After receiving the text for the ad quoted above, a representative from the advertising team suggested AFSC use the word “war” instead of “genocide” – a word with an entirely different meaning both colloquially and under international law. When AFSC rejected this approach, the New York Times Ad Acceptability Team sent an email that read in part: “Various international bodies, human rights organizations, and governments have differing views on the situation. In line with our commitment to factual accuracy and adherence to legal standards, we must ensure that all advertising content complies with these widely applied definitions.”

  • jagged_circle@feddit.nl
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    24
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    13 hours ago

    the New York Times Ad Acceptability Team sent an email that read in part: “Various international bodies, human rights organizations, and governments have differing views on the situation. In line with our commitment to factual accuracy and adherence to legal standards, we must ensure that all advertising content complies with these widely applied definitions.”

    They’re god-damn right. “War” is not an appropriate word for this. The consensus amongst international human rights orgs is that its a “genocide”.

    At first I thought this was a quote from the Quakers as to why they wouldn’t run the ad with the word “war”