[alva]

>"a ban on travelers from majority Muslim countries by a president who has promised his supporters a ban on Muslims" would that still be misleading?

That would be a very accurate summary. Not misleading in the slightest.

>" And if opponents of the ban called it a "Muslim ban", would media outlets be allowed to report on that fact?"

Absolutely, but it should not be presented as fact that "Donald Trump has enacted a Muslim Ban". "People have described this as a Muslim Ban" is a fair representation.

>For the record, I've seen NYT and BBC call this a "travel ban", "Trump's ban" and in quotes designed to indicate attribution "'Muslim ban'". All of these seem reasonable and factual

That is far more responsible. However if you google news search Muslim Ban on the day it was announced, this is Not what the majority of news sources were doing.

[burkaman]

> However if you google news search Muslim Ban on the day it was announced, this is Not what the majority of news sources were doing.

Are you sure? Here's the google search you're talking about: https://www.google.com/search?q=%22muslim+ban%22&safe=off&bi...

The only "muslim ban" usages are opinion articles or quotes.

[AnimalMuppet]

One minor nit. "A ban on travelers from certain majority Muslim countries..." would be accurate. As written, it implies every majority Muslim country is affected, which is not true.

Of course, the more clarifications you add, the less it reads like a headline...

[eplanit]

Exactly -- and this is a distinction that journalistic integrity is supposed to clarify. According to Wikipedia there are at least 22 majority Muslim countries[1]. If this were a "Muslim Ban", then much more than 7 (one third) would be listed.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_world#Countries_with_th...