Hey, there! Log in / Register
Could somebody buy BostonNow a copy of the AP Stylebook?
By adamg on Mon, 09/10/2007 - 1:59pm
Eeka points out terminology problems in a story about people with disabilities and so helpfully copy edits the story.
Topics:
Free tagging:
Ad:
Support Universal Hub
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Comments
I won't say what I want to
I won't say what I want to say because I'll just get accused of being an ass that is smart.
but but but Dave!
I love your smartass comments. Please, fire away!
Accurate Description
I saw that in the BostonNOW too, and was similarly annoyed by it.
When Dr. William Tan was at Harvard, he was featured on the cover of an internal news rag. The author made the big mistake of referring to him as "confined to a wheelchair".
I'm sorry, but somebody who has wheeled around EVERY continent on the planet is hardly confined to anything! http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2007/s1839407.htm I picked up the phone and politely notified the newsrag that the more appropriate term is "chair user".
One coworker told me that I was being too politically correct, and I explained to him that he was just too "confined to his car" to understand. He looked at me as if I had two heads, but began to get it when I noted that he rarely went anywhere outside of a building without his car, so he MUST be "confined to his car", right? After all, he can't seem to get anywhere outside without it.
"Chair user" isn't PC - it is simply far more accurately descriptive of the person and their mobility. There are also many many chair users who can walk some, but not very effectively. Several Boston Marathon wheelchair racers fit in this category.
Yep...
..."PC" is a term thrown around by people who think it's absurd that minority groups are asking to be referred to using respectful terminology. I usually will just ask people if they could please use the terms that whatever leading advocacy organization endorses. If they try to get into "PC," I tell them that I'm not politically correct -- I'm in favor of using accurate and respectful terms. Rarely, people will insist that it's their "right" to use whatever language they choose. Of course it is, but then I'd suggest to them that they examine why exactly they have a need to disregard someone's request and assert their "right" to use offensive language.
Good Grief
Is this really important? For the love of God and Sonny Jesus, don't you people have something else to worry about?
Is "Person with a disability" THAT MUCH different than "Disabled person?"
yes
.
How do you define disabled?
I had a disabled car, so I got a new one.
I heard the bomb squad disabled a mooninite.
You have to disable the escape slides on an airplane to open the door for boarding.
A disabled person would therefore be ... dead! A person with disabilities can still volunteer for a PTO event, however, and carry things around in his lap. Provided the elevator is not disabled, that is.
Is "Person with a
The proper usage would be "different from", not "different than".
Someone tell that to the NY Times
It seems unfair to jump all over BostonNow for something the NY Times does - "But they suggested the ways in which even the most accessible restaurants . . . fail to accommodate disabled diners as well as they do the rest of us."
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/12/dining/12acce.ht...
Thanks for that
Yeah, and the article is otherwise well-done. Thanks for pointing it out.
Despite not consistently using people-first language, the NYT article uses quite a bit of preferred language, while the BostonNOW one doesn't at all (and uses the blatantly offensive "confined to a wheelchair"). I also didn't notice any us-and-them in the NYT article, which the BostonNOW article definitely was guilty of.
http://1smootshort.blogspot.com