You must log in or # to comment.
They’re a “ghurl” when it’s an adult waitress serving folks at a restaurant in Tuscan, but the moment its the president of the united states sticking his finger into a 13 year old’s genitals, she’s a “young women”. Fucking pedophiles from top to bottom.
Some are trying to dodge legal action against them, others are owned.
Well, all of them are owned.
There are a few out there still on the right side of history. Never enough thought.
I don’t see how it’s possible to be on the right side and still not publish, often and explicitly, that the person who is president and leader of republicans is a demented rapist conman who ran a child sex trafficking ring, staged a violent coup attempt, and routinely steals taxpayer money for himself while promoting the murder of American citizens and regularly commits war crimes proudly.
NOT saying that - every day in every way possible seems like capitulation if not collaboration.
Edit: just to state the obvious I’m not a publisher and if I were I’d make no money probably.
Not everyone has the fortitude of an Iranian school kid.
What legal action does calling a child an underage woman prevent?
Everyone who calls out the current administration as pedophiles will get sued by the administration, and they have a lot of federal judges under their belt. Rather than get drawn out in to a lengthy legal battle. If they soften the wording, they lower the chances of being the initial targets.
The media was the real villain all along.
Weird considering how often adult women are referred to as girls.
“Underage girls” would be technically redundant but in practice correct
Going out for drinks with the boys is almost always with adult men. A girls night out is often with adult women. We use boys and girls regularly to refer to adults depending on the context.
There’s also an entire genre of literature aimed at older children called young adult.
Boys abused by female teachers: “first time?”
Because trump and his friends that own all the media were the ones raping children
Didn’t we already do this exact post like 2 or 3 weeks ago?
Chomsky’s Manufacturing Consent is a confession and a revealing of the method
Yes. I don’t really look up to Chomsky anymore, but 70% of what he said are correct, the other 30% are genocide denialism and his shocking defense of Epstein even after the latter has been captured.
When I lived in Australia, we had floods. The news kept using the term “inundated” so much we turned it into a drinking game.
“This place is inundated”, “That place has inundation”, “Were expecting here to be inundated”. And you’re thinking, “With what? Zombies? Donations? Locusts? Oooooh, rain water. Yeah, that’s called flooding, not inundating.”
It was so weird, but all the news outlets did it.
You were flooded with articles about inundation? I bet using that term resulted in a flood of comments on those news pages.
Better than the US media. “Australia SLAMMED by flood.” “Flood BLASTS Australia.”
OMG so much better! Wow!
sexy
News media often have editorial requirements that ban themselves from using certain words. Sometimes it’s because the words are politically incorrect but other times it’s much more mysterious as to why they don’t use them.
When I worked for a newspaper we were asked by a campaigner not to use the phrase “committed suicide”, because it dated back to the days when suicide was a crime. We were asked to refer instead to someone having taken their own life. It made sense, so that’s what we did. You can call it “politically correct” I guess. I see it as just being sensitive to the feelings of people grieving for a loved one.
the words are politically incorrect
Ah yes, Republican projection strikes again.
Media been minimizing crimes for years through the concept of “sensitive topics”. Many users are so used to them they even self-censor. There is no murder or rape in media nowadays, people are simply “unalived” or “having involuntary sex”.
Probably trying to minimize the possibility that the words “child rape” or “pedophile” will occur within screenshotting distance of an ad for kid swimsuits or something. Journalistic integrity isn’t brand friendly.
It is a really weird thing to say, and you can still find a lot of articles that use the term “underage women”. But, it’s not like articles that use that term are necessarily trying to apologize for Epstein or minimize what happened.
I think the problem is that they want to use the term “underage” because they want to clarify that what happened wasn’t legal. The proper term for an “underage woman” is a “girl”. But, unfortunately, “girl” is also used with adult women. So, saying “Trump had sex with some of the girls” doesn’t really clarify what happened. And, the term “underage girls” is also bad. That’s the kind of language you might find from someone like Megyn Kelly trying to draw a distinction between sex with an 8 year old vs. sex with a 15 year old.
But, it’s not like articles that use that term are necessarily trying to apologize for Epstein or minimize what happened.
That’s a subjective interpretation, and a valid one, I just disagree with it.
Whether or not they’re “trying” to is even sort of irrelevant - it does minimize it. My opinion is that they know very well that that language minimizes it.
I’m sure I can find you a bunch of articles where there’s no sign they’re trying to minimize what happened but they happen to use that term. I just think English is tricky. What term do you think they should be using?
It depends, but “girls 11-14” might be a start.
That doesn’t work when the details are fuzzy, for example, this paragraph:
House Democrats Wednesday released a small batch of emails that appear to suggest President Donald Trump knew more about Jeffrey Epstein’s sex trafficking of underage women than he has acknowledged.
https://theweek.com/politics/house-democrats-release-epstein-emails-trump
You couldn’t say “Trump knew more about Jeffrey Epstein’s sex trafficking of girls 11-14 than he has acknowledged”. That suggests that the emails that were released referenced those specific ages, which they don’t.
