Open Enrollment | Subscribe to Publishing Executive HERE
Connect
Follow us on
Advertisement
 
Senior Editor

Pub Talk

By James Sturdivant

About James

 

Industry Insiders

The Insiders
Social Media Playbook for Publishers
Apr 16, 2015

Leading up to the Social Media Master Class for media professionals, marketing consulting firm GrowSocially will be sharing insights on social media management strategies,...



Media Vent

Bob Sacks
Do New ASME Rules Damage Magazine Industry's Integrity?
Apr 16, 2015

It seems to me that my opinion on the changes to the ASME guidelines will be in the minority. To...



Publishers' Dojo

Linda Ruth
Online Resources You Might Not Be Using, Part 1: Content Analytics
Apr 13, 2015

Publishers who have worked in internet marketing since the beginning might remember, as I do, when lots of tedious programming...



The Digital Market

Thea Selby
Top 5 Trends Affecting App Publishing
Mar 9, 2015

This is a great time of the year to look at the top trends of 2014 and gain insights for...



B2B Beat

Andy Kowl
Earned Media vs. Native Advertising: Smart Publishers Find a Path for Advertiser Content
Mar 3, 2015

An insidious term has started to be widely used these past couple of years. As publishers, we must stamp out...



Publisher's Paradox

Andrew Davis
Publisher’s Paradox: Your Newsletter Subscribers Are Being Overfed
Apr 28, 2014

Charlie Magazine, based in Charleston, South Carolina, isn't asking its readers to subscribe to everything. Instead, Charlie is inviting readers...



The AP Takes a Stand for Clarity

1
 

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.

 

1

COMMENTS

Click here to leave a comment...
Comment *
Most Recent Comments: