Just leave it to The New York Times to sit upon their throne of cultural relativism.
In the name of “tolerance,” they will report halve-truths and even suggest that horrific practices that would make the Devil feel ashamed, are okay as long as they are done in the name of that culture/religion. (But only if you’re Muslim.)
So, what did they do this time?
The New York Times has done its part in hiding the truth about female genital mutilation…because calling it a vile practice, like it is, would offensive to Muslims.
The torturous offense is carried out in some sects of Islam. This practice has another name; child abuse. Which the Islamic faith is becoming known for more and more.
On Friday, the “newspaper of record” whitewashed the brutality of the misogynistic practice by substituting the term “cutting” for “mutilation,” suggesting that the term FGM was “culturally loaded” when asked by The Daily Caller.
“There’s a gulf between the Western (and some African) advocates who campaign against the practice and the people who follow the rite, and I felt the language used widened that chasm,” wroteTimes science and health editor Celia Dugger.
Dugger justified her political decision to minimize the utter brutality of FGM by citing her personal experience witnessing the practice performed in Africa.
Here’s what Dugger said when challenged by a Times reader:
I began writing about this back in 1996 when I was an immigration reporter on the Metro desk covering the asylum case of Fauziya Kassindja. I decided in the course of reporting that case — especially after a reporting trip to Togo, her home country, and the Ivory Coast — to call it genital cutting rather than mutilation. I never minced words in describing exactly what form of cutting was involved, and there are many gradations of severity, and the terrible damage it did, and stayed away from the euphemistic circumcision, but chose to use the less culturally loaded term, genital cutting. There’s a gulf between the Western (and some African) advocates who campaign against the practice and the people who follow the rite, and I felt the language used widened that chasm.
The Daily Caller points out that the Times as a whole is following Dugger’s lead.
The only time the term “female genital mutilation” appears in an April 13th report from reporter Jacey Fortin on the Michigan doctor is in a statement from an acting assistant attorney general within the Department of Justice. Fortin herself never uses the term.
She preferred to use “cutting”, which still sounds terrible. Calling it that won’t hide that it is still wrong.
Why can’t the NYT just tell it like it is?