Soon after the election of Donald Trump as president for the first time in 2016, the Washington Post revealed this joy and protection from an old slogan: “Democracy dies in the dark.”

The fateful slogan of sounding was supposed to transfer, at the same time, to convey the threat of Trump’s presidency against the decomposing Republic of America, and the official commitment to the interrupted mail with specifications to maintain the hanging lights.

Well, it turned out that Jeff Bezos, the owner of the billionaire in the Post, who had an effective role in adopting the newspaper in the symmetrical fishing phrase, is the “darkness” that causes democracy supportive in the advertising life to declare the symbol of blue.

In late February, Bezos destroyed the so -called “independence” editorial of monochrome opinion pages from the Post, ranking The editors to spread market -loving spaces about the bone inherent in “freedoms” of America and “freedoms”.

I am sorry, but the publication was not really that already?

However, the BEZOS’s Oafish orders, as its critics insist, may be another attack on the besieged “Free Press” in America, but at least its stark “attacks” are made public and unusually.

A large part of the western media disdain for stubbornness is hidden to frankly, behind a pure supernaturalness of the story and the expressive expressions that must be rewritten to read: “The truth dies in the dark.”

This firm deception at the institution level is more treacherous because it depends on a always explicit understanding of choosing a soft language, as George Orwell once explained, “designed to make lies look honest and respectful.”

Consider a blatant example, the Western press coverage of the inhumane power of the Israeli -American axis towards Palestine. The ages that preceded the purchase of Bezos stunning participation, the outlets of English -speaking companies on both sides of the Atlantic Ocean were to take care of the believers in all unpleasant aspects of the Israeli -American axis and its Malaysian behavior throughout the Middle East, and of course Gaza and the occupied West Bank.

This bright avatar of “all the news that is appropriate for printing”, over generations, refused to call Israel the state of apartheid despite the comprehensive provisions offered by sober human rights groups.

They also refuse to recognize or recognize that the Israeli -American axis, through a deliberate and evil plan, committed the genocide in Gaza and is preparing to do the same in the West Bank with a comprehensive goal: limiting Palestine and the Palestinians to dust and memory.

To prove this useful point, I made a quick examination of how journalists working in the “main” media in English defining the enthusiastic goal of the Israeli -American axis, and if necessary, more than two million Palestinians from Gaza, and at the appropriate time, three million from the West Bank.

As expected, I have found many Western correspondents and editors who have spent a lot of time and energy recently in obtaining a pile of troublesome expressions instead of using these explicit and exact words: “ethnic cleansing”.

This is the list of good words and phrases that you discovered differently by the BBC, Sky News, CNN, the New York Times, Washington Post and Associated Press Selce: “Depopulate”, “Fargha”, “Re -Evaluation”, “Transfer”, “Removing”, “Tarz”, and “Transfer”.

Regardless of “Depopulate” and “Drive Out”, the other unfortunate general indicates that the Palestinians are ready, even satisfied, to abandon their ancestral homelands voluntarily to make way for Trump resorts on the beach.

However, this is the renewal insult to the truth that the “prevailing” Western news organizations wander around the clock throughout the week, for readers, listeners and viewers.

Each word and sterile phrase, as Orwell understood, aims to block and sterilize brutality in the sentence that he depicted, Israel and its synagogues in Washington, London, Berlin, Paris, Ottawa, and beyond in “defending the unreasonable”.

Like Craven politicians who claim to bear responsibility, most Western media are conditional on their unlikely sincerity with Israel – regardless of the crimes they commit or think about, nor the international laws that are defiled – to be blind to the resurrection that we can see the rest of us.

These decisions are neither accidental nor isolated.

Instead, it is a conscious and familiar choice for editors and correspondents – more interested in recovery than sincerity – to make an uniformity in the compatible service for the total apartheid system and its empowerment factors, to protect them from blame for the tremendous suffering they bear.

Today’s Anodyne distortions and their extensions are an accountable effort to deny and bury reality under a snowstorm of lies.

Orwell was written in 1945: “A block of … the words fall on facts such as soft snow, the clarity of the outlines and cover up all the details. The great enemy of the clear language is lack of sincerity.”

It is not difficult, as a result, imagine this scene reveals every day in the large Western news rooms in English:

Reporter: Boss, I know that ethnic cleansing is Vibotin. I need your help to find an alternative.

Editor: Have you searched for synonyms?

Reporter: Yes, but they were all taken.

Editor: What about “leaving involuntary”?

Reporter: It is a little exhausting, don’t you think that?

Editor: No. It is perfect.

Reporter: Well, then. “He leaves involuntary” is – at least for the appropriate moment.

Remember that these are the same correspondents and editors who live these days about Bezos and his warrior pushing them into a “muzzle” for them.

Increased protests are not only swinging from lack of sincerity, but a testimony the size of the advertising board on its hypocrisy.

They no longer have allies in the “truth” from Jeff Bezos.

One of the contributors in the Washington Post rushed to Blues to take a position against Bezos and “his great transformation” for the purpose and direction of the opinion page.

“I will not write for [the Post] Again as long as he is the owner. ”The writer announced.

This is good, assume, rented.

However, I wonder whether he and his angry colleagues will tend to accept this challenge.

What about writing “never” for any newspaper that refuses – as a declared or unannounced editorial policy – the use of “apartheid”, “genocide”, and “ethnic cleansing” to describe Israel’s strange goals of the Palestinians in Palestine?

You and I know this is a rhetorical question, and I think that is constantly the American journalist and his interested comrades know the answer as well.

The opinions expressed in this article are the author of the author and do not necessarily reflect the position of the editorial island.