In the era of instant internet outrage, it makes sense for businesses to avoid using language that might offend consumers. But if you’re a major news organization, this ought not to be done at the expense of the English language.
That is, a news organization can’t sacrifice clear and precise language for the sake of trying not to offend this group or that group. Twisting words into unrecognizable shapes is a major disservice to all readers.
Consider, for example, the Associated Press’ report this week on Mayor Rahm Emanuel’s assurances to Chicago students who are also recipients of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program.
The story, titled “Mayor: Chicago Students Welcome as Trump Ending DACA Program,” opens by referring to those who may be affected by the White House’s moves on DACA, an Obama-era policy whereby illegal immigrants who came to the U.S. as minors can receive renewable two-year deportation deferments, as “young immigrants.”
The story then refers to those same “young immigrants” as “undocumented citizens.”
Well, which one is it? Are they undocumented, or are they citizens? You can’t have it both ways, no matter how badly you’d like to avoid using possibly controversial language.
How is someone involved in DACA, which, again, stands for “Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals,” an “undocumented citizen”? Why would a citizen be involved in DACA anyway?
The obvious answer to these questions is that the AP tripped itself up in its desire to avoid hot-button language. This fear of controversy occasionally has groups like the AP, which did not respond to the Washington Examiner’s multiple requests for comment, producing nonsensical blather.
This bit of nonsense from the AP, which is continually updating its stylebook’s immigration language, is clearly the result of them trying to avoid controversy. But in doing so, it twisted words that have very definite meanings into a contradictory heap of meaninglessness.
