I think there's a place to refer to various groups by their preferred names and terms, such as when reporting on a specific group or action, interviewing a specific group's members as representatives of that group, etc, versus reporting and discussing the broader paradigm/ideology/movement/debate/agenda of those groups. So yes, when inte…
I think there's a place to refer to various groups by their preferred names and terms, such as when reporting on a specific group or action, interviewing a specific group's members as representatives of that group, etc, versus reporting and discussing the broader paradigm/ideology/movement/debate/agenda of those groups. So yes, when interviewing the head of the "Right To Life" organization, refer to as such. But I just don't think it's "liberal bias" to not refer to the broader movement to ban/restrict abortion as "pro-life" when reporting on the debate itself simply because many of those groups and supporters describe and name themselves accordingly, versus what their actual agenda is, which is narrow-casted onto abortion rights and access, making them at their essence simply "anti-abortion". Again, a movement/agenda that is "pro life" has a lot of bigger connotations outside of this context about what that movement might support beyond a forced carry-to-term pregnancy mandate.
Conversely, "pro choice" is more accurate to describe the opposition- because most organizations and supporters of abortion rights are not advocating for every pregnancy to be aborted (of which a "pro-abortion" moniker might stick if that was the case), but for the availability of a *choice* to do so, and mostly on a sliding restriction based on term length to be mostly adjudicated by the medical establishment vs politicians- but TBH, the majority of "pro choice" groups are also narrow-casted on abortion access and not so much on alternatives "choices" to abortion, so even here "pro choice" seems like a bigger descriptor than what the majority of "pro choice" groups are actually advocating for and focused on, which is "pro abortion access".
So to be fair, if NPR wanted to be more balanced while being more accurate in how they describe the sides of this specific debate *which is absolutely about abortion access and rights and not about vague "life affirming" or "choice affirming" preferences* in a general sense, they could use "pro abortion access" to describe "pro choice" as the counter to "anti-abortion" and both terms would, IMO, better capture the issue that is being debated versus self selected PR terms. If NPR is only choosing to identify one side by its core agenda while letting the other side "self define", yes I would agree that's some bias and not good for straight non-opinion reporting, even though, as I said, I can allow for "pro choice" as more descriptive than "pro life" so that's why I don't view this as big of a "bias violation" on NPR's behalf.
You have the same bias NPR does about abortion. It's very hard for people on either side of the abortion issue to see beyond their own side.
There's no anti-abortion movement that isn't based on belief in the right to life of the fetus. For the pro-life side, that's the fundamental issue. And that's logical: if the fetus has a right to life, then obviously abortion is a problematic thing, intentionally killing an innocent person.
The label pro-life in this context refers to the right to life of the fetus in particular. It can have a broader meaning, but it always has at least that particular meaning in this context. It's well established, and well understood as to what it means in the context of abortion.
For pro-choice, the fundamental issue is the right of the person who's pregnant to choose abortion.
Pro-choice is in no way a more accurate or clear term than pro-life. Like pro-life, it can have a broader meaning, of course, as we have all kinds of rights to all kinds of choices. A particular complaint of pro-lifers is that the label ignores all right to choice on behalf of the fetus, which as a person in their view has the right to have life chosen on its behalf, same as with a born child, even if the parents want to kill it. That's a sensible view, if there's a right to life for the fetus.
But the label is well established and well understood, just like pro-life.
The current MSM/NPR style is to refer to the issue in terms that fit the pro-choice view that what's primary is the right to abortion, not the right to life of the fetus.
This is a blatant taking of sides, but the blindness on this issue is so profound people don't notice. And find it hard to see even if it's pointed out.
The current style also puts one side in a positive light, favoring a right, and the other side in a negative light, opposing a right. Anyone who has studied rhetoric can explain why that favors the pro-choice side as well.
But all of this falls on deaf ears to those unable to see beyond their own side. And so it is at NPR.
very fair point ... when the pro-life mvmt finds someonemore clever & honest than Ben Shapiro to represent their rhetoric about/ignoring legally sound definitions of "person", "baby", etc , i will immediately strain to curb my partisan anti-fetal-right-to-life, anti-blastocystal-right-to-life, etc. rhetoric. (not because i do journalism but because i almost always prefer as much objective framing as possible when discussing philosophy, politics, economics, et al.)
I'm not sure I follow. Are you saying they need to come up with a legally sound definition? Some would be happy to define all fertilized eggs and what follows as people, some have other ideas about heartbeats or whatever, but none of that changes my point about labels.
Shapiro is no more the leading spokesperson for the pro-life side than Keith Olbermann is for the pro-choice, by the way.
indeed — normalizing (or at least uncritically parroting) "pro-life" based on folk usage + idpol is perhaps as or more problematic than rabbit-holing "Christian" vs. "true Christian" vs. "self-professed Christian" vs. "anthropologically categorized as Christian" ...
