Why using gender-nonspecific language in reporting extends beyond the page – Poynter

]

With the Build Back Better Plan in congressional limbo, the future of several government programs remains uncertain. One of the most sought-after and necessary programs within this bill is paid family leave. It’s a heavily covered news topic, both through reporting and opinion pieces.

However, the discourse surrounding paid family leave remains plagued by gendered and binary language.

Paid family leave discourse, both on the floor of Congress and beyond, posits that the program’s importance lies with the “mother,” sometimes including the “father.” This binary distinction, or the idea that a child comes from a mother —or a cis-woman — and has a father, directly ostracizes the LGBTQ+ community.

When reporters mirror this exclusion, the harm extends beyond their work. Gendered language enforces and upholds the discrimination of LGBTQ+ peoples and parents, in news, in the lawmaking process, and in the medical world. While this piece focuses on just a handful of articles, the issue is systemic. I could have chosen countless other examples, or else, written a more at-length account. This piece analyzes several gendered-language latent articles and provides alternative approaches, as well as the harms in not utilizing more inclusive language.

In November 2021, Today published an article on Katy Tur, an MSNBC correspondent who just had her second child. In it, Tur, a straight cis-woman, calls herself a “mother,” “mom,” and “parent,” referencing her husband several times. While this speaks directly to her experience, she does say more generally, “I got a lot more paid time off to figure it out than the majority of moms in this country,” and that “moms need support. If that support is coming from a partner, that partner should get equal time off.”

Her usage of “moms” implies that a birth-giver must always be a mother. After this distinction, Tur uses the term “partner,” a gender-neutral and inclusive term, one that she could have substituted throughout her dialogue.

Further, the reporting included several statistics that reference mothers and fathers. Though gender-neutral statistics are less readily available, a mention of a complementary LGBTQ+ statistic following or preceding it would have at least rendered a more all-encompassing account.

That month, The New York Times published an article about Meghan, the Duchess of Sussex, who is an outspoken advocate for paid family leave. The article’s title is: “Meghan, the Duchess of Sussex, says paid family leave ‘is not just about the mom.’” This immediately positions the article about one identity, making it so that a non-cis parent might be deterred from even opening it. And while articles can be positioned toward a certain group of people, an article about paid family leave discourse ought to be aimed at each type of parent.

The article references “maternity leave” and that “‘it takes strong men, modern men, to really understand they benefit from (paid family leave) as well.’” The article summarizes an interview that took place between Meghan and another New York Times journalist. In that video, the interviewer does not prompt Meghan to expand on her viewpoints on paid family leave for LGBTQ+ parents and families; thus, the journalist who recounts the interview might have felt it unnecessary to research or expand upon in the article. Due to the ease and comfort of the status quo, it remains difficult to disrupt.

Also in November, The Washington Post published an article comparing paid family leave across nations. It begins promisingly, with several references to “parents” throughout the first few paragraphs. However, by including a statistic about paid family leave being a catalyst for more women participating in the workforce, followed by recovery of both “mothers” and “fathers,” the article loses what started out as inclusivity.

Gender-neutral language is certainly possible in paid family leave discourse and journalism. An article in The (Rochester, New York) Democrat & Chronicle references the “worker” or “employee,” as well as “parent” and “spouses,” including a mention of adoptive children.

Unfortunately, the article does use “mom” once, toward the end of the piece, in reference to a hypothetical scenario New York Gov. Kathy Hochul mentioned in a recent speech on the subject. However, the singular reference in this context shouldn’t and doesn’t entirely overshadow the more gender-neutral and inclusive language used throughout.

In fact, the legal document on paid family leave in New York — the focus of that article — uses “employee.” New York state’s paid family leave legislation is an inclusive take on the subject, as family members, domestic partners, and others close to the expectant parent(s) can take leave to assist, as well. This gender-neutral language — a common thread on federal sites as well as in the United States’ current family leave laws — should serve as an impulse to cover the topic in the same manner, in New York and beyond.

