You would think that an industry that relies upon the written word would be extremely careful about language.

In fact, newspapers ARE careful. About some aspects of language. They slavishly adhere to the politically correct AP Stylebook, which has become so woke it’s more than 600 pages long. In it, reporters are told they may no longer use the terms illegal alien, undocumented worker, Islamist, schizophrenic or pro-life. Instead they must use AP-approved squishy words such as: migrants, radicals, people diagnosed with schizophrenia and those who are anti-abortion.

The new AP rules on gender are so convoluted I won’t attempt to interpret them for you.

But when journalists venture away from the stylebook they often show a surprising lack of precision in their choice of words.

Take, for instance, the first big headline of the year for The Washington Post:

“Protesters storm U.S. Embassy in Baghdad”

Look carefully at the picture accompanying that story. I can think of lots of words to describe these guys with the battering ram. Protesters wouldn’t be one of them.

Terrorists would work. Members of a militia would, too. Violent Islamic radicals would also be accurate.

Just how busy or overworked would a copy editor have to be to stick the yawn-inducing noun “protesters” in that headline?

This is reminiscent of the headline The Post carelessly slapped on the story announcing the death of ISIS leader al-Baghdadi in October. The Post referred to this ruthless terrorist as an “austere religious scholar.”

The backlash was so strong the newspaper was forced to change the headline and issue an apology.

Yet in breaking news Thursday night, The Washington Post did it again. The newspaper reported that Qasem Soleimani had been killed in an American airstrike at the Baghdad International Airport. While most news outlets referred to the dead man as the head of the Iranian Quds force, The Post felt the need to add something.

According to The Post, Soleimani was a “most revered military leader.”

This man has American blood on his hands. He’s been destabilizing Iraq through proxies for years and he was in charge of the Shia militia that attacked our embassy.

A revered military leader? Do better, Washington Post.

Then again, the Post wasn’t quite as kind as Al Jazeera. This Qatar-based news agency referred to the seige at our embassy as a “sit in.”

As if this violent action was no different from students occupying the dean’s office.

How did The New York Times characterize the embassy attack, you wonder? With this headline: “Protesters Attack U.S Embassy in Iraq, Chanting “Death to America.”

Yep, protesters again.

It gets worse. The Times Twitter account linked to the story this way:

“Hundreds of Iraqi mourners tried to storm the United States Embassy in Baghdad.’

Iraqi mourners? Sheesh.

Any wonder trust in the media is plummeting? Someone please remind them that words matter.