Emily
MikeTop editors at NPR have recently made the decision to terminate the use of “pro-choice” and “pro-life” in their abortion-related articles. In a memo to staff, they outlined their reasoning to switch to the terms “abortion rights supporter” and “abortion rights opponent:”
This updated policy is aimed at ensuring the words we speak and write are as clear, consistent and neutral as possible. This is important given that written text is such an integral part of our work.
On the air, we should use “abortion rights supporter(s)/advocate(s)” and “abortion rights opponent(s)” or derivations thereof (for example: “advocates of abortion rights”). It is acceptable to use the phrase “anti-abortion”, but do not use the term “pro-abortion rights”.
Editors made the point that the terms pro-choice and pro-life are loaded with biased emotional imagery. Their switch is an effort to become more neutral– but I wonder if changing the terms would have any real effect. If you change the language, do you change the game?
Feminists frequently use the terms pro-choice and anti-choice, but I’m unsure about how often I like using that. I find it a helpful term for intra-organization advocacy, but in other situations, I’m not sure how far it gets us– because for me, using ‘anti-choice’ really means we’re only speaking to our own audience. And while I believe that our own audience is on the correct side of the debate, there are some potential fence-sitters I feel like “anti-choice” might alienate. And when those on the other side use “pro-abortion” instead of “pro-choice,” that really drives me crazy. They’re fueling this false notion that people who support a woman’s right to choose somehow want to push abortions on everyone.
I’m not opposed to NPR’s change; I like the framing of the issue around the idea of abortion as a right. And it takes away the power of the term “pro-life,” (as if anyone opposed to their argument is somehow ‘pro-death’ or ‘anti-life’). And the phrase “abortion rights opponent” puts pro-lifers on the defensive, which I think is a fair place for them to be– considering abortion is legal in this country, and they seek to take away that right. But I have to say that for me, the issue of choice is a really powerful one, an issue that lies at the heart of the debate. People who support abortion rights do so because they trust women, they trust autonomy and they believe that choice is a pillar of freedom and prosperity. The removal of the word “choice” leaves me a bit dissatisfied.
What do you think? Do you think these new terms are actually more indicative of a neutral journalistic standard? Is it fair? Is it the right thing to do?
Filed under: Abortion, Reproductive Rights Tagged: | Abortion, anti-choice, npr, pro-choice, pro-life, Reproductive Rights
self-affirmation as well (I think that’s what I meant instead of “self-resolution”)
Catch me on Twitter: @Harry834
Between, “anti-choice”, “anti-abortion”, and “pro-life”, it is “anti-abortion” that is the most neutral (or at least the best compromise if you want to have a conversation with an opponent).
I once engaged in email debate with someone who argued that “pro-choice” was deceptive because it didn’t mention the specific choice that was being debated.
HOWEVER…we should talk about WHY the word “choice” is so integral to our stand. Yes, we are talking about a specific type of choice, BUT why is it so important for the well-being, self-determination, and self-resolution of an individual woman? Because of how closely – how biologically, physically, and emotionally closely – this affects her…even though she’s not “losing her life” as the antis would say. We talk about why “life” means so much more than the absence/prevention of clinically-defined death.