Journalists have seemingly been co-opted into using the Obama administration's all-encompassing rhetoric for "the Muslim world."

In references to relevant developments in international politics, media outlets appear to have adopted the common phraseology to lump nations whose dominant religion is Islam under a single banner.

But as New York Times op-ed contributor Efraim Karsh, of King's College London, pointed out in his piece Sunday, majority-Muslim countries appear to have far more complex relations than you might think.

From the Crusades—one of the earliest possible chances for a united Muslim front to face off against Christian enemies—to today's emotions of discontent about Iran or Israel, Muslims have had historic divisions, he writes.

In fact, he observes, Muslim nations have often split apart to pursue their own interests, sometimes allying with nations like the United States that other Muslim countries might consider enemies.

In today's media discourse, however, the Obama administration's dealings with nations as diverse as Turkey, Pakistan, Egypt and Indonesia are generally all referred to as being a part of its interactions with "the Muslim world," despite each country's distinctive and nuanced positions on international affairs.

Recent articles ranging from news updates about a Danish newspaper that published cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed to a feature on an exhibit of author Salman Rusdie's works have adopted the phrase without qualification. And foreign media, even in what some might consider to be the most representative of the so-called Muslim world, have also been guilty of using the blanket tag. For example, an article on Qatar-based Al Jazeera's website about a recent speech from Secretary of State Hillary Clinton uses the term.

But regardless of who is using the label, journalists should be more mindful of how they might be categorizing the world's 1.57 billion Muslims as one united entity with a uniform focus.

When describing President Obama's famed speech to the Muslim world or Clinton's diplomatic meetings with leaders in Muslim countries, for example, journalists should portray such efforts for what they are: an attempt to reach out to a diverse set of countries who happen to share a common religion, but have varied concerns.

Even simply referring to "Muslim countries" or "Muslim leaders" rather than "the Muslim world" would better inform readers that the community comprises independent actors rather than one united bloc. While some brief elaboration on the range of majority-Muslim countries and their concerns would be ideal, any subtle indication of their diversity could potentially avoid perpetuating the erroneous perception that all Muslim countries and perhaps all Muslims share common goals and interests.

Simplified views of world affairs are based on similarly inaccurate descriptions that have often led to negative stereotypes about large and misunderstood world constituencies, including communists, Hindus and Muslims. Journalists do a service to news consumers by portraying these groups in all their complexity.

Zain Shauk is a Los Angeles-based journalist and a graduate of the University of Southern California's Annenberg School for Communication & Journalism.