The @AP, like liberals, are playing word games w/ the word “illegal immigrant”

Posted by: ST on April 2, 2013 at 6:28 pm

Annoying but entirely predictable (hat tip):

The Associated Press, the largest news-gathering outlet in the world, will no longer use the term “illegal immigrant.”

The news came in the form of a blog entry authored by Senior Vice President and Executive Editor Kathleen Carroll on Tuesday afternoon, explaining that the decision is part of the company’s on-going attempt to rid their Stylebook of labels.

The company’s decision comes after years of controversy over the term. Fusion, the ABC-Univision joint venture, does not use “illegal immigrant” because we believe it dehumanizes those it describes and we find it to be linguistically inaccurate.

We wrote last year about how most of America’s top college newspapers and major TV networks, including ABC, NBC and CNN, have vowed to stop using the term. Nearly half of Latino voters polled last year in a Fox News Latino survey said that they find the term “illegal immigrant” offensive. A coalition of linguists also came together last year to pressure media companies to drop “illegal immigrant,” calling it “neither neutral nor accurate.” And some critics of the term, like journalist Maria Hinojosa, argue that those newsrooms that have continued to classify people as “illegal” lack diversity.

National Review’s Mark Krikorian quips:

As David Frum notes, AP refers to “illegal campaign donors” (here, for instance) — will they stop that too?

In fact, why not ban nominalized adjectives altogether? If using “illegals” as a noun is barred (AP hasn’t allowed that for a while), shouldn’t they also prohibit “the rich,” “the poor,” “the disabled,” “the blind,” “the good,” “the bad,” “the ugly”? After all, no person is “poor,” they are just experiencing a lack of money.

This whole exercise is doubleplusungood.

Yes.

MediaFor decades, liberals have been redefining words or shifting the focus off the words onto terms that oftentimes are not even RELATED to the words themselves (like the feminist use of the term “women’s health care” instead of “abortion”), and here they are, successful again, at getting major news organizations (as you can see from the above, it’s not just the AP) to stop using a CORRECT term and instead use politically correct terms which deliberately obfuscate the real issue.   I’d go so far to say that this planned, coordinated tactic of definition-shifting/word-eliminating – in conjunction with the related political correctness that goes along with it – has done more to cheapen, coursen, and “dumb down” the national debate on a whole host of issues than any other method out there.  Instead of frank and candid debates on stalemate issues, in order not to “hurt feelings” we sugar coat terms or strive to make them obsolete – and in the process, get absolutely no where.  Definitely not forward.

Ironically, the AP and other news orgs claim they implement rules like this so as to appear that they are “not taking sides” in any debate – but the reality is that, by them doing so, it shows they are indeed taking sides in the debate: the liberal side.

Shocking, I know …

RSS feed for comments on this post.

13 Responses to “The @AP, like liberals, are playing word games w/ the word “illegal immigrant””

Comments

  1. SteelyMatt says:

    Next, they will stop using the word “criminal” because it dehumanizes those who are incapable of obeying laws.

  2. Neo says:

    “Illegitimate Immigrants”

  3. Carlos says:

    I agree in part with AP – they should stop using the term “illegal immigrants.”

    Where I part with them, however, is what term to use as a replacement. My two choices would be “criminal invader” (preferable) and “criminal alien” (more nuanced, which should make libs, particularly the Frenchy Kerry brand, happier).

    Of course, it doesn’t make a whole bunch of difference w/the under-forty voters “educated” in the guvmint indoctrination camps ’cause they generally couldn’t define many words to begin with!

  4. Drew the Infidel says:

    If someone breaches the sovereign US border to come here, their first act in immigrating here is breaking the law which is illegal. They have immigrated here illegally. What the hell is so “linguistically incorrect” about that? It smells more like a guilty conscience or a misplaced sense of entitlement.

    The training manuals used at West Point have been sanitized to exclude such terms as war and terrorist. This has been going on for quite some time. “Gay” used to mean “exuberance or mirthful excitement” but the sodomites co-opted that.

  5. Tom TB says:

    When did an individual who deliberately broke the law deserve “respect”? Everyone should read Mexico’s Constitution; you can get deported for merely complaining about their government!

  6. Carlos says:

    Yep, Tom, fits right in with the rest of the tolerance leftists have.

    And as soon as the stooopids of this country give this country away to these interlopers, they’ll ship us back to Europe, where we came from.

    (And don’t EVEN start in with the fact they’re as European as we are – that’s totally irrelevant.)

    Which brings up an interesting conundrum: Will Mexico, once they’ve completely overrun this country and our government, be willing to give all of the Louisiana Purchase back to France, since Spain/Mexico had no claim to it? Just askin’.

  7. Brontefan says:

    To me, they will remain Illegal immigrants. Period. The opposite of Pro-Life is not Pro-Choice. I have struggled for years with the terms African American vs. Black, Native American vs. Indian, and Mexican, Hispanic, Latino—or whatever the term is this week. Playing political correctness games, like re-writing Mark Twain’s novels, is stupid and superfluous. There is no such term as reverse racist–you are either a racist or you aren’t. There is no pre-condition of being white even though Libs have been trying to make this work for years. If you are Black and a Liberal, it’s okay. If you are Black and not a Liberal, like Clarence Thomas, Thomas Sowell, David Webb–you are called an “Uncle Tom” and personally attacked by Liberals and many in Congress. Liberals have been re-writing US History textbooks, probably world history textbooks–although I never taught world history–and trying to control the nation with political correctness. It has cost those people at Ft. Hood a great deal for the POTUS to play word games with that tragedy. When people break the law, regardless of their reasons, they are criminals of some sort. And I resent people coming here, waving the flag of their home country, demanding financial benefits, and holding up signs DEMANDING amnesty. If I did that somewhere–I’d be arrested and thrown into jail or deported. Changing the rhetoric doesn’t change the facts. You still can’t make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear.

  8. Tex says:

    AP …. however, any Irishman found to be in this country without proper documentation will continue to be referred to as “illegal immigrant”.

  9. Drew the Infidel says:

    AP = American Pravda.

  10. Carlos says:

    “A rose by any other name…”

    Still stinks to its rotten core if left sitting without attention long enough, and the pols have, by inaction, let this rotting dungheap sit long enough that the only obvious answer (to them) is to give the criminals what they wanted in the first place, and that’s a free ride for breaking our (obviously useless) immigration laws.

    So what will change when they get what they want later this month or next? NOTHING! In ten more years the same ugly debate will rear its ugly head again and conservatives will again be called heartless neanderthals for wishing we could claim our homeland as our own, with our rules, not theirs.

  11. Jeff says:

    The problem with “criminal” is it’s too narrow. Entering the country illegally is a crime, but merely overstaying a visa is not. Both are illegal, though.

    AP strategy seems to be one of censorship by needless verbosity. There is no semantic difference between calling someone an “illegal immigrant” and stating that he “immigrated illegally,” but the former takes only two words while the latter requires you to devote an entire sentence to the subject. So when, in the final editing stages, something has to get cut for space, guess what is the first to go?

  12. Carlos says:

    @Jeff: In the case of AP, it’s the truth that’s first to hit the editor’s floor. And that’s whether it’s criminal aliens, unconstitutional gun restrictions, protecting killer aborters, or pretty much any other “hot button” social issue nowadays.

  13. tommy mc donnell says:

    newspeak from the islamo-marxist coalition.