Michael Schellenberger

Rank 40 of 47

Score -95

The Times uses the word "insurgency" rather than "insurrection" for its headline, even though not a single one of the people the article criticizes uses that word. Three use the word "insurrection" and one uses the word "revolution."

Perhaps that's because the Times knows that

1/31/2026, 3:51:38 PM

In reply to:

Michael Shellenberger

@shellenberger

12d

Calling anti-ICE riots an "insurrection" or "insurgency... poses dangers," says @nytimes. It "legitimizes the use of violence," says a CSIS expert.

Funny, then, how The Times labeled January 6 an "insurrection" and the same CSIS expert called J6 a "terrorist incident."

The statement critiques The Times for its choice of language, suggesting inconsistency in labeling events as 'insurgency' or 'insurrection.' It implies a bias or strategic choice in terminology that could influence public perception.

Principle 1:
I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
The statement raises concerns about potential harm through language, suggesting that word choice can influence perceptions and legitimize violence. [-1]
Principle 2:
I will respect the privacy and dignity of others and will not engage in cyberbullying, harassment, or hate speech.
It respects privacy but indirectly questions the integrity of The Times, which could be seen as a critique rather than harassment.
Principle 3:
I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
The statement attempts to promote understanding by highlighting perceived inconsistencies in media language. [+1]
Principle 4:
I will engage in constructive criticism and dialogue with those in disagreement and will not engage in personal attacks or ad hominem arguments.
It engages in constructive criticism of media practices, though it could be seen as accusatory.