AP Style Guide Change

Interesting change in the AP's most recent style guide for writers:

"We have reviewed our entry on global warming as part of our efforts to continually update the Stylebook to reflect language usage and accuracy.

We are adding a brief description of those who don’t accept climate science or dispute the world is warming from man-made forces:

Our guidance is to use climate change doubters or those who reject mainstream climate science and to avoid the use of skeptics or deniers."

There was a really good segment on the radio show On the Media about this a few weeks ago. Bob Garfield really roasted the AP guy on this one. Worth a listen for a thorough review of the issue if it interests you:

http://www.onthemedia.org/story/those-who-reject-mainstream-climate-science/

Well that was interesting. More of a discussion of language and semantics that climate science.  And probably for most not worth 8 minutes of their life.

I thought the original statement was odd because "doubter"  seems to have a very different implication (to me anyway) than "those who reject mainstream climate science."

I guess I get it now, but man what a language wonk.

I like the one line...

"Well than what do you call the people do don't believe cigarettes cause cancer?"

"The tobacco industry."

Thanks for the link.

Harvey wrote

And probably for most not worth 8 minutes of their life.

Blasphemy. OTM is the one of the best media productions available today. Every minute of that show is worth it every week. Even those minutes devoted to debating semantics. Maybe even especially those devoted to semantics.



As I recall, the issue was sparked by those in the skeptic community which challenges viewpoints and beliefs that are not backed up by documented facts. So suggesting those denying climate science/change were "skeptics" attributed them the benefit of scientific opinion, which of course they do not have. Whereas the word "deniers" connotates those that refuse to accept proven fact, e.g. Holocaust Deniers, 9/11 Deniers, Moon Landing Deniers, etc. If I remember right, Garfield let the AP guy have it for not using denier and instead using that long dumb string of words they settled on.

Semantics in the media is an extremely important topic. It informs the way people perceive issues and the word even if people don't understand the semantics being employed. Better yet, ESPECIALLY if people don't understand the semantics being employed. Gaining awareness of the semantical issues at play in the media is crucial to better understanding the topics and the ways they are being discussed.

Hey I'm Mr. ADD and I listened to the whole thing.

Semantics: I have plans, my enemies have schemes. It's Fox/MSNBC crap.

I'm skeptical that any of this matters one bit.

I try to give people the benefit of the doubt, and I think people are smart enough to see through any stupid euphemisms for anything.

Like, did anyone believe that "enhanced interrogation techniques" didn't just mean "torture"?

More proof of the strong liberal bais of mass media today.  I don't understand how they can say they are journalist  any more as they only present one side of issues and the sheep that are the majority of thier viewers blindly take it as gospel truth becuase it was on tv or the newspaper.  

Schools are not interested in teaching kids to think for themselves.  They instead indoctrinate them to liberal talking points and the media can then use that to further brainwash them as adults.  This is THE vast left wing conspiracy with union teachers and liberal media as its main tools.  

Coach Z wrote

More proof of the strong liberal bais of mass media today.

I thinking calling mass media biased is just plain dumb.   Of course it's biased... both Liberally, and Conservatively.  Last time I checked, Fox News was considered part of the mass media.  Obviously, when Fox reports, they report with a Conservative bias.    The Conservative version of the "Kool-Aid" is no better than anyone else's version of the "Kool-Aid"  It's all Kool-Aid... It's all divisive.  It's all some form of shit (Bull, Horse, Ape, Dog, Cat, Bird, etc)

Anyway you look at it, mass media is just like everything else... it's all about money.  They market their message to you.  Your outlet of choice crafts the message the way you like to hear it... biased towards your values and views.  If you want to hear a soothing lullaby, you listen to NPR.  If you want to hear sensationalized bullshit you watch Fox, CNN, or MSNBC.  If you want to read alternative lunacy you go to Vice.

It's all bullshit to me.  The message is completely corrupted by the leaders of the corporation that produces it.  We're not getting facts... we're getting opinions influenced by corporate dollars... declared as facts.

Herman & Chomsky said it best in Manufacturing Consent.  You should read it.  It's an eye opening account of how mass media really works.  It really has nothing to do with facts or an unbiased message.

I wholeheartedly agree though there is only one Conservative voice Fox while every other media so called news Channel outlet is left of center in order of propaganda as I see it abc, cbs, NBC pbs cnn   MSNBC

The problem is the sheep don't understand they are getting a highly slanted political world view.  

Sheep are on both sides

More blue media outlets means more blue sheep.  Sheep like free hay and that comes from the blues.

Coach Z wrote

I wholeheartedly agree though there is only one Conservative voice Fox while every other media so called news Channel outlet is left of center in order of propaganda as I see it abc, cbs, NBC pbs cnn   MSNBC

The problem is the sheep don't understand they are getting a highly slanted political world view.

