Media Analytics is a fun site that allows you to chart how frequently the New York Times has used a particular word through the years. The data begin in 1970 and go through 2017. All you have to do is plug in a word, and the site generates a frequency chart. Thus, for example, we can see how “gender” went from a boring word that was a prissy way of saying “sex” to a leftist battleground, in a very short period of time. Click all charts to enlarge:
Most would agree that there is less racism and bigotry today than existed decades ago. But that isn’t the impression you would get from reading the New York Times. Racism, bigotry, misogyny–they are all booming. Here is racist:
Supremacy is generally used as “white supremacy.” The phrase was rare and usage was flat until white supremacy sprang into being, apparently, in 2017:
“Patriarchy” was an obscure word used mostly in the context of anthropology until it suddenly exploded in 2017:
But matriarchy still doesn’t exist, apparently:
Some words have come out of nowhere, like “nonbinary.”
The word “Islamophobia” has been with us for a while, but did fear of Muslims suddenly explode in 2015, or was there another agenda at work?
I am pretty sure that hate is a condition of the human heart that hasn’t changed much in thousands of years. So why did “hate” suddenly become newsworthy in 2016 and 2017?
Inequality has always been with us, and always will be–thank goodness! A society without inequality would not be worth living in. But, once again, why did the Times suddenly start fixating on inequality around 2011?
Injustice is a perennial aspect of the human condition, too. But once again, injustice seems to have boomed in the last few years. Why?
References to extremism in the Times were flat and relatively uncommon until the turn of the century. Then they started to become more common, and exploded in the last three years. Is there really more extremism in the world than there was a few years ago?
Of course, there are some forms of extremism you won’t be reading about in the Times. Communism, for example:
You might think that, with leading Democrats coming out of the closet as socialists, the Times would be talking more about socialism. But no: it is almost as though the Times wants to keep it a secret that its party is being taken over by socialists:
Don’t hold your breath waiting for the Times to report on leftists, either, even though that is a fair description of most prominent Democrats:
For that matter, you don’t even see many references to liberals in the Times:
It is a fun exercise, and a nice way to see how ideology has driven reporting in recent years.
Via Steve Sailer.