You couldn’t say “Trump knew more about Jeffrey Epstein’s sex trafficking of girls 11-14 than he has acknowledged”.
You could say emails suggest Trump knew more about Jeffrey Epstein’s sex trafficking of girls 11-14 than he has acknowledged". You sure could. You sure should! It’s the truth! It’s recorded in many places, witnessed by many people!
You clearly have no idea how fact checking works in journalism. They couldn’t make that claim.
I (American) remember visiting the UK for the first time when I was like 8. I remember thinking it odd that they referred to “car accidents” as “car crashes.”
They’re not all accidents.
Are you sure you’re not remembering watching Hot Fuzz
Reminder to watch that again, though it seems to be on at least a yearly viewing. I could do more but don’t want my gf to never suggest it, it’s always a treat when she wants to watch it too. Seriously one of the best movies of all time (though at my age that list grows but probably only 20-30 now I don’t keep track).
Some quick searching reveals that this seems to be changing due to online discourse:
How old were the minors trafficked in the Epstein-case
The victims in the Jeffrey Epstein case were minors — overwhelmingly teenage girls — with reported ages spanning from early adolescence into the late teens; official federal court materials cite victims “as young as 14,” while civil complaints and news reports have claimed victims as young as 11, 13 and 16 in specific allegations
4. How language, sealed deals and settlements shaped public understanding of victims’ ages
Legal maneuvers — notably the secret 2008 non‑prosecution agreement and sealed filings — obscured the full record for years and limited public insight into precise victim counts and ages, contributing to variations in public reporting and the proliferation of civil claims when more documents were later unsealed [10]. Media guidance and public sensitivity also shaped descriptions: newsrooms corrected and cautioned against euphemisms like “underage women,” urging the terms “minors,” “girls” or “children” to reflect victims under 18 [12]. Settlements and redactions in civil litigation further complicate a single, authoritative age list [10].
My guess is that adolescent teenagers are sometimes referred to as “young men” or “young women”, and are generally distinct from prepubescent children. Given the early and ongoing obfuscation of the evidence, perhaps it’s an over-correction by the media towards generalized language. Teenage sexuality also exists, although when an adult is involved it’s legally referred to as statutory rape. Generally, the especially heinous “child rape” or “child sexual abuse” is reserved for pre-adolescents.
Here’s an interesting article detailing NPR’s editorial process after it used the controversial term “underage women”:
By 5 a.m. the next morning, Sprunt’s introduction had been reworked again, this time adding the inappropriate description of the victims. Marrapodi said the staff was trying to ensure that victims’ voices are present whenever appropriate
Marrapodi said several people were collaborating on the script and so he’s not assigning responsibility to a single person.
As NPR is a more a left-leaning, independently open, and sympathetic news organization, so I found it particularly interesting that they made this mistake. Someone on their review staff put the term back in during the editorial process and it makes me wonder, why would they?
As NPR is a more a left-leaning, independently open, and sympathetic news organization, so I found it particularly interesting that they made this mistake. Someone on their review staff put the term back in during the editorial process and it makes me wonder, why would they?
My good dude, I must tell you that with decades of experience in NPR and some fancy certifications in related disciplines, I and more than a few others are of the opinion that NPR is at best a centrist media outlet, and more often than not when they present a political news story they go to extreme lengths to highlight and distort implications that minimize damage to the republican party, period.
Not some of the time, not obviously, but every time, and discreetly to the uninitiated listener. It’s really, really infuriating.
while civil complaints and news reports have claimed victims as young as 11, 13 and 16 in specific allegations
Wasn’t there a epstein discovery a few weeks ago, where they discussed how to get a toddler to suck dick?
It was even worse - it was about infants.
It sounds like there’s been public backlash against that professor. “In response to protests and attention, Tramo’s profile page was removed from UCLA’s media guide on the university website. University officials have not publicly commented on any disciplinary actions.”
That last line makes me suspicious though. Why not publicly say what they’re doing about it? At this point, it’s clear that this rot is fucking everywhere. If the “university officials” won’t make it apparent they disagree, disapprove, and are willing to do something about it, then I’m ready to believe they’re all complicit.
Yes, yes, a thousand times YES!
I’ll take a stab at answering all three of these questions with one answer.
The reason it’s being reported like this, is because the same CEOs that own the media reporting it this way, are the same shithead CEOs that miss going to their favorite little island.
Lee Harvey Oswald was killed so he couldn’t talk about what he knew, and so was Epstein.
In both cases, too many people stood to be exposed for what they had done. Just in very different ways.
Had Epstein been able to talk, 99% of billionaires and elite would be exposed.
Many say so was Jack Ruby. But I digress.