First of all, I don't think you can lump in print and TV together.

TV, especially the opinion edutainment newsitorials opinion talk show crap is 100% opinion. An article in a daily paper, even a hit piece like the Sanders dig in the WSJ forces the reader to use their brain far more critically to digest and parcel out the message. I would think that the reader of any paper would be 1000 times more informed than someone that only watched TV garbage. Is the Times a little left of center nationally? Probably.

But it isn't that much. 10 years ago gay marriage was unthinkable, in another 10 the Republicans will be taking credit for it (somehow). The center is always changing, possibly faster than any one person's opinion could ever.

And while the amount of people who subscribe to papers or read any news that doesn't reinforce their preconceived notions, the internet, tv, and radio are all there.

So to say that there's only one conservative voice is unfair. Look at how many people "PUNK" your facebook with things that could be completely debunked in two seconds on snopes or whatever. News is kind of too democratic if anything.

And that the radio somehow manages to go unmentioned in these conversations, even though many tens of millions of Americans listen to Rush, Hannity, that POS mark levin and just general religious conservative dogma everyday. People that have the nerve to drum up the most divisive hideous rants imaginable, stoking the fires of fear while at the same time telling people that the only safe place to put their money is in Gold (which coincidentally sponsors all their shows). That a side rant, but the message is still really powerful to full-indoctrinate people with that as background noise as they go about their lives. Continue straight (gps voice) ... obama is ruining this country, putin this, global warming that (sounds of rush), Make a right (gps).

NPR might be a counterweight to that somewhat -- but I think they do a good job with their mission and open up the minds of listeners to other points of view. BBC worldhour. Science Fridays. OTM. Soundcheck. It's pretty informative and not 24/7 propping up Obama by any means.

So yes, almost everything has a slant. But I think some of the opinions here are a little cynical about the situation.

Coach Z wrote

More blue media outlets means more blue sheep.  Sheep like free hay and that comes from the blues.

So the republicans don't like their free hay even though they take more of it. Whatever dude.

Coach Z wrote

The problem is the sheep don't understand they are getting a highly slanted political world view.

It sounds like you're following (and preaching) the neo-Liberal Fox message just like the rest of the red sheep.  Why is your red sheepishness any different than those blue sheep that you gleefully piss on?  

Sheep are people that only watch tv news and are lead by the mass media to from what ever opinions NBC tells them to in  thier pea brains.  Totally agree that sheep are not newspaper readers.  There has always been some political bias in newspapers as well.  The ny times and wash post are very left while the WSJ is pro business.

I would not lump any of the more liberal posters here in the sheep category.  While I don't agree with all or any of it your points generally are well thought out for the most part.  A few are just spouting liberal dogma but those few are true believers and or party operatives in one case not mindless sheep.  You all are wrong of course

Coach Z wrote

Sheep are people that only watch tv news and are lead by the mass media to from what ever opinions NBC tells them to in  thier pea brains.  Totally agree that sheep are not newspaper readers.  There has always been some political bias in newspapers as well.  The ny times and wash post are very left while the WSJ is pro business.

I would not lump any of the more liberal posters here in the sheep category.  While I don't agree with all or any of it your points generally are well thought out for the most part.  A few are just spouting liberal dogma but those few are true believers and or party operatives in one case not mindless sheep.  You all are wrong of course

But are you also saying that if one was to get all your news from Drudge or 911Truth.com you'd be better informed because you specifically avoided the MSM? It sounds like you're advocating for that.

I Googled MSM... Methylsulfanomethane?

Wall Street Journal rarely calls out the right anymore.   At least the times throws Bulldog under the bus a few times a year for good measure.

That said this is one hell of a kumbaya moment Coach I am touched. No one ever called me a party operative before.

nepa wrote

Herman & Chomsky said it best in Manufacturing Consent.  You should read it.  It's an eye opening account of how mass media really works.  It really has nothing to do with facts or an unbiased message.

Good grief to both thinking Coach would change his viewpoints and especially by reading Manufacturing Consent. I've read it but I really wouldn't recommend it to anyone that isn't seriously into that type of subject matter. It is a classic but I don't recall it really being an accessible read that Joe Anyone would enjoy reading.

MSM main stream media
Fox is not considered main stream becuase they are a denier
Kind of like this guy

http://www.ijreview.com/2015/10/448344-top-physicist-bolts-global-warming-consensus-see-says-obama/

riverc0il wrote

Good grief to both thinking Coach would change his viewpoints...

This is my real problem with the Republican Party (and people who vote for it). They never change their viewpoints, even when proven wrong.

Say what you want about Climate Change (and use whatever language you want to describe its deniers), but it's been proven that their "no increase in temperatures since 1998" talking point is pure bullshit. And they still trot it out. No shame.