By DYLAN BYERS |
11/26/12 3:16 PM EST
The Associated Press has nixed "homophobia," "ethnic cleansing," and a number of other terms from its Style Book in recent months.
The online Style Book now says that "-phobia," "an irrational, uncontrollable fear, often a form of mental illness" should not be used "in political or social contexts," including "homophobia" and "Islamophobia." It also calls "ethnic cleansing" a "euphemism," and says the AP "does not use 'ethnic cleansing' on its own. It must be enclosed in quotes, attributed and explained."
"Ethnic cleansing is a euphemism for pretty violent activities, a phobia is a psychiatric or medical term for a severe mental disorder. Those terms have been used quite a bit in the past, and we don't feel that's quite accurate," AP Deputy Standards Editor Dave Minthorn told POLITICO.
"When you break down 'ethnic cleansing,' it's a cover for terrible violent activities. It's a term we certainly don't want to propgate," Minthorn continued. "Homophobia especially -- it's just off the mark. It's ascribing a mental disability to someone, and suggests a knowledge that we don't have. It seems inaccurate. Instead, we would use something more neutral: anti-gay, or some such, if we had reason to believe that was the case."
"We want to be precise and accurate and neutral in our phrasing," he said.
The changes made to the online Style Book will appear in next year's printed edition.
source
11/26/12 3:16 PM EST
The Associated Press has nixed "homophobia," "ethnic cleansing," and a number of other terms from its Style Book in recent months.
The online Style Book now says that "-phobia," "an irrational, uncontrollable fear, often a form of mental illness" should not be used "in political or social contexts," including "homophobia" and "Islamophobia." It also calls "ethnic cleansing" a "euphemism," and says the AP "does not use 'ethnic cleansing' on its own. It must be enclosed in quotes, attributed and explained."
"Ethnic cleansing is a euphemism for pretty violent activities, a phobia is a psychiatric or medical term for a severe mental disorder. Those terms have been used quite a bit in the past, and we don't feel that's quite accurate," AP Deputy Standards Editor Dave Minthorn told POLITICO.
"When you break down 'ethnic cleansing,' it's a cover for terrible violent activities. It's a term we certainly don't want to propgate," Minthorn continued. "Homophobia especially -- it's just off the mark. It's ascribing a mental disability to someone, and suggests a knowledge that we don't have. It seems inaccurate. Instead, we would use something more neutral: anti-gay, or some such, if we had reason to believe that was the case."
"We want to be precise and accurate and neutral in our phrasing," he said.
The changes made to the online Style Book will appear in next year's printed edition.
source
but I don't understand why homophobia and Islamophobia shouldn't be used simply because they aren't "phobias" in the traditional sense; language changes and words are created, and since we already have these two concise words that are used frequently to describe two types of prejudiced thinking, it doesn't make much sense to just stop using them because of a little technical thing like this. The words are already in our vocabularies, you know?
although I would argue that people who hate Muslims and people who hate queer people are often doing it because of an irrational fear (ex: they think all Muslims are terrorists, they think gay marriage will ~destroy American society~)
well, actually, I guess I see why those words could be problematic, because "phobia" tends to imply an involuntary fear, so perhaps calling someone's hatred for other people a "phobia" could imply that they are not responsible for their prejudices. I'm kind of all over the place with this comment, I apologize.
Imagine that, a colloquial term that doesn't mean exactly the same as its technical/medical/scientific meaning or its root words. Is the AP going to nix "theory" except for its precise scientific meaning too? Ooh, how about "awesome" because that means something different in post-1960s America than it did before or what it means in other English-speaking countries. I know when I say something is "awesome" I don't mean it fills me with awe akin to a deep religious experience at the omnipotence of God.
Words change. They mean things more than just their roots indicate.
I can understand the problems with both terms, but eliminating the words isn't really going to help anything. And someone tell me how "anti-gay" is supposedly more neutral than homophobia?
Homophobia, though, is a much more loaded discussion, as can be seen anywhere on this thread.
"Homophobia", though, isn't a stupid journalistic euphimism, it's a word which meaning has evolved beyond its roots... Different matter, really.
And in that case the people who are reading the news and electing and supporting (or choosing not to support) the intervenors, need to know what's actually happening.
/journo
So you shouldn't discuss irrational fears or mental illnesses in political or social contexts why exactly? That only stigmatizes them, leads to misunderstanding and, in this case, allows people using it as a screen for hatred to justify that hateful, CONTROLLABLE behavior.
Sorry, but no.
Edited at 2012-11-29 03:16 am (UTC)
A toothless term like "anti-gay", however, strips away the implication of hatred as well, and presents it as nothing more than an opinion about a divided issue. I think that's inadequate.
I propose "hostile" as a suffix, e.g. "Savage has said a lot of bi-hostile and trans-hostile things."
ilu tho for savage shade.
considering journalists still ignore the AP style guide when it comes to simple things like pronouns, i'm not exactly expecting change anytime soon
Though on the other hand I don't have as much issue with "Islamophobia" as I think that does seem to be often based in fear (fear of terrorists by conflating terrorism with Islam.) But then if I think about it, there are prejudices and such there that are not really fear based IMO, but then what do you call it?
The ethnic cleansing change is fantastic, tho.
One thing, though:
It's ascribing a mental disability to someone
I never thought of that before. More to the point, I never thought about the potential harm of equating bigotry with a mental disability, not only in terms of accuracy but also of hurting people who have real phobias.
Or am I over-thinking that?
Not only that, but comparing their bigotry to a mental disability basically says their shitty behavior is uncontrollable when they most certainly can control it.