8mm
Posted on 06/20/2007 4:18:01 PM PDT by wagglebee
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".
Leon H. Wolf, the senior editor of RedState.org, criticized the AP for these restrictions and describes the effects of such "minor" language changes. He comments on Redstate news,"the new AP style manual does the pro-choice side a huge favor; being associated with 'rights' is an even greater boon than being the 'pro'-side in a debate; the concept of 'rights' strikes a powerful chord in the psyche of the average American."
Paul Tuns, Editor in Chief of the Interim, also comments on the specific choice of wording, "The term 'pro-choice' gets away from the issue of abortion. It prefers the language used by the abortion side, and ignores what the choice is actually about. At the same time, the so-called mainstream media sets up pro-lifers in a negative light by highlighting what they are against. Under the guise of neutrality, the media consistently tilts the issue in favor of the pro-abortion side."
"The New York Daily New purports to be a neutral observer," says Tuns, "yet looking at their writer's guidelines, it is clear that they go out of their way to shield readers from the truth about abortion, about motherhood and the humanity of the child inside of her."
LifeSiteNews.com approached The New York Daily News on the topic of its styleguide for abortion stories and spoke to Jennifer Mauer, Communications Director. After repeated calls, however, the paper failed to give any comment.
The AP and the NYDN writing restrictions are only a few examples of the mass media bias that surrounds the abortion issue. In 2000, for example, when "Bloody" Dr. Richard Neale, also known as "the Butcher", received 37 charges for "serious professional misconduct", many major Canadian newspapers failed to mention any relation to the fact that he was an abortionist who had hurt or killed women during his abortions. (see http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2000/jun/00061404.html).
In a similar way, this year on the anniversary of Roe vs. Wade, three major US television stations ignored the March for Life that brought thousands of peaceful protestors to Washington DC. NBC and CBS briefly mentioned the event while ABC remained silent. These same stations gave massive coverage to an anti-war protest that took place in the capital just six days later (see http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2007/jan/07013104.html).
See related LifeSiteNews.com coverage:
Media Bias on Pro-Life Conference
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2002/jun/02061706.html
Conspiratorial Pro-Abortion Media Bias Evident
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2000/jun/00061404.html
New Vatican Document Seeks to Clarify Purposely Misleading U.N. Language
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2002/dec/02121102.html
Read Leon H. Wolf's Story about AP Bias
http://www.redstate.com/stories/culture/ap_rejects_historica...
Pro-Life Ping
And the MSM wonders why newspapers are going out of business and being accused of having no objectivity?
bttt
Refer to the NY Times as “fetal foes” and “anti-life”.
nuke-the-media.
.
We already knew that they invariably use this kind of twisted language, but I didn’t think they’d be stupid enough to put it in black and white in their style sheet. I thought it was just “understood” by all good leftists.
Not "reproductive rights activist"? Subtlety is simply lost on them!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.