The article explicitly says that the word "ethnic" isn't bad, just inappropriate for the coverage that they're doing. If you thought Orwell was saying that it was OK to use the wrong word to describe something, you've wildly misunderstood him.
Sounds to me like “ethnic tension” is the _right term_ to use and they’re avoiding using it because of political correctness
It's right there. They are not different ethnicities. They are different religions. The whole point of this is to avoid intellectual laziness and there you go proving their point.
Identity with or membership in a particular racial, national, or cultural group and observance of that group's customs, beliefs, and language.
I'm sure I could be reading too much into this, but I can't help but view this editorializing under the light of the current post-modern deconstructionist wave overtaking many parts of society, journalism especially. I imagine someone shocked to discover that readers out here have a mental category for conflicts they don't follow very closely, because its contours fit their priors about constantly quarreling people. This person understands that categorization as a moral outrage, especially if the Right People (read: anyone suffering "oppression") are doing the quarrelling, and sets about to correct it and make sure nobody is able to use this evil mental category again.
Maybe this wasn't an "ethnic" conflict, but maybe it's not AP's job to tell me which conflicts to slot into my "those people are fighting again" category and which to pay renewed attention to?
I didn't think I needed to so comprehensively elaborate on such a simple point, but for the avoidance of doubt: the article implies the word is bad for the purposes of informative and accurate journalism.
You could probably use a scaling or brick hammer as a flat bladed screwdriver in a pinch.
If you’re talking about sledges, well yeah, but that’s a ridiculous strawman (straw ungendered humanoid? Is there an acceptable replacement word yet?)