It has been an occasional point of contention for some (namely me) in the news business when running up against the gold standard of professional language – The Associated Press Stylebook. For generations, this ever-expanding tome has been the guiding force in journalistic language, but recently it has been morphed into another tool for media narrative-building.
For instance, linguistic rectitude has frequently been pushed aside in favor of sensitive or woke terminology. Gender issues are to be treated with deference over accuracy. During the 2020 Summer of Love riots, the AP decreed that going forward, reports on race matters should have the word “Black” capitalized, out of some sort of heed being shown. At the same time, references to Caucasian individuals will remain diminished as “white.” And what would you know? As a result, we now have no racism in this country!
While I have at times bristled at having the AP standard applied to my content, I now have an ally in my resistance to the AP Stylebook – the AP itself. In a court case, the news syndicate has just presented a rather odd argument to a judge's panel: The AP says that it should not be held to its own language standards.
The issue involves a case where Zachary Young is suing the AP over the way he was portrayed in news reports. Young, you might recall, is the military veteran who successfully sued CNN for defamation over its portrayal of him as a “black market operator” (lower case applied) in facilitating the evacuation of individuals from troubled regions. Young’s professional business of exfiltrating people was impacted when the news channel framed him as an illegal opportunist, possibly extorting people in dire situations.
BREAKING: Jury Reaches Verdict in CNN Defamation Case
Now Young has a similar suit against the Associated Press, and Nick Fondacaro reports at NewsBusters that this is focusing on the way the news syndicate reported on his activities in a different fashion, describing it as a form of “human smuggling.” And, it so happens, this is the term that the AP is arguing against in its defense, doing so in a deeply curious fashion. Young’s legal team has cited that in the Associated Press stylebook, they address that particular term, and its description is that of an illegal activity. This is where the curiosity springs up.
The AP is not denying that it used the term. The AP is actually arguing that it should not be held to its own defined standard. Amazingly, the news source for all of the approved language in the media is claiming that it ought not be subject to its own standard.
Young’s counsel said to the three-judge panel:
"So the article says, 'Young's business helped smuggle people out of Afghanistan,' and then talks about the funding for that. So, those are the definitional elements of the crime of human smuggling as recognized by federal and international law and also as recognized in the AP Stylebook, which says, which talks about smuggling as being cross-border illegal transport — illegal movement of people across the border in exchange for money. And that’s exactly what AP reported, so they didn't report it in a rhetorical sense."
The lawyer for the Associated Press attempted to say that it applies the term on an individual case basis, and it is not applicable to every story, somehow.
"Your Honor, we do this in our briefs every day, is to use the term consistently from case-to-case, moment-to-moment within it as you're walking through a brief. The AP did not use the terms in its Stylebook. The Stylebook is inapt as, it is inapplicable to the circumstances of this case."
If that feels like a dose of convenience, you are completely correct. The AP is essentially arguing here that it does not apply the standards outlined in its own stylebook to each of its reports. In other words, then, it is not a standard. In her rebuttal to this testimony, Young’s attorney Lisa Glass exposed the farce of this argument.
“Words matter. The AP created its own stylebook to ensure that. We provided 40 examples of recent reporting by the AP, which were reported both before and after the article at issue that used ‘human smuggling,’ ‘people smuggling’ in exactly the way that its stylebook was intended; to describe criminal conduct.”
One judge did ask why the public would care what the AP defines as “human smuggling” and what that has to do with what the public thinks. Glass explains that the AP is the source that sets the standard of the definition in news reports, and as a result, the public reading an AP usage of the term would establish its meaning in a hard news article.
To hear the AP come out and declare that it can selectively decide that its own stylebook does not apply to its reporting — when convenient — is a tacit admission that the stylebook is not some sort of standard. The fluid approach to its own guidelines is more than an empty argument; it is desperation. As Glass showed, there were dozens of usages of “human smuggling” that all adhered to the same definition, but the news syndicate wants to cherry-pick a solitary instance from the middle of those examples and declare that one time its own standard is not applicable.
It is an amazing example of a news outlet wanting its own set of rules. That it is the very source that is setting down the linguistic rules for all news outlets to come out and declare it is exempted from the standards it lays out is a magnificent dose of elitist thinking.
Orwell would be in awe of this approach…but, probably not too impressed by it.
Editor's Note: Do you enjoy RedState's conservative reporting that takes on the radical left and woke media? Support our work so that we can continue to bring you the truth.
Join RedState VIP and use promo code FIGHT to receive 60% off your membership.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member