Die Neudefinition des Begriffs „unabhängig“

Ich sollte neben den Doppelbegriffen eine neue Kategorie aufmachen: Begriffe, die ins Gegenteil umdefiniert worden sind.

So wie „Demokratie“, „Frau“, „Gerechtigkeit“, „Rechtsstaat“, „Chancengleichheit“, die ja alle früher etwas anderes bedeuteten und ins Gegenteil, einen sozialistischen Einheitsquark, umdefiniert wurden. Sozialismus heißt jetzt „Demokratie“, obwohl das genaue Gegenteil davon.

Ein Leser weist mich dazu auf diesen Artikel hin: Mainstream Media Boost ‘Independent’ Media Which Depend On U.S. Assistance

Demnach habe „independent“ (unabhängig) bisher bedeutet:

Cambridge Dictionary:

independent adjective (NOT INFLUENCED)

• not influenced or controlled in any way by other people, events, or things

American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language (5th Ed.) and others:

independent /ĭn″dĭ-pĕn′dənt/ adjective

1. Not governed by a foreign power; self-governing.
2. Free from the influence, guidance, or control of another or others; self-reliant.
   “an independent mind.”
3. Not determined or influenced by someone or something else; not contingent.
   “a decision independent of the outcome of the study.”
4. Affiliated with or loyal to no one political party or organization.
5. Not dependent on or affiliated with a larger or controlling entity.
   “an independent food store; an independent film.”
6. Not relying on others for support, care, or funds; self-supporting.
7. Providing or being sufficient income to enable one to live without working.
   “a person of independent means.”

Und nachdem jetzt aufgeflogen ist, dass viele Medien durch USAID oder NED („National Endowment for Democracy“) finanziert, bezahlt wurden, hat man es plötzlich ganz eilig, den Begriff „independent“ umzudefinieren: Jetzt soll auch „independent“ sein, wer von der US-Regierung bezahlt wird.

Man muss jetzt im Originalartikel die Quellen anschauen, aber sie geben Beispiele.

Columbia Journalism Review

[A]ccording to Reporters Without Borders (RSF), the aid freeze appears to have put a hold on $268 million that was earmarked to fund “independent media and the free flow of information” this year. In the recent past, USAID had boasted of supporting more than six thousand journalists, around seven hundred independent newsrooms, and nearly three hundred media-focused civil society groups in thirty or so countries—and yet, RSF notes, the full impact of the freeze is hard to measure, since many recipients are “hesitant to draw attention for fear of risking long-term funding or coming under political attacks.”

$268 Millionen an „unabhängige“ Medien.

New York Times:

Agency grants to promote democracy, human rights and good governance have gone to support election monitoring groups, anti-corruption watchdogs, independent media outlets and human rights organizations — exactly the kind of oversight that leaders like Mr. Putin detest.

Washington Post über Russland:

The suspension of USAID has had a dramatic effect on both Ukrainian and Russian independent news outlets that relied on the grants to operate and produced work often critical of their governments.
…
Ukraine’s independent media, a collection of small regional outlets, muckraking investigative websites and internet news platforms, have been reeling since the announcement, with some organizations saying that they are just weeks away from slashing staff or closing down entirely.

“We risk losing the achievements of three decades of work and increasing threats to Ukraine’s statehood, democratic values, and pro-Western orientation,” Detector Media, a journalism watchdog, said in a statement on its website last week.

Und natürlich immer auf links- und US-Interessen gebügelte Medien.

Wer also nach der Pfeife der linken US-Regierung tanzt, der gilt als „independent“.