Liberal News (Associated Press) droping term 'illegal immigrants'

[Lanyap]

I guess we can start calling them visiting immigrant person (VIP).

 

[chucky2]

I guess we can start calling them visiting immigrant person (VIP).

You should copyright that, absolutely they will want to use that. It won't be for the official articles, but, anything informal the pro-invasion crowd participates in, that'll be their wink wink nudge nudge acronym they'll repeatedly use. Yes, they are that mentally F'd up.

 

[chucky2]

Well it's nice to see that you agree that equal rights is a left-wing idea.

Well, calling a tree a bush or a loaf of bread a rock would also be a left wing idea then. Yeah, you're right, perverting a long-standing word like marriage would be a left-wing idea...

 

[Abraxas]

All I can say is it is immaterial what some small group of activists want; what matters is what the AP does.

That's right, it's what AP does. And that's why I am criticizing them, and not the activists.

Sorry Charlie, I don't believe that is true. Your criticisms, by your own admission, stem not from what they do but what they might do.

My argument is based on yours: if "Rome wasn't built in a day" means they could add more words to their ban list, then "illegal" in the context of immigration certainly could be one of them. And there's every reason to believe that will happen, because the same activists complaining about "illegal immigration" also dislike "immigrant here illegally" and the other euphemisms that connote (accurately) the illegal behavior.

There's no need for a conspiracy, just for AP to cave to some activist who objects to the word "illegal" in the same way they caved to the activists objecting to the phrase "illegal immigrant".

From your own description your argument centers around what they haven't done but what you are worried may happen in the future on the grounds that them making a change a bunch of other new outlets already made and thusfar not bowing to pressure to make the change you are suggesting is an indication they will later.

 

[KlokWyze]

While I am quite liberal concerning a lot of stuff. I think this is just overt PC bullshit. They're illegal so the term applies. Boohoo if it's dehumanizing. Come here legally maybe?

 

[chucky2]

While I am quite liberal concerning a lot of stuff. I think this is just overt PC bullshit. They're illegal so the term applies. Boohoo if it's dehumanizing. Come here legally maybe?

It's not even dehumanizing, it's simply accurate. The AP needs to push the narrative that it is dehumanizing so they have a "legit" excuse to stop using it and instead use a more PC phrase.

Chuck

 

[nehalem256]

Well it's nice to see that you agree that equal rights is a left-wing idea.

I agree that leftists treat unequal things equally. Its pretty much the hallmark of left-wing thinking.

 

[Bowfinger]

Sorry Charlie, I don't believe that is true. Your criticisms, by your own admission, stem not from what they do but what they might do.


From your own description your argument centers around what they haven't done but what you are worried may happen in the future on the grounds that them making a change a bunch of other new outlets already made and thusfar not bowing to pressure to make the change you are suggesting is an indication they will later.

Exactly so, and I am stunned that he is incapable of seeing what he's doing, even though I've pointed it out at least twice. Further, to put it bluntly, he is simply clueless about the AP Stylebook. He yet again treats his imagination as fact.

His comment, "they could have simply made up a whole list of such words and phrases that would no longer be allowed. They didn't do that. They focused only on this one phrase...' is flatly wrong. The AP Stylebook is over 400 pages,a nearly comprehensive catalog of not just proper written English, but also the preferred journalistic practices and terms for a vast array of often-sensitive or controversial subjects. It includes ethnic and cultural preferred practices, legal issues, religion, politics, trademarks, etc. The only reason "illegal immigrants" is on his radar is because it is the most recent addition. It is hardly unique, however.

For example, I already cited one other example of labeling behaviors rather than people, the AP's direction to use "person diagnosed with schizophrenia" rather than "schizophrenic". The AP blog I linked also mentions that this is but one example from a whole new section of medical diagnoses. I also read in AP's recent news that they've updated their Stylebook to discourage using the phrase "illegitimate children", preferring instead something along the lines of "child born to unwed parents". They also have a long list of racial and ethnic preferences. That guidance is one of the primary purposes of the Stylebook.

