Words matter, especially when covering a topic as complex as religion.
That concept has, of course, been one of the core doctrines of GetReligion for nearly 20 years and it was the hook for this week’s “Crossroads” podcast (CLICK HERE to tune that in). This episode discussed a few of the religion-language changes in the evolving Associated Press Stylebook — an update project that involved both Godbeat patriarch Richard Ostling and Bobby “Are the Rangers playing today?” Ross, Jr.
I am gung-ho about making stylebook improvements. Carry on!
But I have my doubts about whether these changes will have a major impact, when it comes to the butchering of religious language, information and history when complex religion subjects are covered by reporters (especially political-desk stars) with zero training and experience on this beat. After all, we already know that religion-news coverage radically improves when editors hire qualified writers and editors.
Thus, The Big Question, for my entire career, has been: Why don’t more newsroom managers show respect for religion news by hiring religion-beat pros?
So, will the improved AP bible help? Well, consider the many GetReligion posts over the years praising the stylebook entry for “fundamentalist,” while noting that way too many reporters ignore that advice. Why does this happen? Here is some material from an “On Religion” column I wrote on the topic (“Define fundamentalist, please”). First, the classic stylebook language:
"fundamentalist: The word gained usage in an early 20th century fundamentalist-modernist controversy within Protestantism. ... However, fundamentalist has to a large extent taken on pejorative connotations except when applied to groups that stress strict, literal interpretations of Scripture and separation from other Christians.
"In general, do not use fundamentalist unless a group applies the word to itself."
Alas, for reporters and academics, one person’s "evangelical" is another's "fundamentalist” and “fundamentalist” is basically and F-bomb. Let’s keep reading:
Anyone who expects scholars to stand strong and defend a basic, historic definition will be disappointed. As philosopher Alvin Plantinga of the University of Notre Dame once quipped, among academics "fundamentalist" has become a "term of abuse or disapprobation" that most often resembles the casual semi-curse, "sumbitch."
"Still, there is a bit more to the meaning. ... In addition to its emotive force, it does have some cognitive content, and ordinarily denotes relatively conservative theological views," noted Plantinga, in an Oxford Press publication. "That makes it more like 'stupid sumbitch.' ... Its cognitive content is given by the phrase 'considerably to the right, theologically speaking, of me and my enlightened friends.' "
This linguistic fight has spread to other faiths and, thus, affects religion news worldwide.
The Orthodox side of Judaism now consists of "ultra-conservatives," "traditionalists," "ultra-Orthodox" or "fundamentalists," depending on who defines the terms. There are "fundamentalist" Hindus, as well. In Islam, journalists keep trying to draw lines between "Islamists," "Muslim radicals," "fringe groups" and a spectrum of other undefined doctrinal camps including, of course, "fundamentalists."
Now, there are other trouble words on the beat. In recent weeks readers will have noticed discussions of “cult,” here at GetReligion and elsewhere. As in, “Updates in the journalism style bible: Appropriate 'cult' advice and other tweaks,” “Entering a religion-beat minefield: What is the proper definition of the word 'cult'?” and “Just say no to 'cult' — That four-letter word journalists really need to avoid.”
Also, there is that old, old, old issue of biased language linked to abortion coverage. See the amazing Robert P. George Twitter comment at the top of this post.
The new stylebook includes fascinating changes in other areas, such as the rising use of “nones” and common mistakes linked to the word “Roman” in front of “Catholic Church.” On that latter point, see this new AP language:
Catholic, Catholicism (updated)
Use Catholic Church, Catholic or Catholicism in the first references to those who believe that the pope, as bishop of Rome, has the ultimate authority in administering an earthly organization founded by Jesus Christ.
Given the majority of Catholics belong to the Latin (Roman) rite, it is acceptable to use Roman Catholic Church on first reference if the context is clearly referring to the Latin rite. For example: the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Indianapolis. However, when referring to the pope, the Vatican or the universal church, Catholic Church should be used since it encompasses believers belonging to the Latin and Eastern churches that are in communion with Rome. Similarly, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops includes bishops from Eastern churches as well as Roman Catholic bishops.
Lowercase catholic where used in its generic sense of general or universal, meanings derived from a similar word in Greek.
See Roman Catholic Church.
For an in-depth discussion of this update process, see the following Deseret News piece by Kelsey Dallas: “Writing about religion with style.”
You will want to read the whole thing (yes, I noticed that the feature didn’t mention GetReligion work by Ostling and Ross). I mean, our current team only has, oh, 200 years of combined religion-beat experience, or something like that.
Nevertheless, here is a good place to start in this Q&A:
Kelsey Dallas: How did you decide what terms to add?
Holly Meyer: When we were given a green light to go ahead and revise the Stylebook, David and I knew we needed help. We tapped three outside experts to go through it all and review it and give us feedback: Mary Gladstone (copy editor for Religion News Service), Bobby Ross Jr. (editor-in-chief of The Christian Chronicle and former AP religion reporter) and Richard Ostling (another former AP religion reporter). Their feedback was our guide for what entries to add.
David Crary: We told them their mission was to suggest updates or revisions to existing entries and to tell us what was missing. Some people on our own staff chimed in, as well.
Some of the omissions they noted were startling. It was amazing to us, for example, that the Sikh religion wasn’t in there. We ended up with around 40 new entries.
Kelsey: Did you also ask religion scholars or practitioners for help with the entries?
David: We absolutely did. We went denomination by denomination. With the Sikh entry, we consulted a group of Sikh scholars to be sure we were getting that terminology right. We’re really grateful for their input.
One of the most complicated things we did was to make “Catholic” the default reference to Catholicism rather than “Roman Catholic.” We consulted like crazy because we wanted to be sure that Catholic authorities were on board.
And so forth and so on. Dig right in, because words matter.
But the ultimate issue is finding more newsroom managers who are willing to hire religion-beat professionals. Why does this issue linger and linger and linger?
Enjoy the podcast and, please, pass it along to others.
FIRST IMAGE: F-bomb poster, for sale at RedBubble.com