Via Eugene Volokh,[1] I came to this Boston Globe piece by Jeff Jacoby, who complains that the term “partial birth abortion”, when used in news stories, is normally surrounded by scare quotes, with the explanation that this term is used by opponents of legal abortion, but disputed by supporters. Jacoby complains about liberal bias here and says, among other things “when reporting on the same-sex marriage controversy, they should observe that “what critics call ‘homophobia’ — a term promoted by gay and lesbian activists — is not recognized by medical authorities”
As far as I can recall, I’ve never seen the word “homophobia” used in a news story in a major newspaper, other than in quotes, usually direct, but occasionally indirect (“activist X is concerned about homophobia”) Certainly I’ve never seen it used as if it referred to a recognised medical condition analogous to, say, claustrophobia. I looked in Google News and the recent uses I could find were all either in direct or indirect quotes, opinion pieces (including reprints of Jacoby!) or in publications such as Gay Times and Alternet, which don’t claim to be unbiased. Can anyone point to examples that would support Jacoby?
More generally, there is clearly a problem here. Almost any term can be disputed. For example, Jacoby himself objects to the term “assault weapons” as biased and anti-gun, even though a Google search for “assault rifle” produces 131 000 hits, including many which both promote assault rifles and deplore restrictions on their use[2]. As another example, I recently referred to the President of the United States of America, but almost every word in that description of George Bush could attract scare quotes from someone. It could be argued for example, that Bush wasn’t properly elected, that the US Government is illegitimate or that inhabitants of a single country have no right to claim a name properly shared between two continents.
I don’t have a good answer to this. Noting, or ignoring, disputes about terminology is one of many ways in which the media treat some viewpoints as legitimate and others as beyond the pale of debate. In the US, as the Letters Editor of the NYT observed a while back, the range of legitimate viewpoints runs the gamut from liberal to conservative. Terms will be given the scare quote treatment if either Republicans or Democrats contest them strongly enough, but not otherwise.
I will say, however, that I am less convinced than Jacoby and others of the importance of getting your terminology accepted. To the extent that “poltical correctness” was a serious movement rather than a mere bogy, its central premise was that if we could only be induced to adopt the correct language, the correct thoughts would inevitably follow. Much of the conservative reaction implicitly accepted this premise. I never saw much evidence to support it, and I’ve seen plenty of examples where terms initially used by one side have been successfully taken over by other, “capitalism” being an obvious example.
Update In comments, Chris points out that The Guardian regularly uses the term “homophobia”, and the same seems to be true of some other British media outlets. But using the search engines on the NY Times and other US and Australian papers, and using Lexis-Nexis, I found very few instances in the news, as opposed to opinion and review, pages.
fn1. We at CT seem to be on a Volokh kick at the moment, but my link is purely coincidental
fn2. I’m more sympathetic to Jacoby’s objection to “campaign finance reform”, but a moment’s thought should have been sufficient to tell him that liberals don’t have a monopoly on tendentious use of the word “reform”. Welfare reform, anyone.
{ 31 comments }
alkali 06.10.04 at 1:37 pm
Jacoby’s principal points of complaint — “‘choice’ and ‘the right to choose,’ the most common euphemisms for abortion” — are also questionable. As Jacoby is well aware, the term “choice” does not refer to the procedure itself; it refers to a political stance. Does Jacoby actually believe that news stories about abortion don’t use the word “abortion”?
Even the Globe, Jacoby’s own paper, generally doesn’t use the terms “pro-choice” or “pro-life” to describe the opposing political positions on abortion. Like many newspapers, it typically uses the less loaded terms “abortion rights supporters” or “abortion opponents” (except occasionally when directly quoting a participant in the debate).
maria 06.10.04 at 1:39 pm
What a bizaare piece by Jacoby – it’s as if he’s skipped the last 30 odd years of debate about language and power, and come up with his own eureka moment; ‘guess what, loaded terms are, em, loaded’.
Is Jacoby as concerned about the non-medical use of the term ‘xenophobe’? Does he understand that, say, francophiles and paedophiles do not suffer from similarly pathological conditions? (though some on his end of the spectrum might disagree.)
So to those of the moral majority who are suddenly concerned that language is both a political tool and a medium for power relations; ‘no shit’.
