The Associated Press: Why we will lowercase white

Why we will lowercase white 

by John Daniszewski, Vice President for Standards on July 20, 2020

---

AP style will continue to lowercase the term white in racial, ethnic and cultural senses. This decision follows our move last month to capitalize Black in such uses. We consulted with a wide group of people internally and externally around the globe and considered a variety of commentary in making these decisions.

There was clear desire and reason to capitalize Black. Most notably, people who are Black have strong historical and cultural commonalities, even if they are from different parts of the world and even if they now live in different parts of the world. That includes the shared experience of discrimination due solely to the color of one’s skin.

There is, at this time, less support for capitalizing white. White people generally do not share the same history and culture, or the experience of being discriminated against because of skin color. In addition, we are a global news organization and in much of the world there is considerable disagreement, ambiguity and confusion about whom the term includes.

We agree that white people’s skin color plays into systemic inequalities and injustices, and we want our journalism to robustly explore those problems. But capitalizing the term white, as is done by white supremacists, risks subtly conveying legitimacy to such beliefs.

Some have expressed the belief that if we don’t capitalize white, we are being inconsistent and discriminating against white people or, conversely, that we are implying that white is the default. We also recognize the argument that capitalizing the term could pull white people more fully into issues and discussions of race and equality. We will closely watch how usage and thought evolves, and will periodically review our decision.

As the AP Stylebook currently directs, we will continue to avoid the broad and imprecise term brown in racial, ethnic or cultural references. If using the term is necessary as part of a direct quotation, we will continue to use the lowercase.

For more details, see the AP Stylebook’s race-related coverage guidance, which says in part: “Consider carefully when deciding whether to identify people by race. Often, it is an irrelevant factor and drawing unnecessary attention to someone’s race or ethnicity can be interpreted as bigotry.”

The guidance also says:

Reporting and writing about issues involving race calls for thoughtful consideration, precise language, and an openness to discussions with others of diverse backgrounds about how to frame coverage or what language is most appropriate, accurate and fair.

Avoid broad generalizations and labels; race and ethnicity are one part of a person’s identity. Identifying people by race and reporting on actions that have to do with race often go beyond simple style questions, challenging journalists to think broadly about racial issues before having to make decisions on specific situations and stories.

In all coverage — not just race-related coverage — strive to accurately represent the world, or a particular community, and its diversity through the people you quote and depict in all formats. Omissions and lack of inclusion can render people invisible and cause anguish.

For AP coverage of racial injustice issues: https://apnews.com/Racialinjustice 

Objectivity isn’t a magic wand - Columbia Journalism Review

I'm delighted that the Black Lives Movement has sparked increased attention to the issue of "objectivity" in the news media. I hope the discussion continues within the news media and journalism school as well as within the general public -- and leads to improved and revised attitudes toward so-called objectivity.

Still, for what it's worth, reconsidering the value and function of objectivity affects news coverage in all fields and issues. As a longtime news junkie and liberal/progressive political activist -- and as a former journalism student, newspaper journalist, journalism instructor and government public information officer -- I have thought that too many reporters (and their editors) have a simplistic attitude toward objectivity (as well as fairness and balance). I probably did too when I worked as a newspaper reporter.

It's resulted in a false equivalence when reporting "both sides" of a political, social, or economic issue. That false equivalence has translated in modern parlance to the idea of "You're entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts." And the result is that too often opinions are treated "objectivity" with inadequate attention by the news media to researching and reporting the facts of those opinions.

The unfortunate result is that "accuracy" -- another element of journalism that is as at least as essential as objectivity -- gets minimized, ignored or lost in trying to achieve objectivity. In fact (so to speak), facts are even denigrated these days. Think climate change deniers, Donald Trump, his definition of "fake news," and his use of "alternative facts."

So, GOOD! The news media, journalism teachers and we news consumers must seriously come to terms with what we want and expect in the objectivity and accuracy of news reporting.

Mathew Ingram writes in this Columbia Journalism Review article:

"One of the things that is being called into question is the concept of objectivity.

