Genocide and journalistic ethics, or lack thereof

A NYT opinion (not paywalled) by Bret Stephens, No, Israel Is Not Committing Genocide in Gaza, was recently published. The title, along with the author, instantly felt very much like pro-Israel propaganda. But was that instantaneous emotional response reasonable? Yes, it was reasonable.

Stephens' opinion is flawed and/or wrong in facts, and logic or reasoning, which undermine and/or contradict the conclusion that Israel isn't committing genocide. 

Stephens falsely implies that the UN Genocide Convention requires explicit written documentation of an "intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such." He also blithely downplays the death count, currently about 60,000 Palestinian civilian and military deaths according to the source he cites. 

In short, the first question the anti-Israel genocide chorus needs to answer is: Why isn’t the death count higher? .... But furious comments in the wake of Hamas's Oct. 7 atrocities hardly amount to a Wannsee conference, and I am aware of no evidence of an Israeli plan to deliberately target and kill Gazan civilians.

The legal threshold for establishing genocidal intent can be inferred from circumstantial evidence, not just explicit written documentation. Right there, Stephens knowingly tries to deceive us twice. Once about the death count not being high enough. And again about the evidence. That is propaganda, not honest journalism.

Why knowing? Because he presumably isn't stupid or ignorant. He must know (1) there are two ways to prove genocidal intent under international law, and (2) the body count is not specified and already is sufficient to find genocide. But if he is ignorant of these things, highly unlikely, then he is incompetent.

Stephens also asserts this:

First, while some pundits and scholars may sincerely believe the genocide charge, it is also used by anti-Zionists and antisemites to equate modern Israel with Nazi Germany. The effect is to license a new wave of Jew hatred, stirring enmity not only for the Israeli government but also for any Jew who supports Israel as a genocide supporter.

That amounts to three logic fallacies bundled together. It packages the guilt by association fallacy[1], the poisoning the well fallacy, a subtype of an ad hominem attack, and the appeal to consequences fallacy. Here, Stephens intentionally conflates legitimate academic, legal, and moral debate over whether a specific situation constitutes genocide. He maliciously misuses the charge by anti-Zionists and antisemitic propagandists to unjustly equate Israel with Nazi Germany. He falsely implies that all such accusations are inherently illegitimate or propagandistic. That is not just is a flawed comparison that ignores the distinction between genuine legal or scholarly analysis and tendentious, prejudiced rhetoric. It is deeply insulting to people who sincerely believe that Israel has crossed the line.

What about journalistic ethics? Analyzing the opinion piece for adherence to journalistic ethics indicates this one is full of problems when evaluated against established journalistic standards and ethics. The Society of Professional Journalists' Code of Ethics establishes four fundamental principles that serve as the foundation for ethical journalism: (1) Seek truth and report it, (2) minimize harm, (3) act independently, and (4) be accountable. The opinion piece violates these standards multiple ways.

Media ethics researchers identify "bias by omission" as "leaving one side out of an article, or a series of articles over a period of time; ignoring facts that tend to disprove liberal or conservative claims". The opinion piece demonstrates systematic omission across several categories:

Source Attribution Failures: Journalist ethics requires identifying sources when feasible along with information about sources' reliability. Stephens dismisses extensive documentation by organizations like Law for Palestine without engaging with their methodology or findings. That violates the fair source evaluation ethic.

Expert Opinion Exclusion: Professional journalism standards require presenting diverse expert perspectives. Stephens systematically excludes the large body of genocide scholarship, including analyses by Holocaust historians and UN Special Rapporteurs, that reaches contrary conclusions. This ethics breach is called "bias by selection of sources". 

But Stephens has more ethics problems that just that. He asserts a false equivalency argument by drawing inappropriate analogies (WWII, Mosul) without accounting for major context differences. He downplays important relevant evidence. He dismisses documentation of official statements of genocide as merely "vengeful sound bites" with insufficient supporting evidence to validate his claim.

