previous | next | table of contents

MODULE 4 Special Discussion Points on Language

To develop a sense of the use of language to avoid racial and ethnic stereotyping.

Our words have the power to encourage our communities to read our newspapers, listen and view our broadcasts, and believe us. Those same words can perpetuate negative community perceptions about different groups and leave the news media with the appearance of bias and unfairness in our reporting and writing. It is important to consider why certain words just don't work.

Most news media do not set out to create stereotypes or division. However, journalists often fail to use language effectively in an effort to eliminate group stereotypes or intolerance. Assuming that today's news media is interested in avoiding the damage caused by the inappropriate use of language, the primary rule for journalists is:

Follow the rules of precision for writing that will allow language to be used in its purest form.

The words we choose are critical in our quest for diversity in media content. The first challenge is to present members of different ethnic and racial groups fairly and accurately by carefully choosing our words, and avoiding stereotypes and clichés that can be seen as slurs.

Some news organizations have launched committees to fix the "problems" of misuse and misidentification. Others have made issues of language an integral part of their development of rules and regulations related to style.

However, most journalists seldom have the opportunity to sit back and think about why they choose the words they use. The pressure of the clock, space constraints and the ultimate flow of the story often rule our choices. Seldom is there time to debate the best word for the job.

Now that the news media acknowledge the depth of society's diversity, and as we explore the impact that diversity has or should have on our work as journalists, we are forced to take a second look at the words we use.

In fact, the only rationale for examining what we call people and how we describe places is the attempt to accurately report on all segments of our communities and, while doing so, to use the right words for the job.

When we carefully look at our use and misuse of language, we are not catering to the politically correct. Rather we are crafting our work using all of the rules and resources available to us.

Using the Dictionary

The first step in the examination of our use and misuse of words is simple: Use the dictionary. The book is a resource we can reintroduce to our daily work as we grapple with ways to accurately and fairly represent the nuances of our communities.

The dictionary is also a tool that journalists can use to improve word control while eliminating the perceptions we create of our nation, our communities and their people - and ourselves.

Times change. Meanings change. The dictionary can remind us of that fact, remind us of the origins of the words we use, and help us to choose the right ones for the stories we write.

A few examples:

Ghetto: In the 1960s, dictionary's definitions described the ghetto as a place where the law forced a group of people to live within a restricted area of a city, and specifically referred to the pogroms in Europe. By today, a second definition has been added. It allows this word to be used to describe a quarter or section of a city in which members of a minority group live because of social, economic or legal pressure. Key facts included in this secondary definition change the earlier definition that required government action to create a ghetto.

What do reporters and editors have to know before they can use this word?

1] only a minority group lives in the area in question, and
2] they live there because of social, economic or legal pressure.

There are indeed places in cities across the world that could be called a ghetto, but journalists must be very careful that all of the facts required to meet the definition's test are present. Once again, the word cannot be used as a catch phrase for any areas of town that don't seem to fit a middle-class housing standard. Moreover, in most cases, journalists should use the opportunity to be specific and name the specific area or neighborhood where the story's action occurs.

Barrio: This word has the same fact-based specific meaning.

According to the dictionary, barrio is a Spanish-speaking quarter or neighborhood in a city or town. With the dictionary as the guide, we learn that we cannot use barrio as a synonym for ghetto. Moreover, there is no indication that economic, social or legal pressure created the ward or neighborhood. The word only applies to specific neighborhoods that are Spanish-speaking. A barrio is not a ghetto. It is not a slum. It is a place where Spanish speakers live.

Specifics vs. labels

Barrio and ghetto are just a couple of examples of words we often misuse or misapply. Better writing and reporting would describe accurately the places, conditions and economics that are at play in stories rather than resorting to the labels that often confuse and stereotype because of our misuse of the language.

Journalists must be aware that many of the people we interview for stories are not tuned in to the dictionary and precise definitions. They may not be attuned to the fact that ethnicity is not a distinguishing factor on matters of achievement or income. Or that specific ethnic groups are not synonyms for the poor, criminals, under-educated or over-educated, the unassimilated or the disenfranchised.

Educate readers and sources

How many journalists have written stories about senior citizens and called them "elderly," but did not ask the ages of the people interviewed? Again, look up the meaning of the words: "Elderly" and "aged" apply to people who are older than 65.

What about a news service story that called a man a "cripple" without describing what his specific condition was? Again look up the meaning. The definition is very specific and applies only to a small percentage of people who are considered disabled.

Distinctions without differences? No, they are distinctions that divide journalists from the people we serve. They are the distinctions that continue to polarize our society.

As we head into the 21st Century, we are left with a great responsibility to make sure the polarization does not continue and widen simply because we were too busy, too lazy or too indifferent to look up a few words in the dictionary.

• Be careful when using adjectives and adverbs. These words are descriptors which can and do perpetuate stereotypes. Journalists are reporters and not describers. We provide the readers, listeners and viewers with the facts so that the they can come to their own conclusions about the appropriate descriptors to use in the situation. Our function is not to tell the community what they should believe. Our function is to provide the community with the unbiased facts that will allow each member of our community to make decisions about how they will live their lives and participate in the benefits and burdens of membership in our communities.
• Be vigilant to avoid loaded terms or phrases that will create a sense of disenfranchisement from those who are members of the groups most affected. Do we describe a source as a swarthy, dark figure in attempt to create a tone and not realize that the tone we create is stereotypical? Do we use phrases like "he was jewed down" to describe a process of negotiation without considering the impact that the phrase will have on the perceptions of others? We must think about the average reader, listener and viewer with every word and phrase we choose. Are we communicating what we intended? Are we reinforcing stereotypes of specific groups without intending or even realizing it?

Our words have the power to encourage members of our communities - one person at a time - to read our newspapers, listen and watch our broadcasts and believe the information we provide each day. When we use loaded phrases, clichés and jargon we risk losing any trust that has been developed between the community and the media.

The words we choose can perpetuate community perceptions that the media are still as biased toward certain segments of society as the newspapers, radio and television organization of previous generations, or previous political regimes. Our words when read or heard recreate the experiences of earlier times - times when social, political, economic and legal dynamics created pockets of hatred, fear, division and conflict. With each recreation we move further back into the historical context rather than allowing our communities to move forward toward becoming societies that value the freedom of expression and diverse opinion upon which democratic media depend.

The following points should be made:

Avoid words or phrases that do not present a clear picture.
Example: In a nation where religious freedom is being reestablished, a description of minority religious organizations such as the Jehovah's Witnesses, Baptists and Protestants as sects is both inaccurate and creates a fuzzy picture for the community of what is the dynamic between the "mainline organizations", i.e. Catholics, Moslems and Orthodox organizations.

• Avoid descriptions of people that tend to prove or disprove a stereotype.
• Use words that accurately describe older people, without being patronizing or demeaning.
• Avoid using words that stereotype older people.
  Examples: feeble; decrepit; crippled.
• Avoid descriptions of women based upon whom they are married to. Women in our stories must be allowed to stand alone. Do not identify them as the wives of men but rather provide them with their own identity.
• Avoid geographic or historical inaccuracy in language.
• Use specifics and avoid labels.
  Example: In a crime story the suspect is described as a dark skinned male between 20 and 30 years of age. Press for more detail from the police. What was he wearing; where was he seen escaping; what did his hair look like.

The authorities will not provide specifics unless the journalist asks the questions. And our specific questions assist in providing the community with an adequate description of a suspect rather than a generic description that could be used to describe 50 percent of the population of a certain ethnic or racial group. And what if there are no specifics? Consider whether the description serves any purpose if it will not assist the authorities in apprehending a criminal.