G
gam197
Guest
This is a good article on how the media uses words to persuade the viewer on abortion.
lifesite.net/ldn/2007/jun/07062001.html
NEW YORK, June 14, 2007 (LifeSiteNews.com) - The New York Daily News (NYDN), the sixth largest newspaper in the United States, uses a set of writer guidelines that promote abortion through their choice of language.
The NYDN writing requirements promote an anti-life mindset by instructing writers to avoid certain words when dealing with the abortion issue. The words “pro-life” and “pro-lifers”, for example, must be replaced with “abortion foes”, “abortion opponents” or in the case of constricted title space, “abort foes”.
The pro-abortion bias is even more evident in the fact that NYDN writers may only include the positive terms “pro-life” and “pro-lifers” in direct quotations.
On the other hand, when describing someone who supports abortion as a woman’s right, writers must choose positive terms, such as “abortion rights activist”, “pro-abortion rights” or “pro-choice”. The term “pro-abortion” must be avoided.
This biased position is even clearer in the guidelines that council writers how to speak about a pregnant woman. According to the NYDN guidelines, a writer must omit “when the life of the mother is at stake”. The word “mother” instantly implies that she has an actual child even before it is born-exactly what those who promote abortion hate to admit and wish to hide. In such phrases, NYDN writers must replace “mother” with “woman”.
Similarly, an anti-life prejudice is evident in the fact that “unborn child” should never appear. Rather, it must always be referred to as a “fetus”.
“Abortion clinic”, however, is acceptable
Ironically, the guidelines finish, “Columnists have free rein in choosing their own terms to describe the issue.”
The NYDN writing requirements are similar to the Associated Press (AP) writing guidelines, only stricter. The AP outlines that writers should use “anti-abortion” and avoid “pro-life” and replace “pro-abortion” or “pro-choice” with “abortion rights”.
lifesite.net/ldn/2007/jun/07062001.html
NEW YORK, June 14, 2007 (LifeSiteNews.com) - The New York Daily News (NYDN), the sixth largest newspaper in the United States, uses a set of writer guidelines that promote abortion through their choice of language.
The NYDN writing requirements promote an anti-life mindset by instructing writers to avoid certain words when dealing with the abortion issue. The words “pro-life” and “pro-lifers”, for example, must be replaced with “abortion foes”, “abortion opponents” or in the case of constricted title space, “abort foes”.
The pro-abortion bias is even more evident in the fact that NYDN writers may only include the positive terms “pro-life” and “pro-lifers” in direct quotations.
On the other hand, when describing someone who supports abortion as a woman’s right, writers must choose positive terms, such as “abortion rights activist”, “pro-abortion rights” or “pro-choice”. The term “pro-abortion” must be avoided.
This biased position is even clearer in the guidelines that council writers how to speak about a pregnant woman. According to the NYDN guidelines, a writer must omit “when the life of the mother is at stake”. The word “mother” instantly implies that she has an actual child even before it is born-exactly what those who promote abortion hate to admit and wish to hide. In such phrases, NYDN writers must replace “mother” with “woman”.
Similarly, an anti-life prejudice is evident in the fact that “unborn child” should never appear. Rather, it must always be referred to as a “fetus”.
“Abortion clinic”, however, is acceptable
Ironically, the guidelines finish, “Columnists have free rein in choosing their own terms to describe the issue.”
The NYDN writing requirements are similar to the Associated Press (AP) writing guidelines, only stricter. The AP outlines that writers should use “anti-abortion” and avoid “pro-life” and replace “pro-abortion” or “pro-choice” with “abortion rights”.