"Wesley Lowery, a reporter with 60 Minutes, put some of this into words with a recent essay in the New York Times entitled 'A Reckoning Over Objectivity, Led by Black Journalists.' Whatever the ideals behind objectivity might be, Lowery wrote, in practice it translates into an industry in which 'the mainstream has allowed what it considers objective truth to be decided almost exclusively by white reporters and their mostly white bosses.'

"And it’s important to note that this not only leaves Black journalists—and other journalists of color—on the outside looking in, but also makes for worse journalism, if by journalism we mean representing the truth about the world as accurately as possible.

"What qualifies as objective journalism, Lowery says, 'is constructed atop a pyramid of subjective decision-making: which stories to cover, how intensely to cover those stories, which sources to seek out and include, which pieces of information are highlighted and which are downplayed.'

"The piece sparked a conversation on Twitter, including a response from Tom Rosenstiel, a veteran journalist and executive director of the American Press Institute, and the co-author of a classic journalism textbook called The Elements of Journalism (a book that Lowery cites approvingly in his essay). In a multi-tweet thread, Rosenstiel tried to clarify what he said were some of the historic aspects of how objectivity became an industry standard principle.

"The practice began as a way of injecting more scientific rigor into the practice of journalism, he says, but instead it has turned into a devotion to false balance and other elements of what journalism professor Jay Rosen calls 'the view from nowhere.' ..."

Continued at the link.

Nature Needs New Pronouns

As both an environmentalist and writer, I'm intrigued by the ideas and proposal in this article. I support further discussion and consideration. 

Still, as both a regular style manual user and creator, I'm very aware of the lengthy and continuing discussions of the appropriate pronouns for referring to humans; specifically, referring generically to a single human as "they" or "their" -- instead of using "it," "its, "he" or "his," and "she" or "her." (I favor using "they" or "their" in the singular when a person's gender is unknown or not relevant.) So, I don't foresee a quick adoption/adaption of the suggestions in this article (or other suggestions with a similar goal.

Robin Wall Kimmerer writes in YES! Magazine​:

"In English, we never refer to a person as “it.” Such a grammatical error would be a profound act of disrespect. 'It' robs a person of selfhood and kinship, reducing a person to a thing.

"And yet in English, we speak of our beloved Grandmother Earth in exactly that way: as 'it.' The language allows no form of respect for the more-than-human beings with whom we share the Earth. In English, a being is either a human or an 'it.'

"Objectification of the natural world reinforces the notion that our species is somehow more deserving of the gifts of the world than the other 8.7 million species with whom we share the planet. Using 'it' absolves us of moral responsibility and opens the door to exploitation. When Sugar Maple is an 'it' we give ourselves permission to pick up the saw. 'It' means it doesn’t matter. ...

"Let me make here a modest proposal for the transformation of the English language, a kind of reverse linguistic imperialism, a shift in worldview through the humble work of the pronoun. Might the path to sustainability be marked by grammar?

"Language has always been changeable and adaptive. We lose words we don’t need anymore and invent the ones we need. We don’t need a worldview of Earth beings as objects anymore. That thinking has led us to the precipice of climate chaos and mass extinction.  ...

"We need a simple new English word to carry the meaning offered by the indigenous one. Inspired by the grammar of animacy and with full recognition of its Anishinaabe roots, might we hear the new pronoun at the end of Bemaadiziiaaki, nestled in the part of the word that means land?

"'Ki' to signify a being of the living Earth. Not 'he' or 'she,' but 'ki.' So that when we speak of Sugar Maple, we say, 'Oh that beautiful tree, ki is giving us sap again this spring.' And we’ll need a plural pronoun, too, for those Earth beings. Let’s make that new pronoun 'kin.' So we can now refer to birds and trees not as things, but as our earthly relatives. On a crisp October morning we can look up at the geese and say, 'Look, kin are flying south for the winter. Come back soon.'

"'Language can be a tool for cultural transformation. Make no mistake: 'Ki' and 'kin' are revolutionary pronouns. Words have power to shape our thoughts and our actions. On behalf of the living world, let us learn the grammar of animacy. We can keep 'it' to speak of bulldozers and paperclips, but every time we say 'ki,' let our words reaffirm our respect and kinship with the more-than-human world. Let us speak of the beings of Earth as the 'kin' they are."

