I’m not sure how reporters covering the Dobbs abortion ruling by the US Supreme Court get it to deadlines.
Almost every other statement requires them to pause, reflect, and avoid using certain words or phrases because they could be landmines.
No other topic that comes to me has the language so heavily politicized. To avoid appearing political, journalists who write news stories strive to present accurate descriptions. This might not be achievable in this location.
What terms should they use to describe the opposing viewpoints on the abortion issue, for example?
The use of media “framing” is demonstrated. Because “pro-life” is a misleading spin used by people who campaign for it to seem better, many news organizations, including The Associated Press and NPR, only use it in quotes or as part of names. It also implies that the other side supports death, of course.
Even so, that side is hardly “pro-abortion.” They only want the choice to be there; they do not support abortion.
The more precise term “pro-choice,” however, is not used by many media outlets. Advocates for “abortion rights” are the more typical term.
Opponents of abortion rights or those who are “anti-abortion” are the terms most frequently used to describe the opposing perspective. Both of those labels, however, are disliked by individuals who hold that perspective.
They would rather be in favour of something than opposed to it in the beginning. In the second case, they contend that the use of “abortion rights” (or “reproductive rights”) concentrates on the expectant mother and disregards the growing human life that also has a stake in the discussion.
What would be the proper phrase for that evolving human existence, while we’re on the subject?
Or is it not a “life”? Is it a “baby still in utero”? Such language, according to one viewpoint, bestows unwarranted humanness.
The medically correct term “fetus” is preferred by the news media. On the other hand, the opposition claims that it sanitizes and ignores the humanity of the acts necessary to end a pregnancy.
Sanitizing is not something that journalists should do. For this reason, many proponents of abortion rights wish the media would say more than just that the Supreme Court’s ruling nullified the right to abortion in the Constitution.
They urge us to refer to it as what it really is: “forced childbirth,” “government-mandated childbearing,” or “denial of bodily autonomy.”
The judges who carried it out, too? They are often referred to as “conservative” or “Republican” by journalists.
These are secure words, but do they live up to the challenge? Other terms like “radical” or “right-wing” are they political or honest? (Maybe both.)
All media outlets must make a choice. Constitutional “originalists” or “textualists” have occasionally been used to describe the justices who make up the majority. This might imply a legal logic that isn’t there, one that is consistent.
There is legitimate worry that women will turn to “back-alley abortions” in areas where abortion is outlawed.
This term, which is frequently used by pro-abortion advocates and connotes risky operations and criminality, is a buzzword.
The term “self-managed abortion care,” which acknowledges safe abortion by self-administered pill, is recommended by Physicians for Reproductive Health, an organization that supports the right to choose abortion.
Read more:-
- Property Owners Along the High-speed Train’s Path Promise to Maintain Their Optimism
- In the Inland Port case, the court rules in the state’s favour.
- Bannon Wants the Trial to Be Postponed Because of the Publicity Surrounding the Hearing From January 6
There are so many terms out there that are euphemistic, loaded with political prejudice, and just bad for journalism.
An angry, polarized crowd is waiting to pounce. Journalists must make decisions with care and courage.
Let’s also accept that, despite how crucial language is, producing the kind of journalism that the Supreme Court’s decision demands for entails much more than just choosing the appropriate words.
Coverage of the serious concerns raised by the court, including the scope of governmental limits, means of enforcement and surveillance, possibilities for regaining rights, and the social, economic, and psychological effects on women and their children, particularly those of colour, is necessary.
The discussion of abortion’s morality in light of its social repercussions can still be had. In addition, there are legitimate worries about other long-held liberties that appear to be in jeopardy, as well as reservations about the legitimacy of the Supreme Court.