If I had access to their pay site I could offer literally hundreds of such examples. Unfortunately, I do not, nor do I still have my old dead tree edition. The fact remains it encompasses exactly that list of prohibited (or at least discouraged) words and phrases that Charles asserted doesn't exist.

 

[SlickSnake]

Hrmm, I was going to comment on this, but ya'll pretty much covered it all.

I actually fed a short, fat, troll once tho, and I must say for a N.K. that lil'Kim can really do a great job shining my boots with his tongue.

And where did you find such a flattering picture of him?

 

[Charles Kozierok]

From your own description your argument centers around what they haven't done but what you are worried may happen in the future on the grounds that them making a change a bunch of other new outlets already made and thusfar not bowing to pressure to make the change you are suggesting is an indication they will later.

You're referencing only part of my argument.

It's both. I don't object as much to the change from "illegal immigrant to "insert unnecessarily wordy phrase that sort of means the same thing here" as I object to organizations that make the effort to remove the word "illegal" entirely. But I still think it's blatant political correctness.

I also think their claim that this is part of some grand scheme to get rid of labels is a load of crap.

For example, I already cited one other example of labeling behaviors rather than people, the AP's direction to use "person diagnosed with schizophrenia" rather than "schizophrenic".

And I gave a list of "labeling behaviors" that the AP has made no effort to stop using.

There is no valid reason for them to be approaching this piecemeal; they could simply say "no labels" and be done with it. But they don't, because the "no labels" thing is really just a way of deflecting criticism, not something they really take seriously. If they did, they would apply it to all labels and not just the ones that left-wingers are whining about.

The bottom line here is simple: a concerted effort was made by activists to coerce the AP into changing the use of this specific phrase, and they caved into it.

 

[ivwshane]

You're referencing only part of my argument.

It's both. I don't object as much to the change from "illegal immigrant to "insert unnecessarily wordy phrase that sort of means the same thing here" as I object to organizations that make the effort to remove the word "illegal" entirely. But I still think it's blatant political correctness.

I also think their claim that this is part of some grand scheme to get rid of labels is a load of crap.




And I gave a list of "labeling behaviors" that the AP has made no effort to stop using.

There is no valid reason for them to be approaching this piecemeal; they could simply say "no labels" and be done with it. But they don't, because the "no labels" thing is really just a way of deflecting criticism, not something they really take seriously. If they did, they would apply it to all labels and not just the ones that left-wingers are whining about.

The bottom line here is simple: a concerted effort was made by activists to coerce the AP into changing the use of this specific phrase, and they caved into it.

You didn't read the quote I posted did you? They didn't ban the term they just clarified the use of it to be more accurate and they even provided examples of when it would and wouldn't be used. Your outrage is unwarranted and quite frankly silly considering it's a news organization that wants to be more accurate, which you should be for.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

You didn't read the quote I posted did you? They didn't ban the term they just clarified the use of it to be more accurate and they even provided examples of when it would and wouldn't be used. Your outrage is unwarranted and quite frankly silly considering it's a news organization that wants to be more accurate, which you should be for.

The quote you posted is from last October. At the top is a note pointing people to their new PC policy put out a couple of days ago.

The fact that they were -- correctly -- defending the use of "illegal immigrant" just a six months ago and are now suddenly saying they won't use it any more pretty much underscores the point about this being nothing more than pandering to a bunch of activists.

 

[ivwshane]

The quote you posted is from last October. At the top is a note pointing people to their new PC policy put out a couple of days ago.

The fact that they were -- correctly -- defending the use of "illegal immigrant" just a six months ago and are now suddenly saying they won't use it any more pretty much underscores the point about this being nothing more than pandering to a bunch of activists.

No, you are still wrong, they haven't banned the term they have specified its use to be as accurate as possible.
http://blog.ap.org/2013/04/02/illegal-immigrant-no-more/

Follow the links and you will see examples for mental illness, continue reading and you will see how they defined when to use illegal immagrint, read some more and you will see how undocumented wasnt accurate enough.