Donny 06.10.04 at 1:43 pm
As a longtime Boston Globe subscriber, I have come to expect only the finest in intellectual dishonesty from Jeff Jacoby. He never lets fact or reason interfere with a good reactionary rant. Jacoby is a true hero of the neverending right-wing war against straw.
pepi 06.10.04 at 2:15 pm
That’s so dumb. Homophobia, like xenophobia, is not a medical condition and has never been presented as one.
What now, fears cannot exist if they’re not medically ascertained? Where does this bizarre idea come from?
Besides, all phobias, even those about precise things and objects, are psychological and not ‘medical’ in the sense of physical conditions.
Next it’ll be: the English dictionary, a book drenched in liberal bias…
pepi 06.10.04 at 2:19 pm
Jacoby himself objects to the term “assault weapons†as biased and anti-gun
Very bizarre. What alternative names does he suggest?
Chris Bertram 06.10.04 at 2:26 pm
Using google to search the Guardian for instances does the trick: “lots of quoteless homophobias”:http://www.google.com/search?as_q=homophobia&num=10&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&btnG=Google+Search&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&lr=&as_ft=i&as_filetype=&as_qdr=all&as_nlo=&as_nhi=&as_occt=any&as_dt=i&as_sitesearch=guardian.co.uk&safe=off .
pepi 06.10.04 at 2:33 pm
Actually, it would seem both ‘homophobia‘ and for instance, ‘agoraphobia‘ are listed in the Merriam-Webster Medical Dictionary.
Whereas “choice” obviously isn’t.
There you go, even the dictionary is biased. Damn liberals.
pepi 06.10.04 at 2:36 pm
I’ve never seen homophobia in scare quotes really. No one disputes it exists and what it means. Everyone just denies they are homophobic.
no strong position on abortion 06.10.04 at 2:36 pm
I wish you had not made the original comment. I just looked up “partial birth abortion” on Google, and now I wish I hadn’t – I feel sick. Is the aim of this labelling to make people want to ban it? We could rename all medical procedures to remind us of the gory detail and save a lot on medical bills. Life is hard enough without being reminded of the misery all the time. I am sure that stomach stapling and anti-cancer radiation treatment could have some awful name. People who want to ban abortion could be labelled “pro-sadism” or “pro-misery” on the basis that they would prefer for a family to be miserable than abort an unwanted foetus/child.
Rob 06.10.04 at 2:36 pm
Well the Guardian is not unbiased, and I highly doubt Jacoby cares about the British press.
Nat Whilk 06.10.04 at 2:48 pm
John Quiggin wrote:
“As far as I can recall, I’ve never seen the word “homophobia†used in a news story in a major newspaper, other than in quotes, usually direct, but occasionally indirect (“activist X is concerned about homophobiaâ€)”
I see all sorts of counterexamples on Nexis.
RD 06.10.04 at 2:53 pm
“Quotation marks used in this way are informally called scare quotes. Scare quotes are quotation marks placed around a word or phrase from which you, the writer, wish to distance yourself because you consider that word or phrase to be odd or inappropriate for some reason. Possibly you regard it as too colloquial for formal writing; possibly you think it’s unfamiliar or mysterious; possibly you consider it to be inaccurate or misleading; possibly you believe it’s just plain wrong. Quite often scare quotes are used to express irony or sarcasm:”
Notice I scare quoted the entire paragraph because I can’t remember where I copied it from and aren’t about to go back and find out.
I know “phobic” is mostly misused because it’s not just fear, but judged as exagerated, inexplicable or illogical fear. Actually in real life it’s probably more of an aversion, and usually a marked one aroused by something highly distasteful.
So we usually aren’t even scare quoting the right words. In most cases we’re just plain “disgusted”.
“I” “think” “disgusting” “covers” “most” “of” “what””disguises” “as” “news” “today”.
belle waring 06.10.04 at 3:00 pm
Actually, pepi, we’ll have to give him credit on that one. The term “assault weapon” has a specific meaning in US law which is totally cosmetic. Functionally identical guns with stocks of different materials (plastic vs wood) are classified as assault weapons or not. This really is a meaningless term. Fully automatic guns, ie machine oe Tommy guns, what you might think of as classic assault weapons, are illegal under a separate, longstanding law.
eudoxis 06.10.04 at 3:05 pm
“As far as I can recall, I’ve never seen the word “homophobia†used in a news story in a major newspaper, other than in quotes, usually direct, but occasionally indirect (“activist X is concerned about homophobiaâ€)”
Search the word ‘homophobic’ at the web page of any major news outlet and you’ll see the word pop up, repeatedly, unattributed and without quotes.
