When is a Terrorist not a Terrorist?

Apparently, when he is right-winger.

A week ago, Eric Rudolph was sentenced to life in prison without parole for a series of terrorist attacks, including the 1996 Olympic attack, as well as a series of bombs at abortion clinics in Atlanta meant to kill police and fire responders.

After his conviction, Rudolph published a manifesto saying that he committed his terrorist acts to protest abortion, homosexuality and the 'global socialism' of the Olympic Games.

I find it interesting that Rudolph is rarely called 'terrorist,' but rather 'bomber.' Een in the hometown Atlanta Journal Constitution, he is referred to as 'bomber,' not 'terrorist.'

So I Googled eric rudolph bomber and eric rudolph terrorist. The results were interesting. News stories reported Rudolph as 'bomber' 1250 times, and only 654 times as 'terrorist.' So, the corporate media is twice as likely to report him as 'bomber' than 'terrorist.'

So, I heard about that guy who was convicted of torching Hummers, to protest those Supersized Unamerican Vehicles. No one was killed in this act of vandalism. A Googling of this event shows that this vandal is called terrorist a whopping 6,890 times, or 5.5 times more than terrorist Eric Rudolph is called a terrorist.

Just to keep score:
'Eco-terrorist' killed 0, and injured 0.
Right-wing 'bomber' killed 2, and injured 150.

So, it appears that the 'liberal media' is much more willing to call a left-wing vandal a terrorist than it is to call a right-wing terrorist a terrorist.