being used to indicate sarcasm. It seems for news report headlines, quotation marks are primarily used to indicate unconfirmed source. I guess now I need to go back to my Chinese friends and explain the situation to them, so they wouldn't think Reuters and other news agency are trying to downplay the issue.

The double standard is blatant and obvious. News organizations in the West are now so politicize that there isn't much journalistic integrity left. Heads of governments are routinely labeled dictator and his supporters henchmen. Some foreign governments are routinely refereed to as regimes as opposed to administrations. Now a group of people indiscriminately attacked and killed Chinese civilians are not terrorist but ' terrorists' as if the editor felt the use of the term ' freedom fighters' was premature. News organizations instead of focusing on reporting the news, now they are adding more confusion, anger, and animosity between the relationship Chinese people have with the outside world. Shame on you CNN, Reuter, and all others news organizations used ' terrorists' in their reporting on the Kunming killing. You have dishonored the victims.

The suspect at Boston bombing was a US citizen and the bombing was defined as an act of terrorism. Internal issues is not a excuse for violence against innocent unarmed civilian.

Isn't it just as likely that the quotes around the word "terrorist" were intended to indicate actual quotation? It's not uncommon to see headlines like "Twelve die in 'tragic' accident," where "tragic" is a direct quote and the article is not calling it into question. Not to say that there aren't double standards in place when it comes to reporting on China. There are, and they're pretty obvious to anyone paying attention. But there are also explanations for this that seem at least as likely, and don't require the assumption of malice on the part of the headline writers.

They have their prejudice and political-right. Another such examples are the reports about the 7.5 terrorism attack in Urumqi. West media have no interest to expose those lies told by the terrorists' sympathizer, though it is quite easy for them:

A few possibilities: It's an actual quotation. The facts are less clear than they would be to an American journalist reporting on an incident in America. They are likely sitting at their desk in New York going by early agency reports. They are skeptical at this stage, given the history the Chinese government/media has with misinformation (think about the story of the boy who cried wolf). It's a double standard. It's worth noting that early reports in Chinese media made no mention of terrorism, as you can see from these screenshots. The 'terror' comments came later. Initially they used terms like 'unidentified armed men' and 'violence'. Xinhuanet (China's news agency)

Probably expresses that it was not yet known whether it was a group with a large scale ethno-political agenda, as opposed to a local personal grudge or insanity, as has been the case with many bombings and stabbings in China.

The gang with cleavers hacked many innocent people, and their aim is only innocent people, the victims include the elderly and children, if this is not terrorism, then please tell me what is terrorism? I also noticed the double standard report by western mainstream media today, and you all finally unveiled your "impartial" mask, I would not trust your report like ever before.