“Certainly I’ve never seen it used as if it referred to a recognised medical condition analogous to, say, claustrophobia.”
Here you miss Levy’s point entirely. As homophobia is not a medical term, just as “partial birth abortion” is not a medical term, it need not be called upon that fact. Another example is “open heart surgery”, a lay term used instead of “cardiac revascularization”.
Ironically, use of the term “what-opponents-call-“partial-birth-abortion” defeats the claim of euphemistic use of “late term D&C”. The general public is not (and does not want to be) aware of the actual procedure, yet the tip to “what-opponents-call-it” is a directly enlightening.
eudoxis 06.10.04 at 3:25 pm
Curiously, ‘homophobia’ is not as freely used in the press as ‘homophobic’.
John Kelsey 06.10.04 at 3:26 pm
This may be obvious to everyone else, but I tend to think the more loaded terms aren’t nearly as effective as the subtle ones that push debate in a certain direction.
Think “school choice” vs “vouchers” vs “privatizing the school system.” Those three aren’t identical, but they’re closely related, and which term you use does seem to have an effect on how you think about the issue, at least at first.
I suspect this effect is very small for people who’ve thought a lot about these issues, because they map the terms onto their own internal meanings. But for people who are just beginning to look at the issue, the subtleties of word choice seem to direct thought in a certain direction. (Consider starting a discussion about “social insurance” vs “welfare.”)
–John
P O'Neill 06.10.04 at 3:27 pm
Apart from anything else, Jacoby is not even being original here. This PBA scare quote business has been a reliable Taranto/OpinionJournal spin point for months now.
Richard Bellamy 06.10.04 at 3:53 pm
“Ironically, use of the term “what-opponents-call-â€partial-birth-abortion†defeats the claim of euphemistic use of “late term D&Câ€. The general public is not (and does not want to be) aware of the actual procedure, yet the tip to “what-opponents-call-it†is a directly enlightening.”
But, you see, that’s exactly wrong. Jacoby is actually correct, but for 100% wrong reasons. The real issue is that “What opponents call partial birth abortion” is completely different from “What the law calls partial birth abortion.”
Specifically, the Partial Birth Abortion Act of 2003 bans, in relevant part “the person performing the abortion deliberately and intentionally vaginally delivers a living fetus until, in the case of a head-first presentation, the entire fetal head is outside the body of the mother, or, in the case of breech presentation, any part of the fetal trunk past the navel is outside the body of the mother for the purpose of performing an overt act that the person knows will kill the partially delivered living fetus;”
Do you see “late term” anywhere in the statute? Anything that says expressly or impliedly leads one to conclude that the law bans abortions conducted only after a specific date? No. Do you see any type of abortion specificed — such as the procedure most often described as partial birth abortion “intact D&X” — anywhere in the definition? Would it help if you knew that intact D&X is, by definiton, performed breach, while the law bans some types of head-first delivery as well?
So, in fact, the Partial Birth Abortion Ban of 2003 does not ban “what critics call partial birth abortion.” That is not a political statement, but an empirical one. The statute bans much more than what opponents would call partial birth abortion, including some things (such as some pre-viability head-first abortions) that ONLY SUPPORTERS OF THE BAN would even think to call “partial birth abortion.”
EKR 06.10.04 at 4:09 pm
Actually, Belle, it’s even more complicated. A tommy gun is a submachine gun, not an assault rifle.
In the WWII era, there were two basic kind of infantry long gun (i.e., non-pistol).
(1) Non-automatic rifles, whether sem-automatic (used by the US) or bolt action (used by most everyone else). These weapons fired one shot per trigger pull and used standard rifle ammunition. They were accurate out to long ranges but could only lay down limited amounts of fire due to the single-shot-per-trigger-pull thing.
(2) Fully automatic weapons like the tommy gun, sten gun, etc. These were fully automatic (i.e. they would fire as long as you pull the trigger) handheld weapons. Typically they fired a short pistol cartridge like the 45-cal or 9mm. They could deliver a lot of fire but had lousy accuracy and range.
There were also handheld machine guns firing rifle ammo (e.g. the Browning Automatic Rifle) but these were really designed to be squad weapons.
