Few issues in newspaper style have created as much controversy as the question of what to call the two sides in the culture wars over abortion. As I understand the style that has evolved, newspapers that seek balanced, fair coverage of the two sides have two solid options.
First, editors can allow leaders on the two sides to label themselves, choosing words that they believe state their beliefs accurately. Thus, you can have “pro-life” activists arguing with “pro-choice” activists, with these labels usually put inside quote marks when used in this manner in hard-news copy.
A decade or more ago, many journalists tended to put their hands on the linguistic scales and tipped them far to the cultural left, calling one side anti-abortion and the other pro-choice. This was, of course, very unfair and, over time, most mainstream journalists came to realize that. I have always thought that the late David Shaw’s majestic series (click here for info) in the Los Angeles Times on media bias in abortion coverage helped open many eyes in many newsrooms that sought to be fair.
So, it is my understanding that, today, journalists are supposed to be using these two terms — anti-abortion and pro-abortion-rights. These labels are not perfect, since it is always easier to be pro-something than anti-something. However, at least both sides are being identified in relation to the real issue that is before the nation, which remains abortion. The only question to be debated is the status of “pro-abortion,” a label that may define some on the left, but certainly not those who are not in favor of abortion (as a personal decision), but cannot get themselves to oppose it as a legal option in this society. With the permission of my editors, I often use the pro-life label in my columns to describe those who are consistently pro-life on a wide range of issues as a matter of religious or personal conviction.
I bring this up because of a bizarre headline spotted by GetReligion readers on a few news websites — such as this television site: “Anti-Abortionist Shot to Death In Front of School.”
What, pray tell, is an anti-abortionist? Someone who is opposed to abortionists?
The strange thing is that the wire copy with this headline approaches the matter with standard Associated Press style:
OWOSSO, Mich. (USA Today) — Police are investigating the connection between two fatal shootings that left an owner of a gravel pit and a anti-abortion activist dead this morning.
The victims have been identified as gravel company owner Michael Fuoss, 61, and abortion-rights opponent James Pouillon, 63, of Owosso. Authorities have a suspect in custody who’s been identified as a 33-year-old Owosso man.
Owosso Police Chief Michael Compeau said multiple shots were fired from a passing vehicle at 7:20 a.m. in front of Owosso High School that killed Pouillon, who frequently staged protests in the area. No motive was given for the shootings, but Compeau said he believed Pouillon appeared to be a target.
This strange “anti-abortionist” label showed up in other locations, such as The Daily Mail on the other side of the Atlantic.
As you might expect, some readers have sent us notes comparing what they see as light coverage of this shooting, in comparison with the heavy coverage in May of the murder of Dr. George Tiller, one of America’s most famous — infamous, even — abortionists.
At the moment, a Google News search for “James Pouillon, abortion” is yielding 2,151 hits in news and commentary sites, which is pretty broad coverage. The New York Times also did it’s own story on the shooting, rather than use wire copy. It’s a pretty solid report, with good quotes from appropriate voices on both sides. The lede is quite straightforward in its language:
A man who had long opposed abortion and was known nationally among anti-abortion protesters was shot to death Friday morning while staging a protest outside a Michigan high school, the authorities said.
I was, however, struck by these details near the end of the story. If I am not mistaken, Pouillon was in a wheelchair when he was shot.
Monica Migliorino Miller, a Michigan anti-abortion leader who knew Mr. Pouillon, said he wore leg braces and used an oxygen tank and had protested for years outside of various Planned Parenthood offices and abortion clinics in Flint.
“He was just a quiet, unassuming, very committed pro-life activist,” Ms. Miller said.
Mr. Pouillon had planned to attend a national protest against abortion at the United States Capitol this weekend, Mr. Newman said. Now organizers are planning a vigil in his memory.
I have not seen a story suggesting that this veteran protester was in any way violent. Another question: The “sign man” was clearly a religious believer, according to local reports. But was he a Catholic? An evangelical?
So far, there also seems to be no evidence of this shooting being part of a larger pattern. Please let us know if you see any follow-up coverage at the national level that is unusually good or bad. Will national media cover the memorial service?
Photo: Video tributes are up at YouTube. Blunt images in some of the posters, of course.
 | Posted at 11:55 pm |  Print
| Permalink | Trackback |
Comments (26) |
September 14, 2009, at 6:42 am
“So, it is my understanding that, today, journalists are supposed to be using these two terms — anti-abortion and pro-abortion-rights.”