He also underestimates the total death count using a 60,000 deaths based on an earlier Palestinian Ministry of Health estimate that has been contradicted by later estimates. This survey and this survey put the body count at a minimum of ~75,000-80,000. The count is necessarily higher because they only count violent trauma deaths, and therefore the true total including indirect causes is necessarily higher. Other estimates are in or above the higher range, e.g., this survey and this survey.

Journalistic ethics requires accountability. I'll write to Stephens and the editors of the NYT to see what response or rebuttal, if any, they have to these criticisms. In my opinion, Stephens and the NYT should retract this opinion and apologize to the public and the Palestinian people for propagating pro-Israel propaganda and falsehoods.

Q: What is the likelihood that Stephens or the NYT editors will be accountable about this in some demonstrable way, e.g., printing a retraction, rebutting these criticisms somehow, etc., low ~1-35%, medium ~36-66%, or high ~67-99%?

Footnote:

1. Stephens' guilt by association flaw works like this:

Premise 1: “Anti-Zionists and antisemites” equate Israel with Nazi Germany when they invoke genocide.
Premise 2: Antisemites are morally disreputable.
Conclusion: Therefore, anyone using the genocide label, or the label itself, is suspect.

The logical error presumes that because some disreputable groups deploy the term, the term itself, or other people’s use of it, must be discredited. This conflates the character of certain speakers with the truth-value of the claim. That is the textbook definition of an association fallacy. Thus, by equating the genocide allegation with antisemitism, Stephens sidesteps substantive legal and factual analysis. That deflection blocks honest engagement with evidence, also a hallmark of guilt-by-association reasoning.

Poisoning the well: Stephens poisons readers by saying that any advocate of the genocide claim is tacitly aligned with antisemites, so their evidence should be pre-emptively distrusted. The poisoning the well tactic simply starts with negative information about potential opponents before their arguments are heard. That poisons or primes the audience's reception. It is a deceptive persuasion tactic.

The appeal to consequences fallacy: 
Premise: If the genocide claim spreads, it could “license a new wave of Jew hatred.”
Implicit Conclusion: Therefore, the claim should be rejected or regarded with great suspicion.

This is fallacious because the desirability or undesirability of potential consequences does not determine factual truth of the genocide claim. Predicting social harm if a claim is believed does not demonstrate that the claim itself is false. This propaganda technique uses emotional leverage, fear of antisemitism in this case, to evaluate factual truth. That violates the principle that truth claims stand or fall on evidence, not on anticipated reactions. 

Dictatorship updates 3: Attacking the GAO; Regarding Russell Vought; CN's bigotry

The NYT reports (not paywalled) about Trump attacking the GAO (Government Accounting Office), the last or one of the last standing major defenses of democracy in the federal government. The GAO has opened dozens of investigations to determine if djt and his MAGA elites have illegally withheld billions of dollars in congressionally approved funds. Frighteningly, Republican lawmakers are now working with the White House to block those inquiries. If the GOP successfully guts or neuters the GAO that would give the MAGA dictator a lot more control over the nation’s budget than current law allows.

The GAO is about a century-old. It was formed to help Congress keep track of federal spending. The legislative office primarily produces detailed reports on ways that Washington can save money. That sometimes angers administrations that hate to see allegations of waste.

The main source of GAO power is a 1970s law that explicitly prohibits the president from defying congressional instructions on spending. That is the power of the purse. Trump wants that power for himself. Since taking office, djt and MAGA elites been testing the law by illegally disbanding entire agencies and programs without lawmakers’ approval. Now, with the federal courts mostly neutered, with the USSC openly supportive of dictatorship, there is little to nothing that can protect the GAO and its independence.

The NYT writes:

The G.A.O. has twice determined in recent months that Mr. Trump’s actions violated rules that prohibit him from unilaterally canceling funding, a move known as impoundment. The office has 46 open investigations into other allegations that Mr. Trump illegally withheld funds, the agency confirmed this week.

