• @Sterile_Technique
    link
    English
    -17 months ago

    So are they being criticized for visiting or vandalizing?

    This is some “calling a tsunami a wave” shit. Technically true? Absolutely. Communicating the important information? Hard miss.

    We see this diminishing language all the time and it drives me nuts.

    • Flying Squid
      link
      17 months ago

      Which do you think? I think both the headline and the article made it clear what they’re being criticized for.

      • @Sterile_Technique
        link
        English
        17 months ago

        They’re tiptoeing around what the vandals are by using mitigating language. It’s journalistic dishonesty. It’s the same kind of shit as headlines about Matt Gaetz “sleeping with a minor” or calling the Jan 6th insurrection a “protest” or “riot”, or headlines that use softer or harsher wording to describe the same actions by people of different races.

        They’re technically true. They all make it clear what they’re reporting on. But they do it in a way that mitigates or elevates the implied severity of the crime.

        Growing pet peeve of mine.

        • Flying Squid
          link
          07 months ago

          There’s nothing dishonest about it. They were visitors. They were destroying ancient rock formations at Lake Mead. It was entirely factual. They don’t need to be given the epithet of vandal before that has been decided in court anyway.