Ediitorial comment: I like the suggestion for using "kin" as a plural of "ki" for referring generically to living "things" that aren't human. But "they" also works for all living "things." I am curious, though, about the possessive version of "ki" since the article doesn't mention one. I suppose it could be "kis" or "kir" -- one or the other, not both. 

Enough is Enough: Global Nuclear Weapons Spending 2020

Nine nuclear-armed states spent roughly $73 billion on their nuclear arsenals last year! That’s $138,699 per minute! These numbers come from the latest investigation of the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN), published today: “Enough is Enough: 2019 Global Nuclear Weapons Spending.”

That estimate includes costs to maintain current nuclear warheads and nuclear delivery systems and to develop and build new ones.

In its research, ICAN also found that the nine nuclear-armed states spent an estimated $7.1 billion more on their arsenals in 2019 than they did in 2018. And nuclear expenditures are projected to grow substantially in the next decade as these countries continue to develop and build new nuclear weapons systems. You can read (and also share) the report at this link: www.icanw.org/report_73_billion_nuclear_weapons_spending_2020

So how do we stop these countries from wasting billions of dollars while putting the entire world at risk? With ICAN's findings, citizens in nuclear-armed states can take their governments to task for choosing to put these weapons of mass destruction over healthcare, education, or combating climate change. You can help us spread the word by reading and sharing the report.

These citizens can encourage their countries to join the rest of the world. In 2017, the majority of the world’s countries rallied behind the United Nations Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, sending a clear signal to the nine nuclear-armed-states (and to the banks, universities and other institutions tied to nuclear weapons production) that nuclear weapons are unacceptable and will soon become illegal under international law.

Microsoft Word will now mark two spaces after a period as an error.

Has Microsoft ended the Great Spacing Debate once and for all?

Chloe Hadavas writes in Slate.com:

"On Friday, the Verge reported that Microsoft has started updating Microsoft Word to flag two spaces after a period as an error. (The suggested correction goes without saying.)

"Microsoft is currently testing the update on the latest desktop version of Word and plans to roll out the change to everyone in the next few months. Luckily for double-spacers, the Editor feature in Word will allow users to dismiss the suggestion. ...

"Word processors have long been agnostic on post-period spacing. (Microsoft Word’s major competitor, Google Docs, still accepts both.) Microsoft’s judicious application of the squiggles aligns word processing, at long last, with the major style guides, such as the Associated Press Stylebook, the Modern Language Association Style Manual, and the Chicago Manual of Style. ..."

The Media Bias Chart, Version 5.1

Everyone is contagious!

My philosophy of social distancing during the coronavirus crisis:

Everyone is contagious!

Urge Congress to adopt these urgently needed steps to true security amidst the coronavirus pandemic

Urge Congress to adopt these urgently needed steps to true security amidst the coronavirus pandemic

I just sent emails to my U.S. representative and senators with support for steps that can lead to greater economic stimulus while targeting aid toward people who need it most.  My message said, in part:

I support truly grassroots economic action that targets aid to the most vulnerable and working families, not a top-down stimulus with mostly resources for bailouts of large corporations:

• Guarantee sick and family leave and well as unemployment insurance for everyone
• Protect our democracy and elections during this time through universal vote-by-mail
• Protect the vulnerable by imposing a moratorium on deportations, evictions, foreclosures, and utility shut-offs
• Include nonprofit organizations in any support for businesses designed to avoid layoffs  
• Offer cost-free care related to the pandemic, especially for the uninsured
• Ramp up production of lifesaving technology like tests, ventilators, and protective equipment
• Suspend economic sanctions that can block lifesaving medical equipment in countries hard hit by the coronavirus. 

My message concluded with a thank you to my representative and senators and their staffs for their public service during this hectic and scary time.

This link, provided by Peace Action​, makes it easy to write and send your message.

What’s the Best Term for Referring to Old People? - The Atlantic

What’s the Best Term for Referring to Old People? 

Joe Pinsker writes in The Atlantic​:

"Calling someone old is generally not considered polite, because the word, accurate though it might be, is frequently considered pejorative.

"It’s a label that people tend to shy away from: In 2016, the Marist Poll asked American adults if they thought a 65-year-old qualified as old. Sixty percent of the youngest respondents—those between 18 and 29—said yes, but that percentage declined the older respondents were; only 16 percent of adults 60 or older made the same judgment. It seems that the closer people get to old age themselves, the later they think it starts.

