A decision at NPR yesterday allows reporters to use the abortion terms “pro-life” and “pro-choice” and abandon longer, more delicate labels.
In an internal e-mail message to NPR staffers, senior editors said the terms are in such widespread use nowadays that they have become as neutral as their alternatives (“abortion rights advocate” or “abortion rights opponent”).
Plus, the shorter labels allow for more colloquial writing (important in radio), like “pro-life Democrat” or “pro-choice protestor”.
I think it’s wise for NPR to acknowledge the evolution in the language. But as a lingual traditionalist and defender of (appropriate) political correctness, I worry. Labels are powerful and are designed that way. If one person is pro-life and his neighbor is pro-choice, is his neighbor against life?
Whenever those labels were created, they were forced onto the media in countless press releases, conferences, and interviews. At what point did reporters start using them in stories? And at what point did they become mainstream? Such are the complexities of modern language.
As reporters, we are careful not to use the charged rhetoric of our sources. This is, I admit, difficult to do. A lot of it is disguised or unintended. But sharpening that filter is crucial for protecting objectivity.
Because of the ubiquity of these terms, I support NPR’s decision, and I do not see it as a concession to those who created them. But I wish they were never created in the first place.
What do you think?