Pub Talk
By Jim Sturdivant
About Jim
Jim Sturdivant is senior editor of Publishing Executive magazine and a contributing editor at Book Business magazine. A former community newspaper editor in Philadelphia and Northern New Jersey, he has been covering the publishing industry for NAPCO since 2007. He writes about technology, market trends and revenue opportunities in magazine and book publishing. E-mail him at jsturdivant@napco.com or call 215-238-5224.
B2B Beat
ABM Annual Conference Greatest Hits
May 17, 2013Much has been written about ABM merging under the umbrella of SIIA. But much more was going on during the...
Media Vent
On Meredith Corp. Buying, Closing Parenting and Babytalk
May 17, 2013A wise friend in the know suggested to me that the new acquisition by Meredith of the Bonnier titles should...
The Digital Domain
To Pay or Not to Pay ... That is the Changing Question
Apr 30, 2013In an era, where citizen "journalists," aggregators and content farms threaten to turn the information media companies produce into a...
Profit from Publishing!
The Decline of Publishing - Blame it on Johannes!
Apr 24, 2013Have you wondered when the decline of newspaper and magazines really began? Have you considered the decline began the day...
Publishers' Dojo
Gamification: Today's Hottest SEO Technique
Apr 22, 2013What does scoring points have to do with scoring a page one listing on a search engine results page? Only...
The Digital Market
What do you think of the new mobile Google Play?
Apr 18, 2013A blog came out recently on the redesigned Google Play for mobile. It appears Michael Siliski, group product manager for...
The Postal Pundit
Climbing Out Of The Rubble Of Sandy
Dec 11, 2012The entire Eastern seaboard, but now mostly New York and New Jersey, has been struggling through the aftermath of Sandy,...
Everything Publishing
A New Way To Be a Player
Sep 19, 2011If you want to increase affinity with your brand, grow traffic (up to 20x for some sites) and retention, create...
Byte Back
What Is “Interactive” Anyway? (Part 2)
Feb 28, 2011The real question, it turns out, is less about embedded multimedia than it is about personalization, relevance and immediacy of...
The AP Takes a Stand for Clarity
|
The Associated Press has recently altered its stylebook for journalists to discourage the use of the terms "homophobia" and "ethnic cleansing" in news reporting. I agree strongly with both of these recommendations. Ethnic cleansing is, as AP Deputy Standards Editor Dave Minthorn told Politico, a euphemism for activities that are "pretty violent" and should not be in any way glossed over. What began (in the context of Bosnia as I recall) as a darkly ironic term for mass killing and displacement has, unfortunately, entered the lexicon as a general description for the same. If people want to refer to what went on in Darfur as "ethnic cleansing" they are free to do so, but journalists should not whitewash such events with vagueness.
The decision to discourage "homophobia" is much dicier, and has led to no small amount of discussion and controversy. I think Minthorn is correct that, because a phobia is a clinical term for a "an irrational, uncontrollable fear," it should not be used to casually describe opponents of gay rights. I have always been uncomfortable with the term as a type of political hyperbole meant to pigeonhole as much as describe; in journalistic contexts, it certainly does not connote objectivity.
One of the main arguments made against the AP's decision is that most anti-gay activists are motivated by fear, and that this level of fear does, in fact, border on the pathological. This may be true for some, but certainly not all, people who take a position against, say, gay marriage—and does not in any way justify its use in news reporting. Can any thoughtful journalist really be comfortable with branding all of those in California who voted for Proposition 8 (limiting the definition of marriage between a man and a woman) with the label homophobic? Many of them are Hispanic Catholics with deep cultural grounding in the idea of marriage as a holy sacrament. You can disagree with them; you can (as I would) wish to argue the distinction between religious and civil marriage, but you cannot call them pathological. If you do, what's the point of even trying to dialogue with them?
On the other side is the argument that a non-clinical use of the suffix "-phobia" has entered the lexicon in many contexts—"Francophobia," "Islamophobia," "xenophobia," etc.—and that "homophobia" should, as many of these other terms are, be considered normative. It's important to remember here that we are talking about standards for news reporting, not general discourse. I would be no more comfortable with the terms "xenophobic" or "Francophobic" applied to people described in news articles (outside of quotes) than I am with "homophobic." Leave these subjective terms to the political stump or the editorial page; they have no place in straight journalism.
|
COMMENTS
Click here to leave a comment...
