Partially edited newspapers

Phillip Blanchard · **Posted:** Tue Nov 04, 2003 2:33 pm

Christine Chinlund, the Boston Globe "ombudsman," writes:Although "intact dilation and extraction" is the medical term most often used for the to-be-banned procedure, the bill is widely known by a more graphic phrase -- "partial-birth abortion." Indeed, abortion foes wrote that name into their legislation from the start and made it the title.
So what should a newspaper do? Use the neutral but not commonly recognized medical term or use the more graphic phrase -- which fails the neutrality test but is the official name and the one readers easily recognize?
It's not easy for an ombudsman to favor what amounts to loaded language but, in this case, I believe it's the lesser wrong. Readers' clarity trumps political correctness. Using "partial-birth abortion" is unavoidable, despite its baggage.***No, it isn't. And "partial-birth abortion" is not the "official" name of the procedure. "Partial-birth," in addition to being the name assigned by opponents of the procedure, doesn't even make sense.***

RimRat · **Posted:** Tue Nov 04, 2003 9:38 pm

Blanp, you are correct, in my not-very-humble opinion. I don't envy you folks having to deal with this issue, not at all. But accuracy (and non-inflammatory usage) has to prevail.

Rio · **Posted:** Wed Nov 05, 2003 4:02 am

I don't agree with everything Chinlund says; "Readers' clarity trumps political correctness" is not a well-thought-out newsroom policy. I also will concede that "partial-birth abortion" should be in quotes in first reference, with an aside that that's what abortion opponents call it.But until someone comes up with a better term than "intact dilation and extraction," "partial-birth abortion" is unavoidable. At least, it's unavoidable if you're writing a story about the issue and you want it to make any sense to readers. Sorry about that.The problem is not whether the phrase makes sense. The problem is, pro-abortion journalists just don't like using language that shows the abortion issue as anything other than "a woman's right to choose." And the term "partial-birth abortion" frankly makes more sense than pro-abortionists would like to admit, even to themselves.However, if anyone would like to suggest a better term, I'd like to hear it.[ November 05, 2003: Message edited by: Gary Kirchherr ]

aneye4detail · **Posted:** Wed Nov 05, 2003 4:44 am

<blockquote>quote:<hr>Originally posted by Gary Kirchherr:

However, if anyone would like to suggest a better term, I'd like to hear it.[ November 05, 2003: Message edited by: Gary Kirchherr ]<hr></blockquote>Pre-term abortion?

majorbabs · **Posted:** Wed Nov 05, 2003 12:34 pm

What about pre-delivery extraction?

Wayne Countryman · **Posted:** Wed Nov 05, 2003 7:23 pm

Why not use the term, immediately identifying it as created by abortion opponents. The term needs to be defined high in the story, if not with the first use of the term.Later references could be to the "procedure." Good luck, headline writers.

laursh · **Joined:** Mon Apr 08, 2002 12:01 am **Posts:** 3

I've always heard it as "late-term abortion." In fact, back in June Salon.com ran an article using that term, and another in July.(Warning--pretty graphic stuff)(edited to fix url)[ November 06, 2003: Message edited by: Lauren Hillman ]

SeaRaven · **Posted:** Thu Nov 06, 2003 7:23 pm

This way works for me: SAN FRANCISCO (AP) - A federal judge in California on Thursday blocked the government's new ban on certain late-term abortions - the third such ruling since President Bush signed the law.
... ... And explain the procedure later in the story.

Rio · **Posted:** Fri Nov 07, 2003 1:19 am

Wayne and SeaRaven have the best ideas, IMO. Since my last post in this thread, I've seen both in print, as well as Rueters' similar "an abortion procedure banned under a law signed by President Bush."Sorry, calling it simply a "late-term abortion" doesn't cut it. Even that Salon article Lauren mentioned acknowledged that not all late-term abortions are partial-birth abortions, and referred to partial-birth abortions as a late-term abortion option.

Phillip Blanchard · **Posted:** Fri Nov 07, 2003 1:38 am

<blockquote>quote:<hr>Originally posted by Gary Kirchherr:

Sorry, calling it simply a "late-term abortion" doesn't cut it. <hr></blockquote>You're right, of course.

jjmoney62 · **Posted:** Fri Nov 07, 2003 11:00 am

<blockquote>quote:<hr>Originally posted by Gary Kirchherr:

Sorry, calling it simply a "late-term abortion" doesn't cut it. Even that Salon article Lauren mentioned acknowledged that not all late-term abortions are partial-birth abortions, and referred to partial-birth abortions as a late-term abortion option.<hr></blockquote>That AP lede doesn't simply call it a late-term abortion. It says "certain late-term abortions."[ November 07, 2003: Message edited by: jjmoney62 ]

Rio · **Posted:** Fri Nov 07, 2003 1:05 pm

<blockquote>quote:<hr>Originally posted by jjmoney62:
That AP lede doesn't simply call it a late-term abortion. It says "certain late-term abortions."<hr></blockquote>When I said "calling it simply a 'late-term abortion' doesn't cut it," I was responding to Lauren Hillman's post, not commenting on AP's lede. Lauren said, "I've always heard it as 'late-term abortion.' "

jjmoney62 · **Posted:** Fri Nov 07, 2003 4:30 pm

sorry, i blurred two posts.

Testy Copy Editors

Partially edited newspapers

Who is online

What They're Saying

Useful Links