"Journalist's Bible" Updated

See, I don't get what the beef with clinical neutrality in the press is. If this were any other subject you'd ideally want them to be as objective as possible, rather than have to establish the difference between "insurgent", "freedom fighter", "terrorist" etc. I just figure it'd be better to use a word which no-one is in any doubt over the meaning.

Talked to a straight mate about this. We came to the conclusion that if you're gay (or more specifically if you never intend to have children, which neither of us do) there's no inherent need to ever save money for or think about the future beyond the next weekend. That's not to say people don't do it, but it doesn't exactly help. I guess a lot of the shallowness of LGBT culture comes from a) having a high disposable income which can be spent entirely on oneself fairly guiltlessly, and b) being facilitated in getting laid in much the same way. The thought that depth and character comes from struggling with those two things isn't one I particularly relish, but it makes sense to me.

 

.
We do like to pontificate, sorry if that seems to veer from the subject. I don't mean to hijack a thread, but I do wish that if you find me at fault that you would pm me to let me know. I don't want to guess at my mistakes or repeat them.

I don't see the harm in updating the AP Stylebook. The terms that are used to frame a news story have a profound effect on how the public perceives the information. A Google search for the studies would confirm that statement, but if you've made even the simplest study of language use, you're aware of what I mean when I say that the terms that are used have a profound effect. You should also be aware of the term "Framing", a word that describes the conscious effort by the right wing (Republican party) to attach certain words and phrases to a topic so that it has a positive spin on their issues. The word "Framing" was chosen by the republican advisor who devised the methodology. But we used to call it "double speak." The word itself, "framing", is an excellent example of the use of that method.

I feel like the negative reaction to this post comes all the way from a backlash of the feminist concern for word usage, and the now demonized, "Politically correct." What people seem to miss is that this isn't about a personal preference. These words are not suggested for an employee handbook on how your boss should relate to you. It is for a stylebook that will be noted by people who write for the AP. Most AP stories get printed in local newspapers unedited and straight off the wire. Also, Larger newspapers and Magazines like Time and Newsweek will concern themselves with these same issues and may in some cases adopt the AP stylebook standard to their own in house style books.

Now how about the bozos on talk radio and the gaybigots in small town newspapers?
1) They don't write for the AP.
2) If they want the AP to pick up their story it has to follow the AP stylebook.
2a) They can make money selling local stories to the AP.
3) Most of these "news" outlets don't have a stylebook, per say, or don't follow one
4) There is nothing we can do to soften the hearts of those hateful bastards anyway.

You may not care if youre relationship is called a "Homosexual affair" or a "Gay union" That isn't point here. The point is that the people who read the news story about your commitment will make a judgment on all GLBT folks based on the word choice of that article sent out by the AP. You may disagree, and I can go find the data to prove my point, but I don't care to because I know that if you have an open and curious mind the information will fall in your lap at some time.

As far as our personal preference to how we are referred to, that is just that -a personal preference. Out of respect, I follow that persons lead, if they want to be called gay, queer, dyke, lesbian, bi, odd, etc. -that's the word I'll try to use. If I don't know you, but I'm aware of your sexuality, I would be likely to use lesbian, gay, bi or 'family'. Personally, I'm not offended by the terms that folks use to describe my sexuality, it is the intention that matters. I don't really know anyone who is that hung up on it.

You may want to believe that this doesn't matter because it doesn't matter to you personally; but we don't all feel that way. These word choices do have an effect: they help to shape our shared reality.

I don't know if that word exists. The hang-up on the word Homosexual, is that is only describes a clinical, scientific observation. If I were to take your advice, I would never use the words "blush, burgundy, cardinal, crimson, fuchsia, garnet, magenta, maroon, terra cotta," etc because there may be doubt over the meaning. Instead I would stick with the unambiguous "red." The words Homosexual and Gay have distinct connotations and readers perceive them differently. The connotations are important to articulate meaning and also it is important that those connotations are not manipulated to promote bigotry.

And as far as the shallowness of gay society, I have to agree it exists. But I believe it's a symptom of the oppression. If you aren't going to be allowed to marry, raise a family or be respected in your family, job or community, (if that's how you perceive your future,) why bother? I wish, as a middle aged gay man, I could tell the kids they have something to look forward to, but I'm sorry. There is a lot to show for the efforts we made in the 70s and 80s. (But the effort wasn't for me.)

In some ways things are changing so the GLBT youth today and tomorrow have a brighter future and will suffer less. The bar crowd, whether gay or straight, will always have shallow people. At one time the bar was the only place we could socialize. You can see how that's changed. And the need to medicate with alcohol has changed too. But the drive to prove your self, over achieve and make up for your second class station, that hasn't changed. We'll have shallow GLBT folks around us for sometime. I forgive the shallow queers. I like what SageDreamer has to say about it. He reminds me that we can only hope to offer them our knowledge and kindness.

.