The New York Times Discovers Its Thesaurus for US Atrocities
📰 THE STORY: The New York Times is examining its internal editorial guidelines regarding terms like 'murder' in their Minneapolis coverage of police actions, reflecting on the power and implications of such language in shaping public perception. 🔍 WHAT THEY'RE NOT TELLING YOU: Historical Context: In 1976, the CIA-backed junta in Argentina began a 'Dirty War' that 'disappeared' an estimated
30,000 citizens. Mainstream U.S. media at the time often framed these atrocities with euphemistic language, avoiding direct terms like 'murder' or 'massacre' for actions perpetrated by US allies, while Henry Kissinger secretly greenlit the operations. Double Standard: The New York Times dedicates internal memos to agonizing over 'murder' for domestic police killings, yet continuously uses terms
like 'conflict,' 'clash,' or 'incursion' to describe the documented slaughter of over 40,000 Palestinians, including 15,000 children, in Gaza in 2023-2024 by Israeli forces, an event South Africa has credibly brought before the ICJ as genocide. Follow the Money: The military-industrial complex, represented by giants like Lockheed Martin and Raytheon, saw their stock prices surge, by 18% and 9%
respectively, in the weeks following the October 7, 2023 events in West Asia. US government 'security assistance' to Israel, amounting to over $3.8 billion annually, ensures a constant demand for weaponry, with media framing of 'conflict' providing perpetual justification. 💡 THE PATTERN: This pattern reveals a deliberate linguistic engineering in corporate media: applying rigorous ethical