There’s a hot new term doing the rounds among media critics: “sanewashing.” The term itself actually isn’t new, and it wasn’t born in media-criticism circles, per se; according to Urban Dictionary, it was coined in 2020 on a Reddit page for neoliberals (which Linda Kinstler wrote about recently for CJR), and meant “attempting to downplay […]
  • thefartographer@lemm.ee
    23·
    2 months ago

    I feel like the media would roll this out in the most bad-faith and then evolve it in the most malignant way possible:

    • Both candidates discuss 2+2
    • Person B passionately argues values on 2+2
    • Is person A too ingrained in the establishment to consider new ideas on 2+2?
    • Person B campaign staff says person B will likely “soften tone on 2+2” after they win election
    • Person B supporters wear “5” to latest rally
    • Experts weigh in on the true meaning of 4 1/2
    • Person B says “4 is low-energy just like person A”
    • Should a 4-believer really be president just because person B is a rapist and a felon?
    • Person B won the election and it’s all your fault
    • aesthelete@lemmy.world
      9·
      2 months ago

      They write completely content-less headlines and articles that are so “neutral” they look like they were written by an extraterrestrial attorney.

      Guy A shoots guy B with a gun and they write it up as “spectators allege that the bullet that happened to strike B may likely have originated from the barrel of a gun that A has been said to have held in or around the same period where B happened to be struck”.

      I took journalism in high school and the instruction at the time was not to use the fucking passive voice…but that’s all the motherfuckers use…even when covering extremely high stakes shit.