LA TImes Changes "Pro-life" to "Anti-abortion"

NewsMax ^ | 3/4/04 | Limbacher

[Tumbleweed_Connection]

A Los Angeles Times critic is up in arms because the paper changed the "pro-life" language in his review of an opera - and the opera has absolutely nothing to do with abortion.

According to LA Observed, critic Mark Swed's review of the Richard Strauss opera "Die Frau Ohne Schatten," which described the work as "an incomparably glorious and goofy pro-life paean...," was altered to say "anti-abortion," instead of "pro-life."

While the opera extols motherhood, it makes no references to abortion, and Swed was in a sweat over the Times' altering his writing to imply something he had not meant to infer.

But his anger reportedly mounted after the Times ran a correction that failed to make it clear that Swed was not responsible for the error, stating only that "A review of Los Angeles Opera's 'Die Frau Ohne Schatten' in Tuesday's Calendar section incorrectly characterized the work as 'anti-abortion.' In fact, there is no issue of abortion in the opera, which extols procreation."

As a result, the Times ran another correction stating that "A correction in Wednesday's paper about the review of Los Angeles Opera's 'Die Frau Ohne Schatten' incorrectly implied that it was the reviewer who characterized the work as 'anti-abortion' in Tuesday's Calendar.

"As the correction should have made clear, the lead paragraph submitted by the reviewer was incorrectly changed to include the term 'anti-abortion.' There is no issue of abortion in the opera, which extols procreation." (The Times just can't bring itself to use such a politically incorrect word as "motherhood" which is what the opera is all about).

Commented one LA Observed reader: "The goofball editor who changed Swed's piece must have thought "pro-life" sounded too benign and pleasant. In his or her mind - likely biased in a liberal direction - "anti-abortion" probably sounded more appropriately pushy and rigid.

"Of course, that same editor never would have considered it necessary to change the phrase 'pro-choice,' were it in Swed's article, to 'pro-abortion.'"

Notes LA Observed: "As of March 3, at 4 p.m., the erroneous story than ran in the paper" remains on the LAT website with no correction attached.

[LiteKeeper]

INTREP - LEFTIST BIAS ALERT!

[farmfriend]

ping

[jwalburg]

No, it is just a rule of the AP stylebook. Editors may not allow the term "pro-life." It must be called "anti-abortion." They also must call pro-abortion "abortion rights." It's right there in the style book that all editors are required to follow if their stories are carboned onto the AP wire.
Some automaton copy editor was "just following orders" and not gathering the real meaning of the copy. A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds.

[Kay Syrah]

Ah, what happens when we run everything thru the politically correct generator. Its a little like spell check, sometimes the term is correct, but doesn't make any sense.

[Ditter]

I am in favor of calling the other side "pro-death" or maybe "pro baby murder for convience sake".

[scan58]

hehehe...wonder if they automatically run an application that changes any words "pro-life" to "anti-abortion" before any story is printed. Sounds like their bias backfired on them.

Just another case of leftists doing their best to distort what's good.

[indianaconservative]

No, they change pro-abortion to pro-choice.

[Arthur McGowan]

Of course, they refuse to admit that every time they use "abortion rights" as a synonym for "abortion," as in "Kerry strongly supports abortion rights," they are editorializing. The AP no longer reports on this issue: It is simply the POSITION of AP that there is a right to abortion.

[Sacajaweau]

The problem is the pro-choce tag. Either you think it's okay to kill babies or you don't.

[jwalburg]

Exactly. And they have changed the very distasteful noun "abortion" to a mere adjective, while making "rights" the more forceful noun, more prominent in every sentence.

[GLDNGUN]

No, they change pro-abortion to pro-choice.

I have a liberal aquaintance who is unabashedly and proudly PRO-ABORTION. He told me recently that he's in favor of as many abortions as possible. The more the merrier. He was "dead" serious and said it quite matter of factly. This is a guy who is a very prominent local "progressive" and very active politically. It literally made me sick to my stomach.

[DakotaGator]

I am in favor of calling the other side "pro-death" or maybe "pro baby murder for convience sake".

My vote is for "baby killers"!

[jwalburg]

My husband was recently reading a eugenics history book called the War Against the Weak. Very similar sentiments there also to your acquaintance's.

These attitudes, according to this book, began in America but spread around the world, contributing to Germany's involvement with horrendous medical experiments and eventually the holocaust.

[indianaconservative]

Its also funny how the only choice they believe we should have is whether or not to kill a baby. Other than that we can't have any other choices (schools, retirement, etc)

[William Tell]

GLDNGUN said: "I have a liberal aquaintance who is unabashedly and proudly PRO-ABORTION. "

I think we need bumper-stickers which state: "Pro-Choice Republican: I don't care how many of their own babies the Democrats kill."

[redangus]

Even in their stupidity the Left understands the power of words and uses that power with a deftness that those on the Right can not even imagine.

Those that control the language control the debate and those that control the debate usually win.

[dmz]

The AP no longer reports on this issue: It is simply the POSITION of AP that there is a right to abortion.
________

ummm, I believe that it is the position of the Supreme Court of the United States of America that there is a right to abortion. Why would AP report otherwise?

[11th_VA]

Great post !!! What a bunch of maroons !!!!

[MrB]

It is the position of the Supreme Court that the states may not make any law restricting abortion.

However, it is not in the words of the Constitution that the federal government may impose this restriction on the states.

Unless you take seriously the "emanations of the penumbra" explanation. IE, halucinating while staring at the Constitution.