AP Stylebook recommends use of more accurate/less politicized terms

[hso]

Why is it important that the Associated Press is advising reporting stop using the terms assault rifle and assault weapon when we've been complaining about their inaccuracy and politicization for decades? Because they have been part of the culture war waged by the gun prohibition lobby and propaganda machine to confuse the public about firearms and create mistrust and fear of gun owners and it is important to us when a major news organization moves consciously to de-politicize reporting. We'll have to see which reports abandon the politicized terms and when continue to use them.

 

[SunnySlopes]

Journalists are notoriously stupid, creating fake news at the behest of their (billionaire anti gun) owners. And their stupidity re firearms is legendary.



Maybe the AP hired somebody with more than two functioning IQ points who is pointing out the obvious? Hence, the above article?

 

[Demi-human]

Hmm, spreading fact instead of lies?
“I’ll believe it when I see it”, as they say.

Now, what is this Stylebook?
And does my new Hi-Power clash with my 1911 holster belt?

But, here’s to hoping.(clink)
It’s easier to have adult conversations with actual adults.
They’re not that dumb, they think everyone else is.

 

[Madcap_Magician]

Now, what is this Stylebook?

This is actually a pretty big deal, the Associated Press Stylebook is the formatting, spelling, and word choice guide that is the industry standard in journalism. Did you wonder why the abortion debate is always "pro-choice" and "anti-abortion" in newspapers? AP Stylebook. Did you wonder why we started capitalizing "Black" when referencing African or African-American people? AP Stylebook.

In terms of culture, language is the mold into which we pour thoughts and communicate meaning. Getting to define what words mean and which ones are 'right' to use is immensely powerful.

 

[citizenconn]

Journalists are notoriously stupid, creating fake news at the behest of their (billionaire anti gun) owners. And their stupidity re firearms is legendary.

I wouldn't say they are all stupid, though some probably are as with any profession. Rather many are ignorant about guns, willfully so. Others are just pushing an anti-gun agenda for their benefactors, as you indicated. To think otherwise is to underestimate the damage they sow.

 

[AlexanderA]

Journalists are notoriously stupid

It's not that they're stupid, it's that they are generalists. "A jack of all trades is the master of none."

 

[Speedo66]

Remember "yellow journalism" in school?

It's very easy for the press to rile people up to the point of starting wars, cultural or otherwise.

 

[HJ857]

This really is a big deal, as said, the Stylebook is the standard that most news and PR writing conforms to.

Now, do most writers know or care? Hard to say, but probably not as much as you may think. Editors and owners are likely different story altogether.

Regardless, this kind of terminology is not by accident, semantics and terminology are carefully and intentionally crafted. It's not done by stupid people.

Conservatives have been pretty oblivious to this tactic, while the left has been extremely good at it.

If you ever find yourself thinking, "it's just semantics", then you can be pretty sure you've been outmaneuvered.

Terms like Gun Rights or Gun Violence are examples. Guns are inanimate objects and need no rights nor do they commit violence on their own accord. In exactly the same way, how did a term like "Infanticide" be replaced by a vague and generic "Pro Choice" label?

These terms should be shouted down at all times, but yet they've been unthinkingly accepted by the public, and by people like us. This is exactly what the left wants, a false impression based solely on wording.

 

[illinoisburt]

I'm not sure this is necessarily a good thing in some regards. The emphasis on saying 'semi-automatic' rifle or pistol was used in a news story broadens the scope of the object of terror so to speak. Whereas previously the scare was only the evil assault weapons, now they need to press for removal of all semi-automatics which includes a vastly greater universe of firearms. You may notice when other countries like Australia have enacted bans, they were not simply a narrow slice of common firearms under an Assault Weapons umbrella but ALL self loading firearms. A constant drumbeat from the press and politicians here can and over time will have consequences.

 

[Mark_Mark]

Hmm, spreading fact instead of lies?
“I’ll believe it when I see it”, as they say.

Now, what is this Stylebook?
And does my new Hi-Power clash with my 1911 holster belt?

But, here’s to hoping.(clink)
It’s easier to have adult conversations with actual adults.
They’re not that dumb, they think everyone else is.

There is a truth in every lie!

AP probably trying to get more viewers.

 

[Hartkopf]

The more I learn about our media, the more pathetic it looks.

Journalists can't think for themselves? They must use or are encouraged to use Stylebooks framework and catch phrases? That's when you know the MSM is a brainwashing, narrative driving, propaganda machine. Pathetic. Worse that so many sheep eat it up.

I do not trust anything they do or correction they make. It's done for a reason and it will not help the average gun owner. It was probably done to clarify exactly how semi auto (AR-14) rifles work so banning them can be more focused. Or ban a wider range of semi auto firearms. Any which way, it's not good for us.

 

[DeepSouth]

I’m not sure the motive is a positive one.
It seems likely to me that they realize “assault rifle” has become synonymous with “AR-15” to many, if not most, of their readers and they’d rather help ban all “semi automatic’s” than just ban “assault rifles” aka AR-15’s

Of course they’d start with “semi automatic rifles” then eventually explain theirs little difference in semi automatic rifles & pistols, therefore they need to be banned to.

And yes, I’m generally a cynic.

 

[CapnMac]

This is an interesting development.
There were--and still are--a number of Stylebooks out there, not all are publicly published. AP had a bit of a coup in publicly providing their own, and eclipsing the UPI and API books. NYT has their own, which is built into all their internal processes, but it's not publicly published.