Russell T. Vought, the White House budget director, has strenuously denied any wrongdoing, arguing that the administration seeks to manage taxpayer dollars more effectively. He and his deputies have also initiated a series of attacks on the G.A.O., deriding it as partisan and publicly refusing to comply with some of its investigations.

Vought is a person with enormous power to corrupt, neuter and/or completely destroy federal agencies and spending programs. He is a major author of Project 2025. He is a staunch Christian nationalist theocrat, and a practiced demagogue and liar. He is working furiously to build a federal infrastructure that will convert American government from being secular to a bigoted, fundamentalist Christian theocratic monster.

_____________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________

 

Pxy:

Q2: How important is Russ Vought in the advancement of Christian nationalist theocracy in the federal government?

A2: Russ Vought’s Central Role in Federal Christian Nationalist Theocracy

Over the past eight years, no figure has done more than Russell T. Vought to translate Christian nationalist ideology into the day-to-day machinery of the United States federal government.

.... long analysis ....

Conclusion: An Indispensable Architect
Russ Vought is not merely one strategist among many; he is the central node through which Christian nationalist ideas are converted into executable federal policy. His dual command of (a) the budgetary “chokepoints” that keep agencies alive and (b) the personnel system that decides who interprets the law gives him outsized leverage over the trajectory of American governance. While other figures—Flynn for grassroots zeal, Leo for the judiciary—remain powerful, none combine statutory authority, ideological commitment, and presidential proximity as comprehensively as Vought. Should the Christian nationalist project achieve lasting institutional victories, historians are likely to identify Vought as its chief engineer.

_____________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________

 

For context about Christian nationalist bigotry and racism, Pxy:

Q1: Analyze and comment on the role and influence of bigotry and racism in (1) Christian nationalism, (2) the broader MAGA wealth and power movement, and (3) who those two interact or synergize. Focus on events since 2017, once Trump was in power.

A1: Conclusion
The intersection of bigotry, racism, Christian nationalism, and the MAGA movement represents a systematic challenge to American pluralistic democracy. Since 2017, these ideologies have moved from the political margins to positions of significant institutional power, influencing policy, electoral politics, and social norms.

The evidence demonstrates that racial animus is not incidental to these movements but central to their appeal and organizational structure. Christian nationalism provides religious legitimation for racial exclusion, while MAGA provides political power and institutional access. Their synthesis creates what researchers identify as a "permission structure" for political violence and democratic norm violation.

.... from the analysis ....

Christian nationalism, as measured by extensive public opinion research, represents far more than traditional religious conservatism. According to the Public Religion Research Institute's (PRRI) comprehensive surveys spanning 2022-2025, Christian nationalism is "a political ideology and cultural framework that seeks to merge American and Christian identities, distorting both the Christian faith and America's constitutional democracy". The PRRI studies, involving over 22,000 adults annually, reveal that approximately 30% of Americans qualify as Christian nationalism adherents (10%) or sympathizers (20%).

Dictatorology: Competitive Authoritarianism vs. Classical Tyranny

It feels like modern corrupt dictators like djt just aren't up to snuff compared to the mass murdering old ones. Has the venerated craft of tyranny degraded in modern times since ~2000? Pxy analyzes it like this: 

Q1: Analyze and comment on Trump's route to tyranny. He seems like a different kind of tyrant than Alexander, Tamerlane, or Catherine. He seems less academic and more attuned to modern techniques to accumulate power and wealth. Is he fundamentally different, e.g., a talented sociopathic narcissist? 

A1: The academic analysis of Donald Trump's approach to accumulating and wielding power reveals a fundamentally different kind of authoritarian leader compared to historical figures like Alexander the Great, Tamerlane, and Catherine the Great. While these classical tyrants relied on traditional education, military conquest, and institutional manipulation, Trump has pioneered what scholars identify as a distinctly modern form of "competitive authoritarianism" that leverages digital technologies, financial systems, and psychological manipulation techniques unavailable to previous generations of strongmen. 