An assault rifle is basically a compromise design: it’s a fully automatic or selectable fire rifle firing a small rifle cartridge. The US M-16 uses a 22-cal cartridge. The AK47 uses a shortened 7.62 mm cartridge. The idea is to get reasonable accuracy and control while still sustaining a high rate of fire.
Now, you can buy semi-automatic variants of military assault rifles . Basically, these are just aggressive-looking hunting rifles.
EKR 06.10.04 at 4:27 pm
Sent that too early.
As Belle says, real assault rifles are banned because they are automatic weapons. Many of the semi-automatic variants of assault rifles were banned in the “assault rifle” ban–although because they’re just aggressive-looking hunting rifles, the ban is really a ban on certain cosmetic features and the manufacturers started to find ways to remove or modify those features so as to circumvent the ban.
E. Naeher 06.10.04 at 4:28 pm
FWIW, AP style prohibits both pro-choice and pro-life.
General Glut 06.10.04 at 4:50 pm
Too bad we haven’t been seeing press stories on “R2I techniques at Abu Ghraib, which opponents call ‘torture'”.
pepi 06.10.04 at 6:08 pm
belle: thanks for the explanation. I’m not familiar with that kind of stuff at all! (non-American and totally gunphobic – no scare quotes, I really really mean it). But then shouldn’t he be blaming the laws for making a mess of the definition, instead of the media?
pepi 06.10.04 at 6:11 pm
general glut – I actually seem to recall the word torture being scare-quoted in a few articles…
Robert Lyman 06.10.04 at 8:02 pm
I’d like to make a clear distinction here which has been only hinted at above. The term “assault rifle” has a long pedigree and a fairly precise meaning known to armorers (as explained above); “assault weapon” had no meaning at all until it was thought up by anti-gun activists who, of course, recognized the power of language.
This is a very close parallel to the PBA situation, and therefore a perfect illustration of Levy’s point.
Not necessarily any way you could have known that, John. But to answer pepi’s queston, yes, the politicians and their laws have made a mess of the definition, but if the media had used those scare quotes–together with an explanation–then folks like pepi and John (who have no great interest in the topic) would understand it better, and perhaps well enough not to make these sorts of errors.
It would also be nice if the media would explain clearly what D&X (vs. D&E, and other possible procedures) entails, so that the public would understand what the debate was about.
eudoxis 06.10.04 at 9:32 pm
Richard Bellamy:
So, in fact, the Partial Birth Abortion Ban of 2003 does not ban “what critics call partial birth abortion.â€
I think there is greater congruence between the law and what opponents call “partial birth abortion†than between the law and “intact dilation and extractionâ€. The latter does not adequately describe the procedures outlined in the law nor is it, as a technical medical term, meaningful to the lay public.
True, the language of the ban is not clear and, even if putting it into practice will develop some clarity, the nebulousness of the practice of late term abortions and a disparity in the level of nefariousness ascribed to it by individuals make both the law and public perception of the practice a large, swampy area.
It’s clear that the term “partial birth abortion†is itself a not-so-nice Nelly that attempts to tap into the revulsion that can be generated by the thoughts of healthy, term neonates and rusty scissors. Jacoby does not speak to this. On the other hand, use of the term “intact dilation and extraction†is expressly intended to remove the reader’s association with anything understandable, familiar, or emotional. (BTW, the law references 20 weeks.)
The title of the ban contains “partial birth abortionâ€, so use of that language is not as clearly associated with supporters of the ban as use of “what doctors call “intact dilation and extractionâ€â€ is with opponents of the ban.
John Quiggin 06.10.04 at 9:42 pm
The “assault weapons” example is interesting. From what I can see from the discussion, there was, at one time, a clear distinction between semi-automatic weapons and military assault rifles. Gun manufacturers blurred this distinction by selling semi-automatic versions of military assault rifles, seeking to cash in on the marketing cachet of the assault rifle. Then anti-gun groups turned the tables by picking up the negative connotations of the term.
To summarise, if I understand correctly “assault weapon” means “semi-automatic version of military assault rifle, or similar looking item”.
PS: I have a vague recollection of reading that, in many cases, the semi-automatic conversion could easily be undone, producing a fully automatic weapon. Can anyone set me straight on this?
eudoxis 06.10.04 at 10:08 pm
PS: I have a vague recollection of reading that, in many cases, the semi-automatic conversion could easily be undone, producing a fully automatic weapon. Can anyone set me straight on this?