I don’t have a problem with the term “anti-abortion,” but I do have a problem with the term “pro-abortion-rights.”
Not only is there the anti/pro imbalance that you mention, but also, the term presumes that there is such a thing as an abortion right — which is the very thing that is under contention.
That’s why someone who is “anti-abortion” would likely bristle at being called “anti-abortion-rights” — because he or she (I would think) denies that anyone has a right to an abortion.
A better term, I think — though it is a tad longwinded and hard to present in adjectival form — is “supporter of legal abortion.” This term does not imply that they are “pro-abortion,” but merely that they support abortion being legal. It also doesn’t present the “rights” problem that the other term does.
September 14, 2009, at 7:17 am
Shaun:
That is a good formula and you see people write their way around the awkward label from time to time.
However, the people who are being described as pro-abortion-rights as the people who DO favor the current legal structure that recognizes that right.
September 14, 2009, at 9:08 am
Hey TMatt,
From the reporting I have seen on the matter, the gentleman was formerly a member of the local Church of the Nazarene congregation, but left when he felt the church was not taking a hard enough line on abortion (total shocker). The story I read, which I think was on MSNBC.com late Friday, had quotes from the pastor of that congregation.
September 14, 2009, at 10:27 am
Shaun I’m having trouble following you. If you think women should have the right to abortion you’re pro-abortion rights, if you don’t then you’re anti. And if the latter side has their way then the right is gone, as they’d want it to be…
Or am I missing something on a more philisophical level here?
September 14, 2009, at 11:34 am
Maybe I’m just quibbling over semantics, but here’s the problem I see with using the word “right” in the context of “abortion rights.”
Terry writes, “The people who are being described as pro-abortion-rights [are] the people who DO favor the current legal structure that recognizes that right.”
When you “recognize” a right, at least in one sense, you are not deciding to create that right — you are merely noticing that the right exists and adjusting the law accordingly.
As an analogy: The early Church leaders who solidified the Christian canon did not *decide* which writings constituted Scripture of their own volition — they merely discovered, through the Holy Spirit, which writings constituted Scripture, and then publicly recognized those writings.
So, I guess the question is, how are we using the term “right”? Are we using it exclusively to refer to that which is legally permitted, i.e. anything that is legally permitted is a “right”? Or are we using it to refer to pre-existing principles that the government merely “recognizes”?
If the latter, then I think people who oppose abortion would have a problem with the term “pro-abortion-rights,” because it presupposes that the right exists, and that the “pro” people are merely recognizing the truth of that existence. Whereas opponents of abortion would argue that the right does not exist.
September 14, 2009, at 12:23 pm
Well, thanks to the StandFirm blog, there is a link to reporting on the alleged killer:
http://www.connectmidmichigan.com/news/story.aspx?id=349067
“Harlan Drake or “Hale” as he is known to friends is now charged with 2 counts of 1st Degree Premeditated Murder for the killings of James “Jim” Pouillon and Mike Fouss. Police say that Harlan Drake has told detectives that he had a list of 3 people in his head that he wanted to kill.
Two of the people on his “list” have died as a result but the third, James Howe, was not attacked. Since he has admitted to a third person on his hit list, it is resulting in a charge of unlawful intent with a firearm. There is no motive behind Mr. Howe or Mr. Fuoss, who owned the Fouss Gravel Company. There is only one known connection between Mike Fouss and Harlan Drake, his mother used to work for Mr. Fouss.
As to the reason for the killing of pro-life activist Jim Pouillon, Harlan Drake has told police that he was “offended” by Pouillon’s anti-abortion messages. Neighbors of Jim Pouillon say that he was a quiet man in recent years but his checkered past was a result of his boisterous protests. They have commented that some might not have agreed with his message or his graphic displays of aborted fetus’ on his protest signs but he was quiet man in his older age.
Charges:
2 counts of 1st Degree Pre-meditated Murder
1 count of Felony Firearm Possession
1 count of Unlawful Intent with a Firearm”
So it seems that he was not acting as a pro-abortion rights advocate in shooting Mr. Pouillon, or at least, that was not his primary motive. Whatever reason he had for planning to kill these three men, we’ll have to wait and see. It sounds as if mental illness or some sort of problem of that nature is going to be behind it all, not a structured plan against abortion protesters.
If we get clarification about what, precisely, he found offensive about Mr. Pouillon, we may (or may not) know more.