Of course, all of us with specialized political interests--so, very much we in the firearms community--ought be aware of how the "news industry" refers to items in our arena. So, the point above on how "we" need to be aware of an impetus to "reframe" "anti" arguments to seem less inflammatory is very relevant.

Now, against that, this may just be AP attempting to clutch at a rope that is slipping through its fingers. AP was one of the "big three" "wire" news services, and there was considerable overlap with the then three major news networks. Those days have faded away. News is now available from any number of sources. And specialized news at that, news tailored to specific interests. Which means it's harder to promulgate a "unified" news message.

Naturally, there's a built-in counter argument about there being "too many" news sources out there. But, that argument is predicated on a presumption that people, by and large, are too "stupid" to discriminate between quality news and junk news. We can find any number of people at the bottom of a bell curve; but, it's a "hard sell" if the primary presumption is "y'all are too stupid to know any better." The pushback on that is the entire middle of the bellcurve, and that's not small impetus.

 

[kidneyboy]

It's an election year. The current party in power and all its media backers and narrative engineers are at the bottom of the 'who do you trust polls'. Something has to change for them to at least appear to be sliding to the center.

 

[theotherwaldo]

As a librarian (and occasional proof-reader for local newspapers), I tend to keep copies of the various style books on my library's shelves.
I haven't seen the new AP style book yet, but I appreciate the change... .

 

[CDW4ME]

So, that is why many news people say the same crap, they are told what to say.
For example "gaffe" current president makes a mistake and its a "gaffe" - prior president never. (That is not political its a fact).

 

[I6turbo]

The more I learn about our media, the more pathetic it looks.

Journalists can't think for themselves? They must use or are encouraged to use Stylebooks framework and catch phrases? That's when you know the MSM is a brainwashing, narrative driving, propaganda machine. Pathetic. Worse that so many sheep eat it up.

I do not trust anything they do or correction they make. It's done for a reason and it will not help the average gun owner. It was probably done to clarify exactly how semi auto (AR-14) rifles work so banning them can be more focused. Or ban a wider range of semi auto firearms. Any which way, it's not good for us.

^^^ Yes. Whatever their scheme, whatever is driving this, it is NOT to bring more truth and accuracy to their "reporting." They've seen visions of an open grave for their leftist (90+% of them) agenda, their political fortunes, or something. They somehow see a self-serving angle to changing the words, otherwise they wouldn't do it.

My guess is that they want to broaden the scope of the guns they want to take away to include semi-automatic handguns.

 

[hso]

get more viewers.

 

[N555]

But the people pushing for more gun laws don't understand guns or current gun laws.
Nearly half the time they are screaming for laws already on the books.

 

[D.B. Cooper]

I get it: words have meaning. I'm glad to see a move towards accurate reporting, but I have always disliked this argument over terminology.

Arguing the difference between semi and full auto over the term "assault rifle" is disingenuous. The Army taught us to almost never ever use full auto fire, that deliberate, aimed, semi-automatic fire was the mainstay and primary purpose of the M16. Full auto was pretty much only for final defensive fire. As such, the term assault rifle applies equally to the AR15-at least in practical terms. Indeed, "assault weapon" is a legal definition. I see very little difference in an AR15 and an M16 in practical terms or in method of use.

Only slightly worse is the argument over magazine versus clip. Yes, there is an obvious difference, but it's semantics. They both hold and feed ammo. Next we'll be arguing if Coca-Cola is soda or pop.

 

[Madcap_Magician]

I get it: words have meaning. I'm glad to see a move towards accurate reporting, but I have always disliked this argument over terminology.

Arguing the difference between semi and full auto over the term "assault rifle" is disingenuous. The Army taught us to almost never ever use full auto fire, that deliberate, aimed, semi-automatic fire was the mainstay and primary purpose of the M16. Full auto was pretty much only for final defensive fire. As such, the term assault rifle applies equally to the AR15-at least in practical terms. Indeed, "assault weapon" is a legal definition. I see very little difference in an AR15 and an M16 in practical terms or in method of use.

Only slightly worse is the argument over magazine versus clip. Yes, there is an obvious difference, but it's semantics. They both hold and feed ammo. Next we'll be arguing if Coca-Cola is soda or pop.

I think it's an improvement simply because precision of language is important. "Semiautomatic" conveys technical meaning, whereas "assault rifle" or "assault weapon" are loaded terms with varied or nonspecific meanings. I'm all for anything that provides improved clarity.

 

[toivo]

I think it's a positive move. Realize, of course, that the writers of style sheets are usually language nerds who don't necessarily reflect the political orientations of the organizations that employ them. Their decisions can be, and often are, overruled by upper management. But it looks as though AP is moving toward neutrality here, which I see as a good thing.

 

[gyp_c2]

If you haven't noticed the constant barrage of exactly the same stories, with exactly the same terms spread across all forms of communication for years now, Hats off to ya'!
Same stuff, different day.
I don't expect any better from the media than what's gone before. In fact, since they've been so open and forthcoming with what they are gonna' be doin' to us from now on, I'm skeptical of anything that appears to be beneficial.

 

[LaneP]

Yea it's been obvious for decades the mass media is an orchestrated entity that decides what "side" of any given issue will be highlighted, promoted, denigrated or ignored, with AP serving as their central clearing house for guidance and direction. However they always have an ulterior purpose and motive for their behavior, and in this case I doubt it has anything to do with taking a side favorable to the 2A.

 

[Hartkopf]

The more I think about it, I’m convinced this change is to demonize ALL semi auto firearms.
Global warming was changed to climate change so every weather event could be explained and capitalized. (And it’s YOUR fault for the freeze in Texas and the heat wave that followed) This wording on firearms will be used against us.