You’re right, JQ. One can also convert a single shot weapon into a fully automatic weapon.
Richard Bellamy 06.10.04 at 10:11 pm
(BTW, the law references 20 weeks.)
“References” is right. In the “finding” (quote, not scare) section, the statute states that “partial birth abortions” (scare and quote) are performed “normally twenty weeks or longer in gestation”.
Normally.
The law itself has no gestation cut-off. A “partial birth abortion” performed at 16 weeks on a non-viable fetus in the earliest weeks of the second trimester is unquestionably outlawed by the law. The law does not outlaw only late-term abortions. It simply doesn’t. There is no statutory interpretation necessary.
If you ask the average “critic of partial birth abortion” what they think the terms means, they would not think it could mean abortions performed early in the second trimester that are outlawed here.
Robert Lyman 06.10.04 at 11:25 pm
there was, at one time, a clear distinction between semi-automatic weapons and military assault rifles
Not really. In WWII and Korea, American infantry carried the M1 Garand, which is an 8-shot, semi-auto battle rifle (other forces in WWII all carried bolt-action battle rifles, which require that the action be worked manually after each shot). The Garand continued in use among military forces around the world even after the US had replaced it with the M-16. So semi-auto (and bolt-action) military weapons (which are widely sold on the civilian marken in the US) have coexisted with more modern “assault rifles” in the armies of the world since the latter were introduced, meaning that the distinction between military and civilian weapons is in general more blurry than your comment suggests.
Now, perhaps there was a delay between the adoption of the M-16 by the US and the sale of the AR-15 (the civilian version), I can’t be sure. But it wasn’t just marketing that led gun makers to want to sell the AR-15, and it wasn’t just cachet that led shooters to buy it. It is an excellent design with a number of advantages for competitive shooters and varmint hunters over comparable rifles.
To summarise, if I understand correctly “assault weapon†means “semi-automatic version of military assault rifle, or similar looking itemâ€.
Sorta-kinda correct. The definition also encompasess a number of pistols that have no relation to assault rifles and a number of rifles, shotguns and pistols with no military pedigree or appearence. Furthermore, there are a number of semi-auto guns (such as the AK-47 I own) which, although they are absolutely identical in appearance to the military version, evade regulation. Also, while previous posters have referred to the distinction as “cosmetic,” it has functionality aspects as well: things like pistol grips and folding stocks are just as useful to civilian shooters for improving comfort and saving space as they are to the military.
Complete legal definition of “semiautomatic assault weapon” is here. (Scroll down)
PS: I have a vague recollection of reading that, in many cases, the semi-automatic conversion could easily be undone, producing a fully automatic weapon. Can anyone set me straight on this?
This was widely reported, and is pretty much BS. Most semi-autos cannot be converted without completely replacing the trigger group and making external modifications which would be visible to a very brief inspection. Such trigger groups are, under the law, considered “machineguns” by themselves, with the attendant prohibitions attached to their possession and sale. And, for most semi-auto guns which are not military-pattern, full-auto trigger groups simply do not exist and would require a high level of machine-shop and gunsmithing skill on the part of the converter.
It is certainly possible in certain (though by no means all)cases to fiddle around with a file and get a sort of improvised automatic weapon, but it will be enormously unreliable and prone to jamming. No one who had a clue would attempt this.
And,to be frank, I’d rather have the average criminal shooting at me full-auto than semi-auto, especially if he had made the conversion inexpertly himself. It takes training to take proper advantage of automatic fire, and without the training, he’ll just run out of ammo quicker and hit less.
alkali 06.11.04 at 12:00 am
eudoxis writes:
[U]se of the term “intact dilation and extraction†is expressly intended to remove the reader’s association with anything understandable, familiar, or emotional.
I’m not sure think the latter claim is true. Doctors don’t refer to a rash as “dermatitis” to be tricky or euphemistic; they use that language to be precise. I don’t have any reason to believe the term “intact dilation and extraction” was devised for any purpose other than to precisely describe the procedure at issue.
That having been said, there is no reason that political discussions must use precise medical terminology rather than more readily comprehensible and more descriptive terminology, provided that the terminology is reasonably accurate.
Comments on this entry are closed.