Related articles and links |  1 of 7

Watching words
Christopher Howse, religion columnist for The Telegraph of London, this week examines developments in revising the language of the Roman Catholic Mass. By more closely approximating the older Latin Mass, he says, "The revision will sever any approximation to the language of the Communion service of the Church of England," he notes. But more than that, there's "no more thee and thou, nor even beseech." It's not as crazy as the Christian Aid booklet of prayers that rewrites the Lord's Prayer with "Give us this day a fairer wage," but woe unto him—make that put the smack down on the poser—who messes with liturgy. "Nothing gets people more worked up than the language used in church," Howse says.

Unless, at times, it's language used in the media. Last week's ruling by a federal judge in San Francisco against the national partial-birth abortion ban has elicited a fair amount of comment from the pundit class. But not as much as the media coverage of the ruling. Weblog first noticed exasperation from The Wall Street Journal's Best of the Web Today:

Partial-Truth Journalism
In an article on a court ruling striking down the Partial Birth Abortion Act of 2003, the Associated Press gets tripped up by the terminology: "Doctors call it intact dilation and extraction but abortion foes refer to it as 'partial-birth abortion.' " How come we get scare quotes around the plain-English term but not around the clinical one? And what do doctors who oppose abortion call it?

Boston Globe columnist Jeff Jacoby notes that the Associated Press isn't alone, giving a rundown of media contortionism (italics are his):

Newsday: "Doctors call it intact dilation and extraction but abortion foes refer to it as `partial-birth abortion.' "

National Public Radio: "Partial-birth abortion is a term used by opponents for what doctors call intact dilation and extraction."

Washington Post: "The ban on the procedure that critics call `partial-birth abortion' was already on hold temporarily as three courts heard legal challenges to it."

NBC: A federal judge declared the so-called `partial-birth abortion' act unconstitutional on Tuesday.

San Francisco Chronicle: "The ruling deals with what opponents call `partial-birth abortion.' "

If journalists say they're just trying to accurately demonstrate that prolifers came up with the term, and that proabortion activists don't like to use it, Jacoby actually approves—but says they should be consistent. "Choice and the right to choose, the most common euphemisms for abortion, aren't medical terms either. … But when was the last time a news report mentioned, say, a candidate's stand 'on what abortion activists call "choice" but doctors refer to as suction curretage or dilation and evacuation?" The same is true, he says, with terms like "campaign finance reform," "the gun lobby," and "hate crimes."

The only reason journalists bend over backwards in this case, he says, "is that most of them are abortion supporters."

All the word games come with a price, notes syndicated columnist Thomas Sowell. "All this reporting about semantics is not telling the public just what is being discussed in the first place," he writes. "Neither the defenders nor the critics are talking about semantics. They are talking about what is actually done — and that is what a major part of the mainstream media refuses to tell us. … Whether you are for or against this, you ought to know what it is. But there are newspapers, TV programs and whole networks you could watch for years without ever finding out."

next page... |  1 of 7

June (Web-only) 2004, Vol. 48