As journalists, we try to stay on top of the latest trends, but we also pay close attention to the news that goes on in the journalism world.
This week, The Associated Press released a surprising — and potentially controversial — change to its stylebook.
The AP Stylebook is the book of vocabulary, grammar and punctuation guidelines and rules for all journalists. It makes you constantly doubt yourself, because it knows everything, and it makes you feel like you know nothing. We call it the “journalists’ Bible,” because, like the Holy Bible, quoting it makes you sound pretentious and often backfires.
Beyond being useful for grammar tips, the stylebook also contains the proper terms to call everything.
“A decision by Associated Press to stop using the term ‘illegal immigrant’ continued to generate debate Wednesday, with the move attracting support and derision,” according to a Los Angeles Times report.
“The Americans for Legal Immigration PAC, which advocates for measures to combat illegal immigration, said it will begin using the term ‘illegal invaders,’” according to the report. “William Gheen, the group’s president, called AP’s decision a ‘Big Brother’ move. The term ‘immigrant’ should be reserved for people who came to this country legally, he told The Times on Wednesday.”
Many members of the media seem to be trying to spin this decision from the AP as a way to control the immigration debate. Then why did the service discontinue that vocabulary?
“The discussions on this topic have been wide-ranging and include many people from many walks of life,” according to a release written by the AP’s Senior Vice President and Executive Editor Kathleen Carroll. “(Earlier, they led us to reject descriptions such as ‘undocumented,’ despite ardent support from some quarters, because it is not precise. A person may have plenty of documents, just not the ones required for legal residence.)”
“Also, we had in other areas been ridding the Stylebook of labels,” continued the release on the company’s blog. “The new section on mental health issues argues for using credibly sourced diagnoses instead of labels. Saying someone was ‘diagnosed with schizophrenia’ instead of schizophrenic, for example. And that discussion about labeling people, instead of behavior, led us back to ‘illegal immigrant’ again. We concluded that to be consistent, we needed to change our guidance. So we have.”
Fox News wondered something about the decision that, in turn, made us wonder about Fox News.
“Some are wondering why the AP decided to nix the phrase when high-ranking government officials don’t seem to have a problem with it,” stated the article.
And that means no one else can have a problem with it?
The AP isn’t the only entity rethinking the term.
“The (New York) Times, for the past couple of months, has also been considering changes to its stylebook entry on this term and will probably announce them to staff members this week,” wrote public editor Margaret Sullivan.
Do you agree with the AP’s decision, or do you think it was a wrongful attempt to drive a national discourse?