Gendered language is ingrained in us from our youth. Consequently, it can feel more natural to use gendered language in our reporting. The binary has existed for so long in family and pregnancy/birthing rhetoric that it takes conscious work to dismantle it, both in daily conversations and in journalism. However difficult it might be at first, the work remains necessary.

In an interview with HR Dive, nonbinary parent Mike Reynolds said that seeing the term “birthing parents” in company policies puts them “at ease,” whereas the go-to “mom and dad” language creates an alternate, uncomfortable reaction. The latter language is exclusionary, making LGBTQ+ parents feel unwelcome or discriminated against, which might be reflective of other workplace practices and politics that leave them feeling discriminated against more widely.

Less than 50% of “employers (offer) LGBTQ-inclusive leave policies,” a study from Out and Equal found. It’s legal to fire an employee based on sexual orientation and gender identity in more than 25 states. To not dismantle the norm of gendered language in journalism is to work to perpetuate and safeguard that discrimination, even if that’s not the intention. Language matters. It alters the way we perceive the world; it showcases our values, and it has the power to advance social justice.

Using gender-neutral and nonspecific language in coverage of a story about paid family leave — or on any subject where it’s possible and relevant — can have wider benefits. The normalization of gender-neutral language has the potential to create safer, more welcoming, and less discriminatory medical practices for birthing persons and their families. It also has the potential to influence legislation and national discourse about LGBTQ+ families and parents in the workforce. At a base level, it allows a news organization’s readership to feel welcome in the digital or print space they’ve entered.

Affirmation can be euphoric for many LGBTQ+ people. Dismantling the status quo of gendered language is a helpful step toward increased affirmation, acceptance, and safety for the LGBTQ+ community.

This article was made possible thanks to the support of the Gill Foundation.

Stacey Abrams: Media invention

]

It’s good to be Stacey Abrams.

She’s the toast of the entertainment and news industries, and all she had to do was lose an election to a Republican. Rarely has so much praise and honor been awarded to a person so undeserving.

Abrams is a “political visionary,” according to the press. She’s a voting rights champion and pioneer. She’s a savior whose tireless altruism is this country’s best hope for a brighter, more equitable future.

If one relied on her adoring press, one would think Abrams is a centrist Democrat who has revolutionized national politics. One would think she is a legitimate victim of Republican “voter suppression” tactics. One would also think she has genuine, broad appeal outside the cloister of media and political types who are attempting to make her a “thing.”

One would never know her entire political backstory is comically thin. One would never know she is largely unpopular with voters. One would never know Abrams is a radical and a demagogue.

One would never even know the press’s version of Stacey Abrams is pure fiction, one that exists solely to promote the Democratic message that Republican victories are illegitimate.

Abrams is no political prodigy. She’s not middle-of-the-road. She’s not beloved by voters. She wasn’t even a particularly successful legislator. She’s simply a woman who lost a high-profile race and refuses to accept defeat.

Where have we heard this before?

A review of Abrams’s career is brief. In 2008, she ran unopposed for the Georgia House of Representatives. She won her race, which, given the circumstances, was impossible for her not to do. Since then, Abrams’s only other major political “accomplishment” was in 2018 when she lost the Georgia gubernatorial race to her Republican opponent, Gov. Brian Kemp.

After 2018, Abrams turned defeat into a personality trait, to the great delight of the Democratic Party and the corporate press. She founded a get-out-the-vote group, claiming inspiration from her supposed experience losing to “voter suppression.” She also has spent the past several years telling everyone who will listen that she was robbed, that she is the true and rightful governor of the Peach State.

“To be clear,” Abrams told supporters in her post-election speech, “this is not a speech of concession. Concession means to acknowledge an action is right, true, or proper. As a woman of conscience and faith, I cannot concede.”

She then claimed she could prove the Republican Party stole the race. She has yet to deliver on that promise.

Later, in 2019, Abrams told an audience at Vanderbilt University in Nashville, Tennessee, “I don’t concede that I lost. I acknowledge that I’m not the governor of Georgia.”