September 14, 2009, at 1:29 pm
The problem of what to call each side is created by a need to use one label for all. If the story is about a confrontation at an abortion clinic, “pro-choice” and “anti-abortion” are appropriate. The people on one side want the clinic open and accessible; that doesn’t mean they take delight in the procedure of abortion. The people on the other side are against abortion; their position on other life issues is not germane.
Describing individuals is another matter altogether. If someone is consistently against abortion, war and execution he or she may fairly be described as “pro-life.” If someone thinks abortion is a great idea because it reduces births to women whose contraceptive incompetence suggests they can’t bring up competent citizens, that party may fairly be described as “pro-abortion.”
The problem arises from the need for a one-size-fits-all label.
September 14, 2009, at 1:35 pm
I take it you mean there is no KNOWN motive. Presumably the killer did not select his victims by throwing dice. (Unless there is a real-life “Dice Man”.)
September 14, 2009, at 1:47 pm
DAVE:
Your statement is a perfect example of media-think pre-David Shaw. The logic for the spin label “pro-choice” has, thankfully, been rejected by most in the mainstream.
September 14, 2009, at 4:56 pm
No need to get testy, Terry. I don’t get your media-history reference. If, at one time, the media used these words as I described, then they were doing it better than they do now. If every abortion reference is a religious reference, then the press gets religion even worse now than it did then.
September 14, 2009, at 5:10 pm
Dave:
The links to the classic David Shaw study are in the post.
September 14, 2009, at 5:30 pm
OK, you’re talking about that expose of pro-choice (pardon me) sentiment in the MSM, which you once steered me to.
That did not relate to this use of these words. Nor does it really contradict my point, which is that they used these words better then than they did now. Maybe they’ve gotten worse.
September 14, 2009, at 6:19 pm
Dave:
The issue is that “pro-choice,” while it culturally relates to abortion, is so vague semantically as to be meaningless. If “pro-life” can only be used to describe someone who defends all forms of life, then “pro-choice” can only be used to describe someone who defends all choices. Many people are pro-choice when it comes to vegetarianism vs. meat or moderate drinking vs. tee-totaling, but not abortion vs. non-abortion. Others are pro-choice when it comes to abortion, but not when it comes to, say, smoking in restaurants. The phrase is a euphemism, plain and simple, and the role of the media is to tell the truth.
September 14, 2009, at 6:40 pm
If everywhich way I turn in the MSM or on news or political web sites I can’t seem to get away from a story then I consider that REAL news coverage. But if I have to hunt and go Google to read about it—then the story is getting downplayed or ignored in my opinion. (No matter how many thousand specialized sites might report on it.)
There is NO comparison —overall- in the hysterical, virtually bezerk coverage of Dr. Abortionist’s killing when compared to the almost complete silence in MANY media quarters of the pro-life activist.
A few MSM sites mentioned it or wrote a story and then virtually dropped it. Which makes me conclude the coverage was cover your butt coverage so you can say “Yup! We covered it!”
Incidentally, it was the police who said Pouillon’s killer targeted him because Pouillon was a pro-life activist.
And according to one or two web sources Pouillon was a Catholic (one source is said to be the pastor of the town’s Catholic parish.)
September 14, 2009, at 7:11 pm
Rachel: No bumper-sticker name adequately describes a movement or a philosophy, and “pro-choice” and “pro-life” share in that shortcoming. However:
The people who coined the phrase “pro-choice” made it clear that they didn’t mean choice in food, television programming, or whether to become a Playboy centerfold. Using their term to denote them is descriptive.
The people who coined the term “pro-life” made it clear that it means abortion, euthanasia, war and executions. It’s not descriptive to apply it to a demonstration about just one of those issues.
Deacon: One reason why the MSM didn’t make as big a deal out of this latest killing undoubtedly is that there hasn’t been a string of killings of anti-abortion protesters, this latest victim didn’t run the only service of its kind in the state, and there’s never been a hint of an underground of violence enablers on the pro-choice side. Once again I will point out that, when the press has a differential reaction relative to that last matter, it’s showing that it does get religion.
September 14, 2009, at 10:41 pm
NYT report notes that he occasionally attended St Paul’s Catholic Church. That word “occasionally” is an interesting one, putting him in one of the less-than-intense believer categories. I read it as also suggesting that the conviction about abortion arise from a different, not explicitly religious place (the article has friends wondering if his commitment came after the death of his wife).
The other item touched on in the Times, was the essential small town nature of the murder. In a small town, the sort of witness Pouillon made will have a personal dimension; the social space is that much smaller. The interaction with the owner of the car dealership reads almost like a piece of fiction.