The academic analysis of Donald Trump's approach to accumulating and wielding power reveals a fundamentally different kind of authoritarian leader compared to historical figures like Alexander the Great, Tamerlane, and Catherine the Great. While these classical tyrants relied on traditional education, military conquest, and institutional manipulation, Trump has pioneered what scholars identify as a distinctly modern form of "competitive authoritarianism" that leverages digital technologies, financial systems, and psychological manipulation techniques unavailable to previous generations of strongmen.

Psychological Profile: The Narcissistic-Authoritarian Complex
Clinical Assessment by Mental Health Professionals provides crucial insights into Trump's psychological makeup that distinguishes him from historical tyrants. A comprehensive study published in 2024 argues that Trump's leadership "exhibited characteristics commonly associated with authoritarian mob bosses," emphasizing his "reliance on loyalty, personal connections, and a disregard for institutional checks and balances". This represents a departure from the intellectually sophisticated tyrants of history who combined brutality with genuine scholarship.

Research examining pathological narcissism found that "self-centered antagonism and indifference to other people predicted intended vote for Trump over and above salient demographic variables". The study revealed an eight-level hierarchy of narcissistic traits, with Trump's appeal concentrated in the "antagonistic and indifferent aspects of narcissism". This suggests that unlike Alexander's charismatic leadership or Catherine's intellectual sophistication, Trump's power derives from his ability to channel society's darker psychological impulses.

Digital Age Manipulation Technologies
Social Media as a Weapon of Tyranny represents Trump's most significant innovation compared to historical strongmen. Academic analysis of Trump's Twitter usage revealed his "systematic use of name-calling ('fake', 'illegal'), glittering generalities ('greatness'), and plain folks appeals to cultivate a combative, relatable persona". Quantitative analysis of 43,913 tweets showed his preference for "emotional punctuation (exclamation marks: 12,458), negative vocabulary (529 pejorative terms), and algorithm-optimized timing".

Algorithmic Amplification allowed Trump to bypass traditional gatekeepers entirely. Studies found that "most Republican candidates, regardless of gender, mimic the Trump brand rife with populist themes", demonstrating how his digital techniques have become the template for authoritarian politics. Unlike historical tyrants who needed to physically conquer territories, Trump could spread his influence instantly across global networks.

Financial Empire Integration: Modern Kleptocracy
Unprecedented Monetization of Political Power distinguishes Trump from historical tyrants who separated their personal wealth from state resources. Analysis shows that "since the early days of his reelection campaign, he's more than doubled his net worth to about $5.4 billion". Research documents how "the Trump name has powered more than $10 billion of real estate projects, a multibillion-dollar valuation for his money-losing social-media company, more than $500 million in sales from just one of his crypto ventures."

Competitive Authoritarianism vs. Classical Tyranny
Academic Framework for Trump's System identifies his approach as "competitive authoritarianism—a system in which parties compete in elections but the incumbent's abuse of power tilts the playing field against the opposition". This differs significantly from the absolute monarchies established by Alexander, Tamerlane, and Catherine, who eliminated opposition entirely rather than manipulating democratic processes.

Research on Trump's authoritarian techniques identifies his use of "politicizing independent institutions, spreading disinformation, aggrandizing executive power, quashing dissent, scapegoating vulnerable communities, corrupting elections, and stoking violence". These represent technological updates to classical tyranny methods, adapted for democratic systems with constitutional constraints.

Institutional Subversion Rather Than Replacement marks another key difference. Where historical tyrants built new institutions from conquered territories, Trump works to "gradually authoritarian reconversion of democracies to make them insensible to individuals and groups that differ from their conservative normative ideal". Academic analysis shows he employs "a political strategy of gradually authoritarian reconversion" rather than the sudden institutional transformation typical of classical tyrants.