That same year, she also said, “I did win my election. I just didn’t get to have the job."

Abrams claimed at another event, “I’m going to tell you what I’ve told folks across this state, and this is not a partisan statement, it’s a true statement: We won.”

She said in an interview with the New York Times Magazine, “I feel comfortable now saying, ‘I won.’”

Just last year, at a rally for failed Democratic Virginia gubernatorial candidate Terry McAuliffe, Abrams told a crowd, “I’m here to tell you that just because you win doesn’t mean [you’ve] won. I come from a state where I was not entitled to become the governor.”

In total, Abrams, whose personal website referred to her as “governor” as recently as 2021, claimed at least a dozen times in the six months following her defeat she actually won her election, and that she “lost” only because Republicans cheated.

For the record, Kemp won the election with 50.2% of the vote, compared to Abrams’s 48.8%. He won by roughly 55,000 more votes. Abrams, for her part, maintains Kemp won only because he suppressed the vote. About that: Approximately 3.9 million votes were cast in Georgia during the 2018 midterm election cycle. This is the same number of votes cast in the entire state during the 2012 presidential election and not that far off from the 4.1 million votes cast in the 2016 election, which saw a considerable increase from the 2.5 million votes cast in Georgia during the 2014 midterm elections. In total, the 2018 election saw voter turnout in Georgia increase by an estimated 1.4 million from the previous midterm election cycle. Put simply, whoever was tasked with “suppressing the vote” did an awful job of it.

In the years following her defeat, Abrams’s post-2018 career has mirrored that of former President Donald Trump. It is one filled with bitterness and uncorroborated allegations of electoral foul play.

Yet, unlike Trump, the media adore Abrams. Her get-out-the-vote efforts (despite the fact they’re predicated on a lie). Her willingness to make a career out of losing to a Republican. Her devotion to the conspiracy theory alleging the GOP “stole” the Georgia governor’s race via “voter suppression,” even though there’s no evidence to back this claim.

Indeed, concurrent with corporate media’s effort to promote Abrams as a sort of political and cultural icon are their efforts to legitimize her election trutherism. She’s not a crank like Trump, even though her complaints are nearly identical in flimsiness. Rather, she’s one of the great “defenders of democracy,” according to the press. They’ve ignored her actual electoral record, disregarding the fact she lost the one race in which she ran opposed, and have settled instead on a narrative alleging she’s a “political visionary.” They’ve positioned her as a “moderate,” despite the fact she is anything but. They’ve also played footsie with her conspiracy theories.

The Washington Post editorial board, for example, published an article last October arguing Abrams may have a point, even though the paper itself can’t find any evidence to back her “voter suppression” allegations. Hilariously enough, the same Washington Post article dedicates an enormous amount of energy to attacking Trump’s mirror-image election conspiracy theories.

In 2019, the New Yorker published a glow-up profile giving credence to Abrams’s uncorroborated allegations.

“Georgians, though, still use the terms ‘won’ and ‘lost’ advisedly, not only because the Democrat never technically conceded but also because of the highly irregular nature of the contest,” the profile reads. “Abrams … is focused on addressing the irregularities that her campaign identified.” After all, “many people in and outside Georgia believe that, without the irregularities, Abrams would have won.”

Many people say, indeed.

The New York Times, meanwhile, published an opinion article claiming Kemp “played referee, scorekeeper and contestant so he could tip the scales in his favor in the 2018 election for governor against Stacey Abrams, whose voter protection efforts had begun years earlier.” This is not true. Most of the aforementioned roles were played by county elections boards.

In one segment on MSNBC, Trump-era hotshot reporter Katy Tur asked Abrams point-blank: “Do you think the vote was stolen from you, the election was stolen from you?”

“I think the election was stolen from the people of Georgia,” said Abrams.

Tur let the assertion go unchallenged.

In November 2021, National Public Radio host Meghna Chakrabarti referred to Abrams as one of the “great defenders of democracy,” promoting all the while the failed candidate’s unverified election allegations.