You willfully ignore their stated reasons for the changes and substitute your own reasoning with nothing but gut feelings.

 

[spacejamz]

Merry Christmas/Christmas Party/Christmas Tree....check
Illegal Immigrant...almost checked

what's next???

 

[nehalem256]

No, you are still wrong, they haven't banned the term they have specified its use to be as accurate as possible.
http://blog.ap.org/2013/04/02/illegal-immigrant-no-more/

Follow the links and you will see examples for mental illness, continue reading and you will see how they defined when to use illegal immagrint, read some more and you will see how undocumented wasnt accurate enough.

You willfully ignore their stated reasons for the changes and substitute your own reasoning with nothing but gut feelings.

Really? Are you unable to read your own article. In a big header at the top of the article:

‘Illegal immigrant’ no more

Continuing:

The Stylebook no longer sanctions the term “illegal immigrant” or the use of “illegal” to describe a person.

What about that is unclear to you?

or from the stylebook:

illegal immigration Entering or residing in a country in violation of civil or criminal law. Except in direct quotes essential to the story, use illegal only to refer to an action, not a person: illegal immigration, but not illegal immigrant. Acceptable variations include living in or entering a country illegally or without legal permission.

I mean wow. Your own link just repeatedly owned you.

 

[ivwshane]

Really? Are you unable to read your own article. In a big header at the top of the article:



Continuing:


What about that is unclear to you?

or from the stylebook:


I mean wow. Your own link just repeatedly owned you.

Do you know how news articles work? The writer creates their own title (most of the time), the information found in the article is what's relevant not the attention grabbing headline, that's done to attract people because they enjoy sensationalism.

Now that you understand how the headlines work maybe you could read the article, after that then perhaps you could read the source for the article and form your own opinion? Lets take baby steps, I'll help you along the way if you need it.

And here is a pro tip for you: when quoting, it's usually not a good idea to only quote the part that makes your point and not quote the part that invalidates your point

 

[thraashman]

Do you know how news articles work? The writer creates their own title (most of the time), the information found in the article is what's relevant not the attention grabbing headline, that's done to attract people because they enjoy sensationalism.

Now that you understand how the headlines work maybe you could read the article, after that then perhaps you could read the source for the article and form your own opinion? Lets take baby steps, I'll help you along the way if you need it.

Baby steps work for someone whose knowledge of the situation is the same as that of a baby, do you have like single-celled amoeba steps?

 

[ivwshane]

Baby steps work for someone whose knowledge of the situation is the same as that of a baby, do you have like single-celled amoeba steps?

Hey I'm willing to dumb it down as much as I need to if he is actually interested in the truth

 

[nehalem256]

Do you know how news articles work? The writer creates their own title (most of the time), the information found in the article is what's relevant not the attention grabbing headline, that's done to attract people because they enjoy sensationalism.

And the url for the article: http://blog.ap.org

:hmm:

So you are saying that the AP is trying to sensationalize a story about itself in order to make itself look bad?

Now that you understand how the headlines work maybe you could read the article, after that then perhaps you could read the source for the article and form your own opinion? Lets take baby steps, I'll help you along the way if you need it.

And here is a pro tip for you: when quoting, it's usually not a good idea to only quote the part that makes your point and not quote the part that invalidates your point

The Stylebook no longer sanctions the term “illegal immigrant” or the use of “illegal” to describe a person.

-Senior Vice President and Executive Editor Kathleen Carroll

I mean really. What could be more clear than that.

 

[ivwshane]

And the url for the article: http://blog.ap.org

:hmm:

So you are saying that the AP is trying to sensationalize a story about itself in order to make itself look bad?




-Senior Vice President and Executive Editor Kathleen Carroll

I mean really. What could be more clear than that.

Oops I apologize, I read an article from the Washington post and I thought that was what I linked to.

The rest of my points still stand, you just conveniently forgot to quote the rest of the statement.