Psychological Differences from Historical Tyrants
Lack of Intellectual Sophistication emerges as a crucial distinction. While Alexander studied under Aristotle, Tamerlane consulted spiritual advisors, and Catherine corresponded with Enlightenment philosophers, Trump's approach shows little evidence of systematic intellectual development. Research on his communication patterns reveals "simplified language, repetition, and adversarial narratives" designed to "fuel polarization and in-group loyalty".


Q2: How do relatively modern tyrants like Hitler, Stalin and Putin fit into the tyrant mindset or paradigm?

A2: Main take-away: Hitler, Stalin and Putin all operate from the same tyrannical template—​a recognizable “technology of rule” that fuses a narcissistic‐authoritarian psyche with mastery of the dominant information tools of their day, a legitimizing ideology, a loyal coercive apparatus and a carefully engineered cult of personality. What differs is the historical setting and the media they weaponize, not the underlying logic of power.

Dictatorship updates 2: Authoritarian ideology crushes rationality; What djt wants

Sometimes it is hard to tell cynical demagoguery from honest irrational crackpottery. An excellent example is reporting about a recent "secret meeting" among federal judges to discuss the possibility of djt provoking a constitutional crisis. Right off the bat, one can argue that the premise of the meeting is stupid. Whether people know or believe it or not, the US has been in a constitutional crisis starting the day djt was elected to office in 2016. Of course, that depends on how one defines the concept. 

For some, the rise to power of djt and MAGA constituted a constitutional crisis. But that gets easily dismissed as irrational alarmism, socialism, Hunter's demonic laptop, etc.

But the main point here is different, If the reporting is accurate, during that meeting John Roberts is reported to have dismissed a federal judge's concern that djt and his MAGA thugs were openly defying and ignoring federal court orders. Federal Judge James Boasberg, who blocked djt’s use of the Alien Enemies Act for deportations, expressed concerns about the administration’s open defiance of court orders. If it is true, and it is, that alone really does constitute an actual constitutional crisis.   

Roberts’ response to that legitimate concern is just about equally concerning. He blithely dismissed Boasberg’s legitimate fear by saying that djt’s interactions with him had been “civil and respectful,” including a public acknowledgment during a joint congressional address. How the hell does djt’s alleged civility and respect to Roberts personally translate to respect for federal court orders? It doesn’t. It can’t because it is beside the point. It is irrational.

 

So, two options. First, Roberts is truly so loyal to Trump and the unitary executive concept that he blindly, unknowingly conflated Trump being nice to him amounting to Trump respecting the separation of powers. Call it cognitive capture or cult loyalty. Second, Roberts is a cynical demagogue deflecting from Boasberg's fact-based expression of a constitutional crisis. Only one of those two can be basically true, and there are no other rational options. Call it kleptocratic authoritarianism?

Is there any way to determine if Roberts suffers from cognitive capture from kleptocratic authoritarianism? Of course there is. Roberts was made chief justice in 2005. His public track record is huge. It is crystal clear that Roberts staunchly supports kleptocratic dictatorship under the legal fiction called the unitary executive theory. During his time on the USSC bench, Roberts systematically installed the unitary executive theory as a legal reality. That was not accidental. It was deliberate constitutional engineering to build a kleptocratic American dictatorship.

Since joining the Court, Roberts wrote every single major opinion that expanded presidential power. As chief justice, he strategically assigned himself the most consequential cases when voting with the majority. That ensured his vision shaped the constitutional landscape and crated what djt now is, a dictator and kleptocrat. Some key opinions expanding presidential power are shown below.

Bottom line - Germaine’s ~95% confidence level (~5% uncertainty): Roberts’ dismissal of Boasberg’s a factually accurate constitutional crisis was a cynical strategic deflection using insulting irrationality, not genuine belief, to deflect from the crisis. 

___________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________

Trump posted a short AI-generated video apparently entitled "No one is above the law" with Obama and djt in the Oval Office. The video shows Obama being arrested by FBI agents while a smiling djt looks on with great pleasure. Here's a screen shot.

Frightening fact: Tens of millions of adult Americans still support djt.