Media Afraid to Call Ethnic Cleansing by Its Name
Media Afraid to Call Ethnic Cleansing by Its Name
Recent coverage of Gaza and the West Bank illustrates that, while corporate media occasionally outright call for expelling Palestinians from their land, more often the way these outlets support ethnic cleansing is by declining to call it ethnic cleansing.
Isn't "ethnic cleansing" itself a euphemism for genocide?
I think "ethnic cleansing" is a subset of genocide.
You are correct. Genocide encompasses ethnic, national, racial, or religious groups.
https://treaties.un.org/doc/publication/unts/volume%2078/volume-78-i-1021-english.pdf
Other way round. Genocide is a type of ethnic cleansing.
It can also mean displacement while genocide means the destruction, in whole or part, of a people. Things like the trail of tears are both: People were displaced, also, the US cared so little about native's lives that a quarter of the displaced straight-out died, which constitutes genocide. But it's in principle possible, and has occasionally happened, that the displacement doesn't go hand-in-hand with murder.
Y'all ever notice that arguments about how to call something steal oxygen away from what to do about it?
Genocide, ethnic cleansing, and mass-murder are just words. Calling it a pumpkin pie won't bring back one dead child.
Reality is independent from language. Words borrow meaning, they're not the source of it.
There's no such thing as just words.
Language is humanity's superpower. It's what allows us to share ideas, pass down knowledge generationaly, specialize labor, and form communities.
Words have meaning, and intentionally avoiding words that accurately describe events is incredibly harmful. There's a reason that when a school is bombed, they call a bunch of the 13-17yo victims "military-aged males" instead of "children."
Genocide, ethnic cleansing, and mass-murder are just words.
And language is extremely important to how we think and form our understanding of the world.
Words are importing because 80% of the population is unable to assert reality and will accept whatever wording is provided to them. Even when provided with evidence in 4K.
Yeah but by turning people away from the media we also isolate them from groups with similar ideals, forcing them into bubbles/echo-chambers which are easily radicalized to promote violence and insurgency.
Yeah, because when you do the Israel lobby crawls out and calls them a Jew hating Nazi.
Can we all just agree there is no "good" media? Journalism died for profits
No, there are some great independent outlets that are still doing exceptional journalism. Many of the new outlets were founded by reporters who came from mainstream or traditional media but were either laid off or quit because of the profit-above-all-else mindset. As citizens and news consumers this means we have to be pickier and more discerning when it comes to what we read, because we can’t trust that we’ll get everything we need from just a single newspaper anymore. But if you look around you’ll still find some very high quality journalism, it’s just a bit more diffuse than we’re used to.
The article itself claims that 87% of news outlets are avoiding the phrase “ethnic cleansing”. There are those that are calling it for what it is.
If you want an example: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/feb/05/un-chief-warns-against-ethnic-cleansing-after-donald-trump-gaza-proposal
“Journalist” is not an ethnicity but they can be cleansed too.
America did it to my people and never called it what it was and never made amends, and now Americans moralize to me about events across the planet lol
Real, the genocide started on 1947.
Can someone AI a concise list of all the papers which refused to tell the truth from the article?
You could just read it and make your own list instead of asking someone else to get AI to do it for them so they can collate a list for you.