I think there's a place to refer to various groups by their preferred names and terms, such as when reporting on a specific group or action, interviewing a specific group's members as representatives of that group, etc, versus reporting and discussing the broader paradigm/ideology/movement/debate/agenda of those groups. So yes, when interviewing the head of the "Right To Life" organization, refer to as such. But I just don't think it's "liberal bias" to not refer to the broader movement to ban/restrict abortion as "pro-life" when reporting on the debate itself simply because many of those groups and supporters describe and name themselves accordingly, versus what their actual agenda is, which is narrow-casted onto abortion rights and access, making them at their essence simply "anti-abortion". Again, a movement/agenda that is "pro life" has a lot of bigger connotations outside of this context about what that movement might support beyond a forced carry-to-term pregnancy mandate.
Conversely, "pro choice" is more accurate to describe the opposition- because most organizations and supporters of abortion rights are not advocating for every pregnancy to be aborted (of which a "pro-abortion" moniker might stick if that was the case), but for the availability of a *choice* to do so, and mostly on a sliding restriction based on term length to be mostly adjudicated by the medical establishment vs politicians- but TBH, the majority of "pro choice" groups are also narrow-casted on abortion access and not so much on alternatives "choices" to abortion, so even here "pro choice" seems like a bigger descriptor than what the majority of "pro choice" groups are actually advocating for and focused on, which is "pro abortion access".
So to be fair, if NPR wanted to be more balanced while being more accurate in how they describe the sides of this specific debate *which is absolutely about abortion access and rights and not about vague "life affirming" or "choice affirming" preferences* in a general sense, they could use "pro abortion access" to describe "pro choice" as the counter to "anti-abortion" and both terms would, IMO, better capture the issue that is being debated versus self selected PR terms. If NPR is only choosing to identify one side by its core agenda while letting the other side "self define", yes I would agree that's some bias and not good for straight non-opinion reporting, even though, as I said, I can allow for "pro choice" as more descriptive than "pro life" so that's why I don't view this as big of a "bias violation" on NPR's behalf.
You have the same bias NPR does about abortion. It's very hard for people on either side of the abortion issue to see beyond their own side.
There's no anti-abortion movement that isn't based on belief in the right to life of the fetus. For the pro-life side, that's the fundamental issue. And that's logical: if the fetus has a right to life, then obviously abortion is a problematic thing, intentionally killing an innocent person.
The label pro-life in this context refers to the right to life of the fetus in particular. It can have a broader meaning, but it always has at least that particular meaning in this context. It's well established, and well understood as to what it means in the context of abortion.
For pro-choice, the fundamental issue is the right of the person who's pregnant to choose abortion.
Pro-choice is in no way a more accurate or clear term than pro-life. Like pro-life, it can have a broader meaning, of course, as we have all kinds of rights to all kinds of choices. A particular complaint of pro-lifers is that the label ignores all right to choice on behalf of the fetus, which as a person in their view has the right to have life chosen on its behalf, same as with a born child, even if the parents want to kill it. That's a sensible view, if there's a right to life for the fetus.
But the label is well established and well understood, just like pro-life.
The current MSM/NPR style is to refer to the issue in terms that fit the pro-choice view that what's primary is the right to abortion, not the right to life of the fetus.
This is a blatant taking of sides, but the blindness on this issue is so profound people don't notice. And find it hard to see even if it's pointed out.
The current style also puts one side in a positive light, favoring a right, and the other side in a negative light, opposing a right. Anyone who has studied rhetoric can explain why that favors the pro-choice side as well.
But all of this falls on deaf ears to those unable to see beyond their own side. And so it is at NPR.
very fair point ... when the pro-life mvmt finds someonemore clever & honest than Ben Shapiro to represent their rhetoric about/ignoring legally sound definitions of "person", "baby", etc , i will immediately strain to curb my partisan anti-fetal-right-to-life, anti-blastocystal-right-to-life, etc. rhetoric. (not because i do journalism but because i almost always prefer as much objective framing as possible when discussing philosophy, politics, economics, et al.)
I'm not sure I follow. Are you saying they need to come up with a legally sound definition? Some would be happy to define all fertilized eggs and what follows as people, some have other ideas about heartbeats or whatever, but none of that changes my point about labels.
Shapiro is no more the leading spokesperson for the pro-life side than Keith Olbermann is for the pro-choice, by the way.
indeed — normalizing (or at least uncritically parroting) "pro-life" based on folk usage + idpol is perhaps as or more problematic than rabbit-holing "Christian" vs. "true Christian" vs. "self-professed Christian" vs. "anthropologically categorized as Christian" ...