Sanewashing NYT headline protecting Trump the bully.

[Swede]

Once again, fear of displeasing Trump is determining NYT headlines, this time we see a use of the passive voice to protect him. A tragic mistake to appease him constantly and a failure of journalism.

Link to tweet

[Dennis Donovan]

1. Sanewashing is being called out!

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100219559965

[Silent Type]

2. Fortunately, the vast majority of NYT's readers know "Nativist attacks" ain't nice.

“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.”

[TwilightZone]

4. Yeah, I don't get the criticism.

They're not protecting him. They're calling him out for being vehemently anti-immigrant. That's what nativism is.

I think we've become so accustomed to knee-jerk criticizing the media that it's clouding our judgment.

[TwilightZone]

3. 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.

It boggles my mind that Ruth Ben-Ghiat doesn't seem to know this. I think that's impossible, frankly, and I'm not sure what to make of that.

[muriel_volestrangler]

5. She knows that; that's why she's talking about "passive", not "positive" or "negative"

"Is marked by" is the passive voice, grammatically. It tells us there were "nativist attacks", but it doesn't tell us that it was Trump who made them. It would be quite possible, going from that headline, that the "nativist attacks" were by spectators, or even protesters outside the rally.

[TwilightZone]

6. Oh, please.

No one is going to think that a headline about a Trump rally is referring to comments someone else made.

Especially if they actually read said article instead of taking the headline out of context. Said article that was conveniently and intentionally left out of the post.

Some people are trying much, much too hard to see things that simply aren't there. Reading for context is apparently a lost art, but intentional ignorance is apparently all the rage.

[muriel_volestrangler]

7. Context? The sub-head is both-siding it too

"The former president continues to make claims about the city that have been disputed by local officials, including its Republican mayor"



Yes, if people click through that to read the full article, they do get a proper description:

"Former President Donald J. Trump escalated the nativist, anti-immigration rhetoric that has animated his political career with a speech Friday in Aurora, Colo., where he repeated false and grossly exaggerated claims about undocumented immigrants that local Republican officials have refuted."

But if your website home page downplays the hatred and racism, then many people won't read it. The reporter may not be playing down Trump's racism; it's the editors.

PBS does a lot better: "WATCH: Trump pushes false narrative of rising migrant crime at Colorado rally"