September 14, 2009, at 11:25 pm
Are you implying that there has been a string of killings against abortionists? The MSM likes to keep this ‘story’ alive. I encourage you to fact check how many killings in last 10 years… let’s say from 1999-2009. I count one occurrence in the last decade.
September 14, 2009, at 11:47 pm
Joe, violence against abortion clinics and providers, including murder of the latter, goes back to the 1970s or at the latest the 1980s. Memories of that cannot be arbitrarily truncated at 1999, nor of such enablers as kept one notorious bomber hidden for years, or Web sites (when the Internet developed) giving home and family data on providers as a means of intimidation.
If we buy into the overall picture of mainstream media reporters that’s the common coin of this board — that they tend to be secular and leftish — then it is no surprise that these matters are part of their cultural memory. It just says reporters are human. Whether this instance is an example of human fallibility or of the press actually getting religion in this case is a matter of opinion; I hold the latter.
September 15, 2009, at 12:53 am
“Pro-Choice” is a euphemism for “Pro-abortion.” It is used to deliberately disguise the moral nature of the position being taken. It is not simply a phrase that means “I want people to be able to make their own decisions.” It implicitly assumes that choosing to have an abortion is a legitimate moral decision in the first place. It that sense, to be “Pro-choice” is to be “Pro-abortion.” To understand the difference, you only have to ask yourself how many people would be “Pro-choice” regarding culturally-driven clitoridectomies. “Pro-choice” implies the moral case has already been settled in favor of the legitimacy of abortion.
carl
September 15, 2009, at 12:55 am
http://www.times.com/aponline/2009/09/13/us/AP-MI-Activist-Killed-Mich.html
What about this headline? Obama: Mich. anti-abortion shooting “deplorable”
That sounds almost like the shooting/shooter was anti-abortion.
September 15, 2009, at 10:19 am
There are quite a few Pro-life people who are not anti-death penalty or anti-war. And there are varying opinions on end-of-life issues. What you describe is a subset group who use the term “seamless garment”.
September 15, 2009, at 10:57 am
carl, “pro-abortion” would imply celebraction of abortion. “Pro-choice” accepts the occasional necessity of abortion without celebrating it. A closer parallel would be calling the ACLU “pro-KKK” because it defends the First Amendment rights of the KKK.
Julia, accepting your definition, it is still appropriate to call an abortion clinic protest “anti-abortion.” One demonstrator may be a seamless-garment pro-lifer. The man next to her may be anti-abortion and anti-contraception. The next one in line may be someone who had an abortion and is driven by regret. The term that covers all of them accurately is “anti-abortion.”
September 15, 2009, at 1:07 pm
[22] Dave
“Pro-Choice” implies moral neutrality where none in fact exists. Those who created the phrase desire to equate having an abortion with (say) the choice of marrying or not marrying. It implies that different people may make different choices, but no condemnation attaches to either choice. One man marries, while another stays single. Who is there to condemn either? One woman gives birth, and another aborts. Who is there to condemn either? This is the underlying purpose of the title.
To assert that a choice can be made is to assert that both alternatives are equally legitimate. A man will never describe himself as “Pro-choice” unless he considers the alternatives in view morally legitimate. This is why I mentioned culturally-driven clitoridectomies. The feminist who claims she is “Pro-choice” regarding a woman’s choice of abortion would never argue a “Pro-choice” position for culturally-driven clitoridectomies. The phrase “Pro-choice” therefore assumes the case being contested. And that is why it is a euphemism for “Pro-Abortion.” One can only be “Pro-Choice” about abortion if one presumes that abortion is a morally good choice. So why not just say what you really think? If abortion is a morally legitimate procedure, why do you hide from affirming it, and saying you are “Pro-abortion?” It should not be shameful to say such a thing if the choice is morally good.
carl
September 15, 2009, at 3:23 pm
That’s not a fact, it’s an opinion. The rest of your argument falls apart because of the failure to make that distinction.
For your information, fifty years ago quite a bit of condemnation could come down on a man who wasn’t married. Single men had the reputation of untrustworthiness, and might find it difficult to get hired or promoted. What’s a morally freighted choice varies with the times. These are not the cast-in-concrete categories you suggest.
September 15, 2009, at 5:07 pm
[24] Dave
Actually, the quote in question is the conclusion stated up front, and not an anchor for the argument. …
September 18, 2009, at 2:50 pm
[…] GET RELIGION WONDERS– What is an ‘anti-abortionist’? …. […]