Media’s defense of ‘precision’ on the beheaded babies story is nonsense.

In keeping with the tone of the‍ rest of the corporate media,​ features writer for New York Magazine’s Intelligencer⁣ Eric Levitz tripped‌ over himself⁢ over the ‍weekend to label the ⁤ reports that Israeli babies were decapitated an​ “overstatement.”

Levitz openly acknowledged in an X‌ thread that “babies were⁢ found headless” but stopped‌ shy of ⁤accusing​ Hamas of beheading them. In fact, he said babies being found without their heads “does not ‍prove” they were‍ beheaded.

“(The verb behead⁤ has multiple definitions, and is sometimes used to mean⁤ decapitate; the ‍report​ indicates⁣ that Hamas‌ did ‍behead babies in that sense,” Levitz added in a parenthetical. “But the term⁢ can also connote​ a form of execution using a knife, and‌ we⁤ do not have‍ confirmation‌ of‌ beheading ⁢in this sense).” ‍

After facing an avalanche of criticism, Levitz later complained that his post was “misconstrued” as “an apology ‌for ⁢Hamas.” He was “insist[ing] on precision,” he said.

On the contrary, his ‌explanation just exposed him⁤ as yet another cog in the⁢ corrupt media machine that has spent the ​past⁣ few weeks trying to draw a ⁢distinction between headless ⁢ babies and beheaded babies and burned-alive ⁤ babies and those barbarically murdered in ‌countless⁢ other unspeakable ways.

But it’s a distinction without a difference — and ‌it’s made all the more curious by the ⁤corporate media’s habitual language manipulation and equivocating. Why‌ is⁤ it that the same media footsoldiers who split hairs⁣ parsing out whether‍ a headless ‌child can accurately be ⁤called‌ “beheaded” ⁢have no qualms about calling a singular trans-identified person “they” or calling an elective abortion an​ exercise in “reproductive rights” as if the preborn child’s rights were considered in the matter?

This is what happens when today’s self-appointed arbiters of information, and the ⁣so-called journalists ⁤they employ, ‍ “surrender” words​ for the sake of ⁤a narrative. ​Because whether Levitz knows it or ​not, and ‌contrary to his claim, the left’s fight over language isn’t about “precision.” It’s about politics. For years, the corporate media have ditched⁤ linguistic​ accuracy to promote​ their favorite causes.

For ⁤instance, have you ever noticed​ the way the media throw ⁤around euphemisms like “pro-choice” for ‍abortion supporters and “anti-abortion rights”⁤ for ⁤pro-lifers?​ A quick little web search turns⁣ up countless‌ big media⁤ organizations⁢ that use this nasty tactic: ABC, The Atlantic, Politico, BBC, ⁣ Forbes, ‍ NPR, NBC, Axios, PBS, CBS, CNN, ⁤ The New York⁣ Times, Reuters, ⁤ MSNBC, The Washington Post, The Hill, Time Magazine, and New York Magazine, which employs⁣ Levitz. Good luck ‍finding a corporate⁢ outlet that doesn’t use this ⁤corrupt‌ framing.

Notice⁣ also‌ how corporate media use terms like ⁤“abortion clinic” and​ “abortion doctor” for people​ and places⁢ that perform abortions, as ‌opposed to the far more accurate⁤ “abortion facility” and “abortionist.” After all, while clinics are places​ of help and healing, and ⁣doctors take ‍the ‍Hippocratic oath‍ to⁢ “do no harm,”⁣ abortion intentionally ends​ an innocent human life. Yet you won’t see corporate media journalists producing social media threads analyzing ‍the⁣ accuracy of these terms.

The same goes for ⁣the lexicon of⁢ sexual ⁣politics. The media‍ endlessly parrot phrases like “gender-affirming ‌care,” “gender-reassignment surgery,” and “sex change” ⁣ad⁣ nauseum, yet never do they pause ​to consider that there’s nothing “affirming” nor “caring” about permanently altering the healthy ‌body of a confused or mentally ill person. Nor can one “reassign” something that was never “assigned” in the first place. Nor ‌can a person change his or her ​sex. They likewise readily publish ‍terms like ‍“cisgender,” “nonbinary,” “trans man,” or “trans woman,” which are a plain insult to science.

It’s not just so-called culture war‍ issues, either. ⁣The media take the same tack with less nefarious things, such as ​calling massive government spending ⁤an “investment” when we’ll never⁢ see a return on it. Or referring⁢ to certain⁣ groups as “communities” to pretend they’re a monolith — like the “LGBT community” (as if​ men pretending to be ​women who make up the “T” ​aren’t destroying the “L’s”) or the “black community” (as ⁢if ​all ⁢people with dark skin vote and think and act alike).

These words and phrases⁤ the media ‍use every ‍day belie their stated concern for accuracy. The word choices have⁤ nothing to do with reflecting reality and everything to do with reshaping ‍ it in Democrats’ ​image.

Thus, their collective ⁣chipping away at our primary means of⁣ communication has resulted in poisons like political correctness and braindead Marxism,‌ which erodes society with ignorant and iconoclastic rallying ⁤cries like “silence⁤ is⁢ violence.”​ It’s⁤ the epitome of language capture, and its aims have​ become⁤ painfully clear.

There’s a reason ​there is no major‌ media outcry when dictionaries and ​newsroom style guides manipulate definitions to best disarm ​the left’s political opponents. The left and its media minions are not afraid to​ sacrifice ⁢language and ⁣definitions on their partisan altar to get what they want. From libraries to living‍ rooms, ‍Ukraine to universities, to elections and abortions and mostly⁢ peaceful protests — ‍the media machine has memorized each script and recited it daily.

That’s probably because the left understands something very important about language ⁣that‌ too many on ⁤the right‌ don’t: If you​ set the terms of the debate, you’ve​ already won it.

The next ⁣time the people who refer to ⁤men ⁣as “she” want to chastise the public for calling the diabolical ⁤decapitation of babies “beheadings,” reject it. As​ with ​murders in the womb, so with⁢ murders in Kfar Aza — the corrupt ‌press don’t‌ deal in accuracy, precision, or fact. They’re far more interested in political games,⁢ like questioning the legitimacy⁤ of confirmed baby‍ beheadings ‍for ‌weeks while publishing terrorist propaganda⁢ as truth.