I don’t think so. They were in the wrong place at the wrong time and lived to tell about it - that’s all. MHO, of course.
The First Responders are another story, but that’s their job and they aren’t supposed to feel that way about themselves in the first place.
What do y’all think?
Not heros. But they went through something terrible. We need a word for that instead of “victims”
I would say that any of them that chose to continue placing themselves in danger, or chose to neglect taking care of their own wounds, in order to help others would qualify. The rest, not so much.
“Survivors”
Just right.
Is there a move afoot to call them heroes??
So far, it’s the word used to describe them on every news outlet I follow, which BTW does not include Faux Noize.
What do you mean “so far”? The bombing occurred a year ago. 
Or is this like some one-year tribute type thing?
They are surviving victims sensationalized to heroic proportions by the tragically hyperbolic news media cycle.
Being in the wrong place at the wrong time isn’t heroic. Responding to an awful situation with grace, humor, strength and fearlessness through recovery is heroic.
Can you throw us some cites for context?
It’s just media speak, all language is inflated, everything is larger-than-life. Another example would be the language used to describe anyone surviving cancer (especially children) - “tough”, “a fighter”. The truth is of course that many that don’t survive have just as much will to live, they’re simply not as lucky.
Some of them, maybe all, have been heroic in the sense of overcoming great tragedy and harm in the public eye. They are not heroes for being in the wrong place at the wrong time, but for demonstrating the ability of people to overcome adversity, something they chose to do.
At the risk of criticizing people we (I) don’t know… How do we know they are “heroic in the sense of overcoming” anything. For all we know, many of them might be angry, bitter and depressed over the unfairness of it all. They may be sitting at home binge drinking or abusing pain killers and feeling deeply sorry for themselves. They are alive because they were not fatally injured, not through some personal heroic act of will.
I’m sure I’m wrong. I’m sure most of them are doing the best they can. I hope none of them are feeling depressed and hopeless and doing self harm. But we can’t simply ascribe heroic labels for not dying. Else, what do we call those who succumb to depression and end their own lives not being able to deal with the cards they were dealt?
The real heroes are the people who point out that other people aren’t real heroes. I’m inclined to agree that being in the wrong place at the wrong time doesn’t make you a hero on its own and heroism is determined by what you choose to do and how you respond to the circumstance you find yourself in. “Survivor” is perfectly accurate. But I don’t think we need to be the Hero Police either. This use of the word is intended to show reflect the fact that these people went through something extremely difficult and show support. It’s not needed but it’s not a grave offense either.
I wouldn’t say that’s inaccurate. Most people with serious illnesses do struggle to survive and you see people described as fighters whether they survive or not. The problem, as you go on to say, is that this phrasing suggests willpower and attitude is what determines who lives and who dies.
Did you accidentally type “aren’t” when you meant to type “are the” in the first sentence?
No. I was being very, very sarcastic. But in doing so I may have implied something kind of unfair about nearwildheaven’s motives in posting this thread, which wasn’t what I intended.
I’m not sure we do. No one wants to be a victim, because it means something bad happened to them. That doesn’t mean the word has to be so associated with negativity that it’s considered an insult to people who had something bad happen to them. If we change it to “survivors” or “kanchikos”, all that will happen is that in a few years people will be saying “We need another word for ‘survivor’ or ‘kanchiko’. We need a way to say that something bad happened to them, but not one that means something bad happened to them, because something bad happened to them and that would be insensitive.”
The media has a way of jumping onto these stories and immediately labeling everything and everyone trying to put it in black and white terms with no gray areas.
Look at the school stabbing near Pittsburgh. Suddenly they have to find who the “heroes” were. Who can we label as “victims”. Who can we label as “Survivors”. And can we find a one word label for the motive? Was it the dreaded “bullying”? No? How about the newest label “Mental illness”?
The whole labeling of everything has to be the laziest form of reporting. Either that or they’re trying to report in a way the lowest common denominators will understand.
That’s a human tendency expressed via reporting, not just bad reporting. Although it can also be bad reporting.
Here’s an older story from “The Onion” which expresses a similar sentiment very well.
I survived the Boston bombing, and the 9/11 attacks, and the Japanese tsunami, and Chernobyl and 3 Mile Island.
I am a super hero.