"Overall, two-thirds of the Marist Poll respondents considered 65 to be 'middle-aged' or even 'young.' These classifications are a bit perplexing, given that, well, old age has to start sometime.

"'I wouldn’t say [65] is old,' says Susan Jacoby, the author of Never Say Die: The Myth and Marketing of the New Old Age, 'but I know it’s not middle age—how many 130-year-olds do you see wandering around?' ...

"So if 65-year-olds—or 75-year-olds, or 85-year-olds—aren’t 'old,' what are they? As [Ina Jaffe, a reporter at NPR] suggests, American English speakers are converging on an answer that is very similar to old but has another syllable tacked on as a crucial softener: older. "The word is gaining popularity not because it is perfect—it presents problems of its own—but because it seems to be the least imperfect of the many descriptors English speakers have at their disposal. ..."

How Language Is Deployed as a Weapon of War – Mother Jones

How Language Is Deployed as a Weapon of War

Daniel King writes at Mother Jones​:

"How we talk about war is an early measure of whether we’re drifting to war, and whether we’re on guard against the manufacturing or stretching of reasons for it. It’s a historical constant: Carefully chosen euphemisms and deceptive sentence structures are routinely deployed to drum up public support and pave the way to battle. And it’s still happening.

Take, for example, a widely accepted catchall: 'defense.' Last month, the Defense Department called the assassination in Iran a defensive act after President Trump said he was 'call[ing] for one of the largest increases in national defense spending in American history” and “eliminat[ing] the Defense sequester.'

"A lot of time and tweets are spent in defense of 'defense,' even when we’re talking about offense.

"'The word "defense" is a euphemism for being prepared to wage war or waging war,' says John Donnelly, senior defense reporter at CQ Roll Call and president of the Military Reporters and Editors Association. '"Defense" includes offense, and that’s a great example of an official euphemism that has just become an accepted term, even though it cloaks the more complicated, harsher reality.' ..."

The use of jargon kills people’s interest in science, politics

The use of jargon kills people’s interest in science, politics

Jeff Grabmeier writes in Ohio State News:

"The problem is that the mere presence of jargon sends a discouraging message to readers, said Hillary Shulman, lead author of the study and assistant professor of communication at The Ohio State University.

"'The use of difficult, specialized words are a signal that tells people that they don’t belong,' Shulman said.

"'You can tell them what the terms mean, but it doesn’t matter. They already feel like that this message isn’t for them.' ..."

Want people to care about climate change? Skip the jargon. | Grist

Want people to care about climate change? Skip the jargon

“The only thing that’s dumb is speaking to people in language that they don’t understand.”

Kate Yoder writes in Grist.org​:

"Forget 'dumbing down.' Using more common language is 'smartening up,' said Susan Joy Hassol, director of the nonprofit science outreach group Climate Communication in North Carolina, who coaches scientists and journalists to write and speak more conversationally. 'The only thing that’s dumb,' Hassol said, 'is speaking to people in language that they don’t understand.'

"Jargon is good way to kill someone’s interest in a particular topic, according to research published this month in PLOS ONE, a science and medicine journal. Readers take it as a sign that the material isn’t for them.

"For the study at Ohio State University, 650 people read paragraphs about self-driving cars, surgical robots, and 3D bioprinting online. Half of them read paragraphs filled with cringe-worthy phrases (like 'AI integration'), while the other half read phrases translated into plain English (make that 'programming'). After they were finished, those subjected to obscure words said they felt less interested in science — even when those words were defined.

"When something is easy to read, people find they want to learn more about the subject, said Hillary Shulman, lead author of the study and an assistant professor of communication at Ohio State. Her research has shown that people are more receptive to information written in plain old print instead of cursive, just because it’s easier to process. Avoiding jargon matters, she said, for anyone who wants to get their message to a broad audience. ..."

Progressive Voters Guide

Progressive Voters Guide: Get the facts before you vote!

CHECK THIS OUT!  New Fuse Voters Guide for the Washington presidential primary election!

