(5/5) We cannot allow for the exploitation of ambiguity. To change our language to allow for interpretation is a choice to support such abuses. Our information systems are fickle and fragile enough. Our language now, more than ever, must be precise and clear and utterly specific.

(4/5) We now live in a country where the Executive branch aims use use any and all troops as its arm and the Congress as its pen. We must be specific when showing photos of National Guard troops and not leave any room to suggest these could be active duty US Army troops.

(3/5) In my 15 years of reading The NY Times, or any other news media, I have seen the term National Guard used when citing photos of troops on US soil. This ensures readers know they are reading about a standard use of state resources for extra assistance and NOT a military state. What changed?

(2/5) Oh, and since this is an exercise in institutions using generalizations to create a space of ambiguity for definitions to be confused (or converged) let me be more precise in my language as, yes, words do indeed matter:

@nytimes.com are you trying to muddy the water between Army and National Guard to push someones agenda or is this just a massive snafu? The Army does not operate on US soil. Don’t start framing stories as if they do. Fix it. Words matter.

@podsaveamerica.crooked.com @sethabramson.bsky.social

Reinstate the Fairness Doctrine and have it extend to all platforms that televise or stream to more than X number of people. The definition of “News” is long muddied. Let’s take semantics out of it and use reach as the qualifier.