You must log in or # to comment.
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.
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.
Didn’t we already do this exact post like 2 or 3 weeks ago?
Boys abused by female teachers: “first time?”
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.
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”.
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.
Because trump and his friends that own all the media were the ones raping children
Is that why the media outlets that scream “orange man bad” all day long are also doing that damage control bullshit?
it doesn’t matter who’s in charge, the media is evil and you don’t hate them enough
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)
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.”
Australia pegged without lube by brutal floods.
Wait…with or without consent?
It’s Australia. We always consent to a good, hard pegging.
Yes.
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.
the words are politically incorrect
Ah yes, Republican projection strikes again.
We need socialism
Because the media is evil, the same people who helped jeffery do all that stuff are the same people who fund the media
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
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.
