Subtle language in the abortion debate
The country is pretty evenly split on the issue of abortion.
Those who approve of it declare themselves for "abortion rights" or they're "pro-choice" or they support a woman's "right to choose."
Those who disapprove of it declare themselves as "pro-life" or supporters of the "right to life."
None of these terms - none - was chosen for clarity of meaning, predictable protestations to the contrary notwithstanding.
The terms were devised for their propaganda value, for the favorable spin they put on each group's position.
Therefore, when one group describes the other as, say, "pro-abortion" or "anti-abortion rights" they are putting a negative spin on the opposition's position.
When Joe Blow does this it is understandable. Joe Blow is not a wordsmith. Joe Blow doesn't understand propaganda. How much more powerful propaganda is when it is subtle.
Newspaper reporters and editors do not share this excuse of ignorance.
Reporters and editors are wordsmiths and if they're worth their paychecks, they know exactly what they're doing.
When they engage in subtle propaganda, it is a deliberate and unconscionable attempt to slant the news.
Witness the Aug. 30 Herald story about the GOP vice presidential nominee, Sarah Palin.
On page one, she was described as maintaining an "anti-abortion stance." (Why wasn't it a "pro-life" stance?) A caption on the jump referred to her "anti-abortion rights" record. (Why not her "right to life" record?)
Did the AP authors of the story create this propaganda or did a Herald editor create it? The answer is irrelevant.
This propaganda appeared in the Herald, Herald editors were the last to see it before it appeared in print, so the Herald is responsible.
And strictly FYI, I believe abortion should remain legal. So call me pro-abortion. But for honesty's sake, do not call me "pro-choice."
Don Frost
Rolling Meadows