Spin Watch (9/17/25)

Robinson charged with seven charges, including aggravated murder

The language used here is indicative of a system where violence is presented as a form of governance. The language used to describe the charges against Robinson, such as “aggravated murder” and “commission of violence in the presence of a child”, is presented as a legitimate and necessary response to a perceived threat. The potential use of the death penalty against Robinson is framed as a necessary form of retribution for his alleged crimes, rather than a form of state-sanctioned violence. The language used to describe the manhunt for Robinson, such as “massive”, implies a level of legitimacy and urgency to the state’s response.

The language used also reveals a contradiction between the stated values of justice and the observable actions of the judicial system. The phrase “formally charged with seven charges” implies a fair and impartial process, but the reference to the potential use of the death penalty suggests a presumption of guilt before the trial has even begun. This is a tactic used to legitimize the state’s use of violence under the guise of justice.

Original Article


Israel launches ‘powerful operation’, vows to ‘conquer every inch’

The language used in this article implies legitimacy and security to a situation of coercion and restriction. The phrase “powerful operation” is a euphemistic way of describing what is essentially a military invasion, while “conquer every inch” implies a complete disregard for the sovereignty and rights of the people living in the targeted areas. The statement that a ceasefire would only be acceptable if “all the hostages are brought home” implies a justification for the continuation of violence and conflict.

The criticism of the court’s decision to summon the Prime Minister for hearings during this time reveals a contradiction between the stated desire for relentless warfare and the need for legal proceedings. The framing suggests that the legal process is irrelevant during times of war, implying that the Prime Minister should be allowed to operate without accountability or oversight. This undermines the principles of democracy and rule of law, suggesting that the state’s use of violence is justified and should not be questioned.

Original Article


Trump delays TikTok ban until December 16

This article presents a clear contradiction between the stated values of free trade and open markets, and the observable actions of President Trump’s administration. The title implies that there is legitimacy in the decision to postpone the ban on TikTok, but the reality is that it is a restrictive measure that interferes with the free operation of markets. The phrase “work on a deal for the app’s sale” is a euphemistic way of saying that the administration is pressuring a foreign company to sell its assets under the threat of a ban.

The decision to repeatedly postpone the TikTok ban reveals a structural breakdown where coercion is presented as governance. The use of the term “ban” implies a sense of legitimacy and security, but it is essentially a form of economic violence against a foreign company. This is a classic example of how power is exercised through economic means, and how economic decisions are often framed in a way that conceals their coercive nature.

Original Article


Terror group may return to negotiations over hostage deal

This title suggests a legitimacy to the terror group’s actions by implying that their return to negotiations is a reasonable response to an “elimination attempt” and expanded military operations. The use of the term “hostage deal” is a euphemism for what is essentially a form of coercion, where human lives are used as bargaining chips in a power struggle.

The use of the term “terror group” implies a clear moral judgement, but the framing of the situation suggests that their actions are understandable and even justified, revealing a contradiction between the stated values and observable actions. The article implies that the terror group has legitimate grievances that should be addressed through negotiations, thus undermining the initial framing of them as an illegitimate and violent entity.

Original Article


Mother lost most of her family in the Holocaust

This article uses language that masks the enormous violence and coercion of the Holocaust by focusing on the personal story of one individual. The phrase “lost most of her family” is a euphemistic way of referring to the systematic murder of millions of people. The use of the term “ghetto” to describe where her mother was when she was 5 years old implies a sense of legitimacy to the Nazi’s actions, framing them as a form of governance rather than a form of extreme violence and coercion.

The focus on the personal story of one individual reveals a contradiction between the stated values of remembering and honoring the victims of the Holocaust and the observable actions of minimizing and normalizing its violence. The article implies that the Holocaust was a tragic event that happened in the past, but does not engage with its structural causes or its ongoing effects.

Original Article


Cyber sovereignty a core infrastructure issue for Israel

This article presents a structural breakdown where cyber sovereignty, a form of control and restriction, is presented as a core infrastructure issue, implying legitimacy and security. The term “cyber sovereignty” is a euphemistic way of describing control over the internet and digital spaces. The phrases “data access” and “digital independence” are used to legitimize this control and present it as a necessary and positive development.

The article reveals a contradiction between the stated values of digital resilience and the observable actions of increasing control and restriction. The phrase “more than defense capabilities” implies that cyber sovereignty involves more than just protecting against threats, but also involves controlling and restricting access to digital spaces. This contradiction is further revealed in the mention of “data flows, infrastructure access, and system architecture”, which shows that cyber sovereignty involves control over a wide range of digital spaces and activities.

Original Article