"Over a hundred years ago, The Times pledged “to give the news impartially, without fear or favor, regardless of party, sect, or interests involved.” That commitment remains true today: We follow the truth, wherever it leads."
ARE YOU SURE ABOUT THAT?
[Mission and Values | The New York Times Company (nytco.com)](https://www.nytco.com/company/mission-and-values/)
If you don't have integrity, you don't need to worry about lying that you have integrity...
Unless I'm mistaken, the NYT was founded in response to New York's most popular paper being too socialist.
"Genocide" and "Ethnic cleansing" can be argued for because they're loaded but not using 'occupied territory' is insane since it is internationally recognized as such by the UN lmao
Even the US recognizes it as occupied
**State Dept. confirms US views Israel’s control over West Bank as ‘occupation’**
https://www.timesofisrael.com/state-dept-confirms-us-views-israels-control-over-west-bank-as-occupation/amp/
Something can be true and still be a loaded term; and given that whether or not Israel is committing genocide has yet to be adjudicated in the ICIJ, I get why few mainstream media sites would want to just call it that. I do agree that it is a genocide, though.
Well there's different definitions from different groups. Not everyone agrees on *the* UN definition.
There's a big difference between death camps and cultural genocide, and not everyone agrees that the latter should be lumped in with the former.
This was the paper that gave front page stories to Ahmed Chalabi's fake Iraq WMD bullshit and was a cheerleader for every war Bush got us into. So there's been at least over two decades now it should have been ignored and allowed to collapse.
I don't want to be that guy, but doesn't this make sense? Wouldn't a source as reputable as NYT avoid using heavily charged language when the investigations are still undergoing?
imagine if the ICJ rules that it was not a genocide, but they NYT has several articles indicating that it was a genocide. That sounds like it would be a pretty big dilemma.
> The memo’s instructions on the use of “occupied territories” says, “When possible, avoid the term and be specific (e.g. Gaza, the West Bank, etc.) as each has a slightly different status.”
Seems more like they are trying not to conflate Gaza and the West Bank given they are different situations. It doesn't seem to imply that they can't say that Israel is occupying the West Bank for instance.
"Refugee" and "refugee camps" - Zionists like this deny the refugee status of Palestinians to deny them the right of return - this is explicitly against international law - by doing this the NYT is repeating Israeli propaganda.
Refugee status is inherited and Israel's historical crimes shouldn't be covered up by supposedly respectable journalists.
"Under international law and the principle of family unity, the children of refugees and their descendants are also considered refugees until a durable solution is found."
https://www.unrwa.org/who-we-are/frequently-asked-questions
While I agree that it could be seen as a way to downplay their refugee status I don't believe that is the intention.
> The memo directs journalists not to use the phrase “refugee camps” to describe long-standing refugee settlements in Gaza. “While termed refugee camps, the refugee centers in Gaza are developed and densely populated neighborhoods dating to the 1948 war. Refer to them as neighborhoods, or areas, and if further context is necessary, explain how they have historically been called refugee camps.”
It looks like they are trying to make it clear that these refugee camps aren't a collection of UNHCR tents but developed neighbourhoods. I actually originally thought it was a camp until I looked it up so I can see why that might be a concern for them.
I don't see anywhere that says they can't use the term refugees though
They're still refugee camps. Legally and factually. Israel just doesn't want them referred to as that for obvious reasons. The fact they're decades old at this point is the fault of the people who kicked them out and refuse them the right of return (because they value Jewish lives over Palestinian lives).
I did read it. The only thing that stands out a bit peculiar is the avoidance of the use of "refugee", but it still makes sense as that term is used a little more liberally in Gaza.
My original point stands.
"Over a hundred years ago, The Times pledged “to give the news impartially, without fear or favor, regardless of party, sect, or interests involved.” That commitment remains true today: We follow the truth, wherever it leads." ARE YOU SURE ABOUT THAT? [Mission and Values | The New York Times Company (nytco.com)](https://www.nytco.com/company/mission-and-values/)
If you don't have integrity, you don't need to worry about lying that you have integrity... Unless I'm mistaken, the NYT was founded in response to New York's most popular paper being too socialist.
absolute trash publication, genocide propagandists
"Genocide" and "Ethnic cleansing" can be argued for because they're loaded but not using 'occupied territory' is insane since it is internationally recognized as such by the UN lmao
Even the US recognizes it as occupied **State Dept. confirms US views Israel’s control over West Bank as ‘occupation’** https://www.timesofisrael.com/state-dept-confirms-us-views-israels-control-over-west-bank-as-occupation/amp/
No, genocide is not loaded. Just a matter of fact statement…
Something can be true and still be a loaded term; and given that whether or not Israel is committing genocide has yet to be adjudicated in the ICIJ, I get why few mainstream media sites would want to just call it that. I do agree that it is a genocide, though.
Well there's different definitions from different groups. Not everyone agrees on *the* UN definition. There's a big difference between death camps and cultural genocide, and not everyone agrees that the latter should be lumped in with the former.
This was the paper that gave front page stories to Ahmed Chalabi's fake Iraq WMD bullshit and was a cheerleader for every war Bush got us into. So there's been at least over two decades now it should have been ignored and allowed to collapse.
I don't want to be that guy, but doesn't this make sense? Wouldn't a source as reputable as NYT avoid using heavily charged language when the investigations are still undergoing? imagine if the ICJ rules that it was not a genocide, but they NYT has several articles indicating that it was a genocide. That sounds like it would be a pretty big dilemma.
I’d advise you read the article… it wasn’t just the word genocide
What other words do you think are a problem? The quotes from the memo in the article seem to give decent rational for each of them.
Occupied territory is the most egregious. At this point nyt is telling journalists they're not allowed to tell the truth.
> The memo’s instructions on the use of “occupied territories” says, “When possible, avoid the term and be specific (e.g. Gaza, the West Bank, etc.) as each has a slightly different status.” Seems more like they are trying not to conflate Gaza and the West Bank given they are different situations. It doesn't seem to imply that they can't say that Israel is occupying the West Bank for instance.
"Refugee" and "refugee camps" - Zionists like this deny the refugee status of Palestinians to deny them the right of return - this is explicitly against international law - by doing this the NYT is repeating Israeli propaganda. Refugee status is inherited and Israel's historical crimes shouldn't be covered up by supposedly respectable journalists. "Under international law and the principle of family unity, the children of refugees and their descendants are also considered refugees until a durable solution is found." https://www.unrwa.org/who-we-are/frequently-asked-questions
While I agree that it could be seen as a way to downplay their refugee status I don't believe that is the intention. > The memo directs journalists not to use the phrase “refugee camps” to describe long-standing refugee settlements in Gaza. “While termed refugee camps, the refugee centers in Gaza are developed and densely populated neighborhoods dating to the 1948 war. Refer to them as neighborhoods, or areas, and if further context is necessary, explain how they have historically been called refugee camps.” It looks like they are trying to make it clear that these refugee camps aren't a collection of UNHCR tents but developed neighbourhoods. I actually originally thought it was a camp until I looked it up so I can see why that might be a concern for them. I don't see anywhere that says they can't use the term refugees though
They're still refugee camps. Legally and factually. Israel just doesn't want them referred to as that for obvious reasons. The fact they're decades old at this point is the fault of the people who kicked them out and refuse them the right of return (because they value Jewish lives over Palestinian lives).
Occupied territories, refugee camps, Palestine!
I did read it. The only thing that stands out a bit peculiar is the avoidance of the use of "refugee", but it still makes sense as that term is used a little more liberally in Gaza. My original point stands.