A New York Times article today on the coup in Mauritania uses three different words for it: coup, ouster and putsch. Coup is of French origin, ouster is Anglo-Norman, and putsch is German, according to the American Heritage online dictionary. Now that's diversity. I don't get why some writers feel the need to mix it up like that. There's nothing wrong with repeating a word. The idea isn't needed that many times in the article, and it's distracting when a word like putsch suddenly appears halfway into and article that has been talking about a coup.
This is an early Web story. I wonder if the variation will persist to tomorrow's printed paper.