The editors at NYT continue to #sanewash Trump, by calling his bigotry "nativism" and his lies "disputed statements."

[Dennis Donovan]

Jonah Blank
-The editors at NY Times (and other media outlets) continue to #sanewash Trump, by calling his bigotry "nativism" and his lies "disputed statements."
-Thank you 🙏🏽, Aaron Rupar, for documenting the big story -- one that the media is mystifyingly unwilling to adequately cover.

Aaron Rupar
2h
Trump’s closing message is a full blown hate campaign against black and brown people. Historians will look back in astonishment that this terrifying reality wasn’t the subject of wall to wall coverage and commentary in weeks leading up to this election. He’s not hiding anything.

2:16 PM · Oct 12, 2024

The NYT will be remembered for their poor editorial choices long after this election.

Link to tweet

[TwilightZone]

1. Nativism is not a positive.

It is more specific and descriptive than bigotry and has no less of a negative connotation. It's usually paired with or compared to xenophobia.

I often wonder if the people who write these criticisms of language even understand the language they're criticizing. This isn't giving Trump a pass. It's calling him out for being vehemently anti-immigrant. That's what nativism is.

[Silent Type]

2. Exactly. Christ, NYT readers ain't stupid enough to miss the meaning of "Nativist attacks."

If anyone needs a definition, look it up—

“nativism, an ideology, governmental policy, or political stance that prioritizes the interests and well-being of native-born or long-established residents of a given country over those of immigrants, typically by advocating or enacting restrictions on immigration. Those who hold this view tend to reject or avoid the term nativist and instead identify themselves as “patriots,” “nationalists,” or “populists.” However, nativism is not equivalent to patriotism, nationalism, or populism; indeed, it has more in common with xenophobia and racism.”

[senseandsensibility]

3. No one is accusing the NYT of not using the language correctly

However, using academic words that most people don't understand instead of the clearest, simplest words is specifically discouraged in journalism. Journalism is not an academic paper read by scholars in the discipline being discussed. I was specifically taught in my college journalism courses to use the simplest language possible to make my reporting easy to understand by the most readers. So, by using this type of language, the reporter is obscuring the meaning, and making it less obvious what trump is doing.

[B.See]

4. Agreed. 'Nativism' might

pass as a high-brow psuedo-intellectual alternative for 'bigoted rabble rousing race peddling fascist," but imo, "disputed statements" amounts to a bullshit cosmopolitan whitewash if ever there was one.

[senseandsensibility]

6. Yes, the reporter in this case is not following journalistic standards

If anyone is curious, there is a handbook reporters use which is considered the "bible" of journalism. It's called Strunk and White Elements of Style. Use of the simplest possible language is one of the "commandments".

[multigraincracker]

5. I like to watch the news on the BBC and CBC.

A lot more balanced and no political ads that tend to raise my blood pressure.

[mn9driver]

7. I submitted a comment yesterday to NYT on this very thing

Pointing out that “racist” was the more accessible and appropriate word for this headline. Of course, it wasn’t approved.

[ramedy]

8. The NYT is trash.

It’s sad that what was once a respected news organization has been completely cowed by MAGA. Totally in the tank for racist Trump. I hope Kamala continues to ignore them even after she is elected. They undermine democracy in the name of monetization of “news”, and should be relegated to a trash bin. It’s a disgrace.

[doc03]

9. Disputed statements another way of saying alterative facts. nt