Why do even reputable orgs like Dropsite use incorrect, pro-Israeli wording like “Detained”
They weren’t “Detained by Israeli forces”, they were kidnapped from international waters by Israeli forces. Thats an important distinction, because Israel is doing international piracy.
Who has a positive association with the word “detained”? Detention doesn’t imply legitimacy. Also it’s really annoying when people police the wording of discussion. They’re not operating as a social club. Also it makes articles harder to search in the algorithm when you use obscure language. It is pretty clear that Drop Site News, an organization which frequently interviews leaders of Hamas, is not supporting Israel by using subliminal messaging.
As example of how “detained” does not imply legitimacy. The screenshot below shows headlines of the US-funded propaganda outlet DailyNK using the word detained to describe alleged actions of DPRK. Would you say that the outlet funded by the National Endowment for Democracy is using pro-DPRK language?
It legitimately makes discussing news harder when people scold language usage. It’s one thing to recognize that there are pro-Zionist outlets which use passive language whitewash Israel. It’s not realistic to expect news outlets to report in shibboleths.
This is my thing. It doesn’t imply rightness but it does imply that it was within their jurisdiction
The counter example was “American detained in North Korea” but that notably happened in North Korea. If North Korea kidnapped a boat full of Americans and Europeans from international waters, do you think NYT would be using the word “detained”?
Why do even reputable orgs like Dropsite use incorrect, pro-Israeli wording like “Detained”
They weren’t “Detained by Israeli forces”, they were kidnapped from international waters by Israeli forces. Thats an important distinction, because Israel is doing international piracy.
Who has a positive association with the word “detained”? Detention doesn’t imply legitimacy. Also it’s really annoying when people police the wording of discussion. They’re not operating as a social club. Also it makes articles harder to search in the algorithm when you use obscure language. It is pretty clear that Drop Site News, an organization which frequently interviews leaders of Hamas, is not supporting Israel by using subliminal messaging.
As example of how “detained” does not imply legitimacy. The screenshot below shows headlines of the US-funded propaganda outlet DailyNK using the word detained to describe alleged actions of DPRK. Would you say that the outlet funded by the National Endowment for Democracy is using pro-DPRK language?
It legitimately makes discussing news harder when people scold language usage. It’s one thing to recognize that there are pro-Zionist outlets which use passive language whitewash Israel. It’s not realistic to expect news outlets to report in shibboleths.
I don’t think it’s worth fighting over, but “detained” does sort of imply having jurisdiction, whether the act is morally right or wrong.
This is my thing. It doesn’t imply rightness but it does imply that it was within their jurisdiction
The counter example was “American detained in North Korea” but that notably happened in North Korea. If North Korea kidnapped a boat full of Americans and Europeans from international waters, do you think NYT would be using the word “detained”?
deleted by creator