Shortly after Donald Trump was elected president in 2016, the Washington Post published this epic, and now outdated slogan. “Democracy dies in the dark.”
The ominous, sounding motto hoped to convey at once the brewing threat Trump brought to America’s corrupt republic and the Post’s rigorous and sincere commitment to maintaining the flickering light.
Well, Jeff Bezos, the owner of the post’s billionaire who was committed to getting newspapers to adopt the same catchphrase, finds it to be “darkness” that declares Code Blue.
In late February, Bezos hampered the so-called “independence” of the so-called editing of monochromatic opinion pages, like the Beltway of the Post by ordering editors to make it public to editors a free market-loving area about the inherent greatness of America’s “freedom” and “freedom.”
Sorry, but wasn’t the post typical?
In any case, Bezos’ oafish orders may be another attack on the US besieged “free press,” as his detractors argue, but at least his blatant “attack” is made publicly and unfairly specifically.
Much of the stubborn light-empt to Western media candidness is hidden behind the incredible hierarchical sorts and exaggerated expressions that should be rewritten to write “The truth dies in the darkness.”
This deception of this established institution is more sidic, as George Orwell once explained, always relies on explicit understanding to choose a relaxed language that “is designed to sound true and to honor lies.”
As a surprising example, consider the western press of the inhumane tricks of the Israeli-American axis towards Palestine. Before Bezos bought the fiery post, the English-speaking company outlets on both sides of the Atlantic were loyal couriers in every aspect of the Israeli axis, and in all aspects of the Middle East, and of course Gaza and the occupying West Bank.
These sparkling avatars of “all the news suitable for printing” have refused to call Israel an apartheid state for generations despite a thorough verdict made by plain human rights groups.
They also refuse to acknowledge or acknowledge that the Israeli-American axis, with a purposeful and ominous plan, is preparing to commit genocide in Gaza and do the same with an inclusive purpose to bring Palestinians and Palestinians back to dust and memory.
To prove this useful point, I did a rough check on how journalists working for the “major” Western English Media defined the enthusiastic purpose of the Israeli-American axis to forcibly expel more than two million Palestinians from Gaza and, of course, three million Palestinians from the West Bank, if necessary.
As expected, I have discovered that many Western reporters and editors have been spending a lot of time and energy recently, rather than using these two dull words, “ethnic cleansing.”
This is a list of benign words and phrases that we have discovered are being adopted in various ways by the BBC, Sky News, CNN, The New York Times, The Wassionton Post, and The Apsacege Press Wire Service: “Depopulate”, “Sky”, “Resettlement”, “Forward”, “Delete”, “Drive Out”, “Displace”.
Apart from the uncomfortable “depopulation” and “driving,” other deplorable colloquial words suggest that Palestinians voluntarily want to abandon their ancestors’ homelands to give way to Trump’s beachfront resorts.
But it’s a blasphemous humiliation against the truth that “mainstream” Western news organizations are peddling readers, listeners and viewers 24/7.
All fertility words and phrases are intended to obscure and disinfect wholesale atrocities assumed and approved by Israel and its Confederates, as Orwell understands, in Washington, London, Berlin, Paris, Ottawa and “Defence of Defence.”
Like the creepy politicians who claim they are accountable, most Western media is conditioned by their unwavering loyalty to Israel – the international law that it derides, even if it commits or contemplates, is to deliberately blind the anger of our rest of our lives.
These decisions are either contingent or not isolated.
Instead, they are the conscious and familiar choice of editors and reporters who are more interested in reconciliation than integrity, and to make them tasteless in the observance service of the apartheid regime of genocide and its enablers, in order to protect them from the huge responsibility of suffering they are responsible for.
Today’s distortion and avoidance of Anodin represents a calculated effort to negate and fill reality under a blizzard of lies.
As Orwell wrote in 1945, “The chunk of … falls into soft snowy facts, blurring the outlines and hiding all the details. The great enemy of a clear language is dishonest.”
As a result, it’s not difficult to imagine this scene unfolding in Big Western’s English newsroom every day.
Reporter: Boss, I know that ethnic cleansing is redundant. You need your help finding an alternative.
Editor: Have you searched on the thesaurus?
Reporter: Yes, but they were all taken away.
Editor: What about “unintentionally departing”?
Reporter: That’s a bit troublesome
Editor: No. It’s perfect.
Reporter: It’s okay. “Leave unwillingly” – at least for a convenient moment.
These are roughly the same as reporters and editors who have recently lamented Bezos and his belligerent push to “muscles.”
Hyperbolic protests are not only insincere, but also sign-sized testimony of hypocrisy in their lattice.
They are less of the “truth” ally than Jeff Bezos.
One Washington Post contributor has rushed to Bluesky to oppose “significant changes” to the purpose and direction of Bezos and opinions.
“As long as he is the owner, I will never write (the post) again,” the scribe announced.
That’s fine and I think it deserves praise.
Still, is he and his enraged colleagues inclined to embrace this challenge?
The “never” writing of newspapers that refuse to use “apartheid state”, “genocide” and “ethnic cleansing” is the use of “ethnic cleansing” that characterizes Israel’s grotesque purpose for Palestinian Palestinians.
You and I know it’s a rhetorical question, and I think that with so many courses, American journalists and his cowering peers also know the answer.
The views expressed in this article are the authors themselves and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera’s editorial stance.