You must log in or register to comment.
Well that would be yet another new definition then.
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)
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.
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
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
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.
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.
Better than the US media. “Australia SLAMMED by flood.” “Flood BLASTS Australia.”
Australia pegged without lube by brutal floods.
Wait…with or without consent?
Yes.
It’s Australia. We always consent to a good, hard pegging.
OMG so much better! Wow!
sexy
Because the media is evil, the same people who helped jeffery do all that stuff are the same people who fund the media
Some quick searching reveals that this seems to be changing due to online discourse:
How old were the minors trafficked in the Epstein-case
The victims in the Jeffrey Epstein case were minors — overwhelmingly teenage girls — with reported ages spanning from early adolescence into the late teens; official federal court materials cite victims “as young as 14,” while civil complaints and news reports have claimed victims as young as 11, 13 and 16 in specific allegations
4. How language, sealed deals and settlements shaped public understanding of victims’ ages
Legal maneuvers — notably the secret 2008 non‑prosecution agreement and sealed filings — obscured the full record for years and limited public insight into precise victim counts and ages, contributing to variations in public reporting and the proliferation of civil claims when more documents were later unsealed [10]. Media guidance and public sensitivity also shaped descriptions: newsrooms corrected and cautioned against euphemisms like “underage women,” urging the terms “minors,” “girls” or “children” to reflect victims under 18 [12]. Settlements and redactions in civil litigation further complicate a single, authoritative age list [10].
My guess is that adolescent teenagers are sometimes referred to as “young men” or “young women”, and are generally distinct from prepubescent children. Given the early and ongoing obfuscation of the evidence, perhaps it’s an over-correction by the media towards generalized language. Teenage sexuality also exists, although when an adult is involved it’s legally referred to as statutory rape. Generally, the especially heinous “child rape” or “child sexual abuse” is reserved for pre-adolescents.
Here’s an interesting article detailing NPR’s editorial process after it used the controversial term “underage women”:
By 5 a.m. the next morning, Sprunt’s introduction had been reworked again, this time adding the inappropriate description of the victims. Marrapodi said the staff was trying to ensure that victims’ voices are present whenever appropriate
Marrapodi said several people were collaborating on the script and so he’s not assigning responsibility to a single person.
As NPR is a more a left-leaning, independently open, and sympathetic news organization, so I found it particularly interesting that they made this mistake. Someone on their review staff put the term back in during the editorial process and it makes me wonder, why would they?
As NPR is a more a left-leaning, independently open, and sympathetic news organization, so I found it particularly interesting that they made this mistake. Someone on their review staff put the term back in during the editorial process and it makes me wonder, why would they?
My good dude, I must tell you that with decades of experience in NPR and some fancy certifications in related disciplines, I and more than a few others are of the opinion that NPR is at best a centrist media outlet, and more often than not when they present a political news story they go to extreme lengths to highlight and distort implications that minimize damage to the republican party, period.
Not some of the time, not obviously, but every time, and discreetly to the uninitiated listener. It’s really, really infuriating.
kinda like priests huh?
Any position of trust or power is one which demands from us a constant scrutiny and a willingness to disrupt a working system in order to weed out abusers. All too often the general populace instead sees these positions as occupied by trustworthy people who are too big and important to face scrutiny, too disruptive to remove. We create these positions, let them fill up with rotten people, then complain when they carry out abuse as if we aren’t holding the gun that just shot us in the foot.
What if she’ll ruin my reputation unless I fuck her, does that count?
…just the foot for now.
i don’t really find the term weird, but it maybe a language thing. “underage” to me means “juvenile”, as in not yet of age to be tried as an adult in court, e.g. 18. “woman” in this context to me signals that they are refering to someone who is over the age of consent, which is usually 15. so between 15 and 18. however, from the news i can surmise that the definition i built from this one post does not hold.
on the age difference, at least here it’s still illegal if the partner is a certain number of years older, i think the age gap is three or four years. so not much help for the rapist pedophiles there.
In THIS situation, it is plural. It’s SERIAL rape of children.
Know your presidents.
Dershowitz, the same gross creepy lawyer that helped Epstein with his sweetheart deal & taught at Harvard was not only known for his frequent lectures about how men accused of rape are the real victims, but that they should lower the age of consent. And he was accused by Virginia Guffrie, and recent files shows her lawyer likely was working against her. And his explanation is that he kept his panties on while getting a massage. This is who the media frequently interviews to pedosplain the tragedy.
Turns out maybe the entire american system is complete shit from top to bottom. Who’d’a thought that starting out with genocide and slavery could have built up to something like this?
Corporate media is not real. That’s part of the fuckery.
Today I learned that the definition of rape is something other than “sex without consent”
Children cannot give consent to sex.
What do you mean?
