... since those brutal killings were at other places in town, and not hitting the students. Calling it the "Tiananmen Square Massacre" gives China a too easy way to deny it. Nitpicking, but this is used in training for journalists as an example of how such a false narrative can spoil the full story.
This is what a journalist from The Washington Post, who was there, has reported:
...It is hard to find a journalist who has not contributed to the misimpression. Rereading my own stories published after Tiananmen, I found several references to the Tiananmen massacre. At the time, I considered this space-saving shorthand. I assumed the reader would know that I meant the massacre that occurred in Beijing after the Tiananmen demonstrations. But my fuzziness helped keep the falsehood alive.
The facts of Tiananmen have been known for a long time. When Clinton visited the square this June, both The Washington Post and The New York Times explained that no one died there during the 1989 crackdown. But these were short explanations at the end of long articles. I doubt that they did much to kill the myth.
Not only has the error made the American presss frequent pleas for the truth about Tiananmen seem shallow, but it has allowed the bloody-minded regime responsible for the June 4 murders to divert attention from what happened. There was a massacre that morning. Journalists have to be precise about where it happened and who were its victims, or readers and viewers will never be able to understand what it meant. ...
Many others were killed during the following riot, but the students lived on. Hopefully many of them are still carrying and spreading that dream of change, and one day they will succeed.