Column: News media should be mindful of wording

By Charles Austin

Published Feb. 16, 2010

Last week I wrote a column about Focus on the Family's Super Bowl ad, and I used the term "pro-life" to refer to the group's stance on the issue of abortion.

Members of The Maneater editorial staff changed that to "anti-abortion rights" at the behest of the Associated Press Stylebook, which struck me as an odd and undesirable decision.

There are no apolitical terms in the lexicon of the abortion issue.

I figured the best way to mitigate that inescapable politicization is to use affirmative terms for both sides, "pro-life" and "pro-choice." Again, there are obvious and unfair implications to both of those terms, but the fact they're syntactically symmetrical makes me feel a little better about using them.

But syntax itself isn't the important issue.

It's the way readers perceive those minute syntactical choices, especially in a time when readers and viewers of news media expect all news sources are not only biased but are consciously trying to push their agenda.

I think it's funny, and though I loathe admitting it, completely expected AP would choose a phrasing that implicitly gives credence to a liberal agenda.

Social conservatives abhor the idea that abortion could be a "right," and if a news organization wants to be taken seriously, it's dangerous to frame conservative beliefs within the liberal framework that abortion can in fact be a right. This is exactly what leads people to distrust the media.

I'm certain reporters for both the AP and The Maneater do not let their personal beliefs compromise their reporting a great deal, but it does strike me as odd so many newspapers (Maneater included) adhere so rigidly to AP's arbitrary guidelines, and AP itself, as a massive and ubiquitous organization, haven't taken the time to more carefully consider how their sloppy word choices might be perceived by the public.

To make matters worse, most news organizations (AP included) rarely, if ever, openly address the public's rampant distrust, which only makes readers and viewers more skeptical of their agenda.

The only major exception is Fox News Network, which brazenly addresses the elephant in the room in the most literal way. Its entire M.O. is based on trust. It is "the most trusted name in news."

By having an openly conservative bias but never explicitly admitting to it, it simultaneously confirms everything people assume to be true about the news media (that they're all biased) while gaining the trust of the conservative half of the nation.

The genius of Fox News Network is a delicate balancing act. It's biased enough and honest enough to appear trustworthy to those who agree with them. Which means, of course, it sacrifices a connection with all viewers who don't agree with them.

It's a smart business model in terms of numbers, and indeed it consistently has the highest rated cable news programs. But it's an inherently partisan way of conducting business, and it has only intensified the public's suspicion that news media actively force an agenda.

If AP wishes to avoid the same type of partisan public persona, it feels tactless to use the term "anti-abortion rights." It strikes me as a term that gives a certain viewpoint clear preference but without explicit acknowledgement, Fox News style.

There's no doubt that I'm nitpicking, but nitpicking is necessary to retain public trust and credibility. In a time when news media are dominated by finger-pointing partisan demagogues and the public has come to expect an implicit agenda from news media, AP (and The Maneater by proxy) seems to be shooting itself in the foot with a term that implies the primacy of a liberal ideology.