You need to distinguish between legal and lay definitions, between how MSM and alternative media use the terms, between how media speaking on behalf of their employers and how media guests use the vocabulary, between reporter-speak and what reporters quote others as saying.
This, in a society where most people don't understand how to use quotation marks and over half the population, when surveyed, don't know how long it takes the Earth to revolve around the Sun.
18 U.S.C. § 2331 defines "international terrorism" and "domestic terrorism" for purposes of Chapter 113B of the Code, entitled "Terrorism”:
"International terrorism" means activities with the following three characteristics:
Involve violent acts or acts dangerous to human life that violate federal or state law;
Appear to be intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and
Occur primarily outside the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S., or transcend national boundaries in terms of the means by which they are accomplished, the persons they appear intended to intimidate or coerce, or the locale in which their perpetrators operate or seek asylum.*
"Domestic terrorism" means activities with the following three characteristics:
Involve acts dangerous to human life that violate federal or state law;
Appear intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination. or kidnapping; and
Occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S.
18 U.S.C. § 2332b defines the term "federal crime of terrorism" as an offense that:
Is calculated to influence or affect the conduct of government by intimidation or coercion, or to retaliate against government conduct; and
Is a violation of one of several listed statutes, including § 930(c) (relating to killing or attempted killing during an attack on a federal facility with a dangerous weapon); and § 1114 (relating to killing or attempted killing of officers and employees of the U.S.).
* FISA defines "international terrorism" in a nearly identical way, replacing "primarily" outside the U.S. with "totally" outside the U.S. 50 U.S.C. § 1801(c)
https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/investigate/terrorism/terrorism-definition
Already with "coerce a civilian population" we have to decide if we mean different subgroups or those living within a geographic area. I assume that's settled someplace else. I don't know how it's settled. On this hangs the definition of Roof's actions as "domestic terrorism." I find that my personal definition doesn't matter for interpreting federal statutes; neither SCOTUS nor the FBI are knocking at my door. It's clear Roof was not involved in the "federal crime of terrorism," so don't expect anybody speaking legally for the federal government to use it in any way that isn't primary just "I'm pissed off and speaking out of anger, not in my position as a federal official."
Then there's Hoffman's definition, courtesy of Wiki:
terrorism is a pejorative term. It is a word with intrinsically negative connotations that is generally applied to one's enemies and opponents, or to those with whom one disagrees and would otherwise prefer to ignore. (...) Hence the decision to call someone or label some organization 'terrorist' becomes almost unavoidably subjective, depending largely on whether one sympathizes with or opposes the person/group/cause concerned. If one identifies with the victim of the violence, for example, then the act is terrorism. If, however, one identifies with the perpetrator, the violent act is regarded in a more sympathetic, if not positive (or, at the worst, an ambivalent) light; and it is not terrorism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definitions_of_terrorism
That strikes me as a reasonable lay use of the term and why so many insist on using it. If you're into derogation--and some people are more into that than others--you want to use it all over the place. But in some sense solidarity comes into it, and some groups are trained to have more social solidarity than others. As Wiki points out, the subjective nature of the term suddenly becomes an issue for those wanting to make money as wordsmiths: If your audience is solidly against the group whose member did an act, or solidly behind the victims, you'd damned well better say "terrorist." Some here are lambasted regularly for not following the One True definition, those that evince the proper race/ethnic/class solidarity-based "guidelines" and dare to use a legal or most strictly connotative definition. If your audience, however, is more ambivalent ... Then you'll stay away from the term. In fact, you'll take great pains to argue against using the term, as we've seen fairly often when the guy with the gun is alleged to be a Muslim. Doubt is sown as to his Muslimness, or we must know more, ever more, before daring to use the term "terrorist." Which is sort of the opposite of your claim, to be honest--while I'm sure there are examples of the mainstream MSM using the word "terrorist" mostly out of connotation, I don't think they do this routinely. I think they avoid it, and that rather pointedly.
But that's the staid mainstream MSM speaking, the NYTs and LA Times, the NPRs and ABC Newses. It's not the outlier MSM, things like CNBC, Fox, Huffington, NY Post. They're more given to use the word because they're sensationalist and want to appeal to those of like mind, reinforcing social and group boundaries to outrage their viewship or readership and stoke brand loyalty.
But the MSM, mainstream and outlier, still quote people who use the word pretty much as Hoffman suggests most people use it most of the time. That usage is going to be all over the place, depending on personal bigotry and biases, stereotypes and personal (and adopted) past history. And that gets back as to how salient and memorable " " are for most people.
Throw in confirmation bias, the near universality of fast thinking, and all most people see is what is easy to remember, what plays to their personal narrative or the narrative they adopted.
= new reply since forum marked as read
