There’s an article at The Hill (a nonpartisan site) by Rachel Alexander (a conservative writer) about the increasing politicization of language in an influential writing guide: “How the AP Stylebook censors ‘pro-life’ and other conservative words.” Her thesis is that the Stylebook is subtly changing its guidelines for journalists so as to favor a liberal agenda–all by using terms favored by the Left.
The stylebook is well known and influential; as Wikipedia notes:
. . . the AP Stylebook, is an English grammar style and usage guide created by American journalists working for or connected with the Associated Press over the last century to standardize mass communications. Although it is sold as a guide for reporters, it has become the leading reference for most forms of public-facing corporate communication over the last half-century. The Stylebook offers a basic reference to grammar, punctuation and principles of reporting, including many definitions and rules for usage as well as styles for capitalization, abbreviation, spelling and numerals.
. . . Writers in broadcasting, magazine publishing, marketing departments and public relations firms traditionally adopt and apply AP grammar and punctuation styles. Over the last 50 years, the AP Stylebook has become a leading style for non-journalistic publishers such as corporate marketing and public relations departments. Its simplified grammar, such as dropping the Oxford comma and using figures for all numbers above nine, saves scarce print and web space.
Here are the areas where, according to Alexander, language has been slanted. Her words are indented, my take is flush left.
Abortion.
A pro-life author who submits a piece taking a position against abortion will see the words “pro-life” changed to “anti-abortion,” because the AP Stylebook instructs, “Use anti-abortion instead of pro-life and pro-abortion rights instead of pro-abortion or pro-choice.” It goes on, “Avoid abortionist,” saying the term “connotes a person who performs clandestine abortions.”
I’ve always disliked the way both sides try to use euphemisms to make their stand more palatable. “Pro-life” irks me because many who oppose abortions also oppose government medical care, making them anti-life. Let’s just be consistent and use “pro-abortion” and “anti-abortion”, or “pro-abortion rights” and “anti-abortion rights.” The term “abortionist” does sound a bit creepy; I’d prefer “abortion provider.”
Terrorism
Words related to terrorism are sanitized in the AP Stylebook. Militant, lone wolves or attackers are to be used instead of terrorist or Islamist.
I agree with Alexander here. Words like “attackers” or “lone wolves” don’t give as much information as “terrorists”. This is clearly an attempt to sanitize language, probably to draw attention away from Islamist terrorism.
Immigration
Illegal immigrant” and “undocumented” aren’t acceptable anymore either. “Illegals” and “alien” were already forbidden a few years ago. Although “illegal immigration” is still acceptable, it’s not clear what words are supposed to replace the forbidden words. The word “amnesty” contains no reference to illegal immigrants, instead instructing, “See pardon, parole, probation.”
“People struggling to enter Europe” is favored over “migrant” or “refugee.” While it’s true that many struggle to enter Europe, it is accurate to point out that they are, in fact, immigrants or refugees.
It’s surprised me a bit that “illegal immigrant” and its euphemism “undocumented immigrant” are now verboten. The first phrase is a perfectly good description of someone entering a country illegally; the second, which was a euphemism produced to make illegal immigrants seem less illegal, is now off limits as well. What words do we use for someone who enters a country to live or work without legal permission?
And “migrant” or “refugee”, which were perfectly good words, lacking pejorative connotations, and are being sanitized to cater to those who favor immigration but think those words seem pejorative.
Guns
The stylebook also instructs writers to use confusing language about guns in order to create a negative impression about them. Semi-automatic rifles that have add-on parts intended to increase shooting accuracy are to be called “assault weapons,” despite the fact the term has referred to fully automatic weapons used by the military for years. The latter are now referred to as “assault rifles,” and the two are often conflated. Adding even more to the confusion, the phrase “military style” is recommended to describe assault weapons.
I agree that this change has been made not to convey accuracy, but to demonize guns. I’m in favor of stringent gun control, and total banning of these types of weapons in private hands, but let’s at least be consistent in how we describe them.
Climate-change denialism
Separately, the phrase “climate change deniers” is everywhere today in news articles. This is because the stylebook instructs, “To describe those who don’t accept climate science or dispute that the world is warming from man-made forces, use climate change doubters or those who reject mainstream climate science. Avoid use of skeptics or deniers.” The entry includes an extensive discussion with seemingly authoritative evidence of manmade global warming. These words tell the reader that climate change theory is true, or at least “mainstream.”
I don’t quite get it, as the phrase in use is the one the stylebook doesn’t recommend. Yes, climate change theory (i.e., it’s our fault) is mainstream, and anthropogenic global warming can be regarded as provisionally true. But the words “skeptics” or “deniers” seem okay to me, just as we have “evolution skeptics” or “evolution deniers.” I can’t be arsed to worry about this one, except to say that articles on climate change and its “doubters” do need to convey the consensus view of climate scientists and not imply that the views of both sides have equal weight.
I did find it interesting that language is being policed by the AP, and it seems to be a policing pushing language to the Left. I’d prefer simply accurate and consistent usage rather than euphemisms or politically correct language. That was all pointed out, as I’ve mentioned recently, by George Orwell in his famous essay “Politics and the English Language” (1946).