Fuse writes on the homepage:

"The Fuse Progressive Voters Guide compiles the information that allows you to make informed decisions about the races on your ballot, based on your values. Our presidential primary guide does not make a recommendation or endorsement for any candidate. Rather, the guide is aimed at providing information and a side-by-side comparison to help voters choose a candidate who represents their values.

"The Washington State Democratic Party recently replaced the caucus nomination system with a primary. Like all other elections, this primary will be a vote-by-mail system. In addition, the party moved the primary two months earlier, giving Washington voters greater influence in the overall candidate selection process. Voters can vote for only one party and they must identify which party's primary they are participating in on the envelope for their ballot.

"The candidates on the ballot are Michael Bennet, Joe Biden, Michael Bloomberg, Cory Booker, Pete Buttigieg, John Delaney, Tulsi Gabbard, Amy Klobuchar, Deval Patrick, Bernie Sanders, Tom Steyer, Elizabeth Warren, and Andrew Yang. Out of these candidates, only Biden, Bloomberg, Buttigieg, Gabbard, Klobuchar, Sanders, Steyer, and Warren are still actively running as of February 18."

Garbl's Editorial Style and Usage Manual--abbreviations, capitalization, punctuation, grammar, numbers, spelling, word usage

Do you have writing questions ... about abbreviations, addresses, capitalization, English grammar, internet terminology, numbers, plurals, possessives, punctuation, spelling and word usage?

If so, Garbl's Editorial Style and Usage Manual can help you be clear, concise, correct and consistent in your use of the written word. This free style guide also provides clear alternatives to long, pompous or bureaucratic words and phrases. Use this manual for help in writing articles, books, brochures, correspondence, essays, flyers, newsletters, reports, webpages, and other documents.

Garbl's Editorial Style and Usage Manual mostly follows Associated Press style but also follows the advice of other excellent books on writing--and my selection and interpretation of their guidelines. This guide focuses on U.S. standards for spelling, punctuation, definitions, usage, style and grammar.

I occasionally enhance the style guide with new or improved entries. This manual has grown and changed from print and online versions that talented colleagues and I developed in the 1980s, '90s and early 2000s while working in Seattle/King County, Washington

Garbl's Writing Center: Editorial Style and Usage, Concise Writing, Plain Language

New web host for Garbl's Writing Center

With the new year and new decade, I've migrated my 20+year-old website -- Garbl's Writing Center -- to a faster, more reliable hosting service. And I've relaunched my site with my own domain name: garbl.info. Just type garbl.info into your web browser's address bar, and it should bring up my site.

If you haven't been to my site before, it's a free portal to these writing tools:

• an editorial style manual
• a plain-language writing guide
• several guides to concise writing
• a bookshelf of writing references I recommend.

Now that I'll have better control over its appearance and structure, I hope to make it less static and more dynamic -- but still keep it easy to use. I also want to update some of the content and bookshelf recommendations. Perhaps I'll even add photography and spend more time writing this blog!

One other thing. As I state on my website: "Whatever their acclaim and position, all writers need editors. I don't have one for Garbl's Writing Center, so if you spot a typo, unclear message, possible error, or bad link, please let me know."

https://garbl.info/

How to Think Differently About Your New Year's Writing Goals | Writing and Wellness

How to Think Differently About Your New Year's Writing Goals | Writing and Wellness:

Our minds are perhaps more like machines than we’d like to believe. We’re basically on autopilot, following the same patterns of behavior day in and day out, which means that nothing will change until we consciously force it to. If you avoid setting goals, in other words, and simply continue your writing life the same way you did last year, it’s unlikely you will realize your vision of where you want to be.

Tell Congress: Stop war with Iran | Win Without War

Tell Congress: Stop war with Iran | Win Without War:

We must have hope. But we must do what we can to turn our hopes into reality.

People all over the United States are demanding we say no to war with Iran. We’ve stopped wars before, but it takes a massive wave of people power. We can do it again.

Congress is gearing up multiple fronts to try and cut off Trump’s ability to fund his war with Iran or escalate any further. Now, we must make sure all our political leaders know that we support every effort to block war. Let’s seize this chance and get loud NOW.

🖋 Send a letter to your members of Congress. Tell Congress to oppose war with Iran by advancing legislation that defunds and prohibits Trump from further escalation.