You must log in or register to comment.
Because trump and his friends that own all the media were the ones raping children
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.
Now imagine that
(It’s a fucking tablet. In 2026. I can’t get over it)
Chomsky’s Manufacturing Consent is a confession and a revealing of the method
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.
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
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.
Weird considering how often adult women are referred to as girls.
“Underage girls” would be technically redundant but in practice correct
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.”
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.
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.