Abrams got her own TED talk. She even got her own Amazon Prime documentary devoted to legitimizing her “voter suppression” claims.

Members of the press have also worked hard to rebrand Abrams’s political philosophy according to whatever makes her more attractive to the shifting proclivities of voters. Now, she’s a reasonable “moderate,” despite being the same person they sold back in 2018. Back then, they called her a “bold progressive” with an “unapologetically left” agenda.

At times, journalists seemingly confuse Abrams’s strategy with their own. The New York Times in January published a profile arguing Abrams is “a leader who has carefully calibrated her positions, making a point to avoid drifting into one Democratic lane or another.”

Abrams’s “pragmatism has encouraged some moderates — including Georgians who served with Ms. Abrams in the State Capitol — to compare her to other center-left national figures who had credibility among the grass-roots base, like Presidents Barack Obama and Bill Clinton,” the article adds.

Earlier, in 2020, Slate praised her for putting together “a platform that successfully balanced the interests of lefties and just-win normies.”

This is in direct opposition to what the same press said of Abrams in 2018.

During the Georgia governor’s race, the New York Times published an opinion article praising her for running as “an outspoken progressive” with a strategy that “emphasized her progressive positions.” Abrams made an appearance in a separate New York Times opinion article that same year on the “rise of black progressives” who are “unapologetically left” and have “rejected the idea that [they need] centrist Democrats to win.”

In 2018, just before the election, Politico published a news report celebrating the “Year of the Black Progressive.” The report included Abrams and other “bold progressive” candidates who won “Democratic nominations not despite being progressive, but precisely because they’re running to the left of their competition to have a shot at winning white liberals.”

Adding to the absurdity of the press’s supposed finger-on-the-pulse rebranding campaign for Abrams is this: She is not particularly popular with voters.

A November 2021 survey of a hypothetical rematch between Abrams and Kemp showed Abrams trailing by 3 points with likely voters in the state. The survey, which was conducted by Redfield & Wilton Strategies, shows Kemp with 47% of the vote, compared to Abrams’s 44%. On the national stage, things look about the same. The most recent data released by YouGov show only 36.2% of voters have a favorable opinion of Abrams. Meanwhile, 35.7% of voters hold an unfavorable opinion, while an alarming 28% say they have no opinion at all.

This is the person corporate media claim is a beloved and powerful political force.

There’s more going on here than simple wish-casting.

As Abrams has made a living litigating her loss to Kemp, Democratic lawmakers have promoted a narrative alleging Republicans win only when they cheat. This isn’t an uncharitable paraphrasing. This is something Democratic Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren quite literally stated in 2019.

“Massive voter suppression prevented Stacey Abrams from becoming the rightful governor of Georgia,” Warren said during an appearance at Al Sharpton’s National Action Network Convention. “They know that a durable majority of Americans believe in the promise of America, and they know that if all the votes are counted, we’ll win every time.”

The Democrats have been pushing this message for several years now, and they’ve done it all while using Abrams as the public face of their argument. There’s a reason why Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer of New York chose Abrams to deliver the Democratic Party’s official response to then-President Trump’s 2019 State of the Union address.

“[Abrams] has led the charge for voting rights, which is at the root of just about everything else,” Schumer said.

This is known as saying the quiet part aloud. Democrats have a talking point to sell, and they’ve settled on Abrams as the poster child for the effort. Media have responded not only by legitimizing her election grievances but also by erasing her earlier “progressive” bona fides and recasting her as a much more appealing “moderate.”

On Dec. 1, 2021, Abrams announced she would run again for Georgia governor. She then had the audacity to allege she never disputed the results of the 2018 Georgia governor’s race.

“I did not challenge the outcome of the election, unlike some recent folks did,” she told MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow, referring to Trump’s own objections regarding the 2020 election. “What I said was that the system was not fair. And leaders challenge systems. Leaders say we can do better. That is what I declared.”

This, of course, is a falsehood. She most absolutely disputed the results of the election in both word and deed, including not one, but two separate lawsuits.

Unsurprisingly, the same media that tell us Abrams is a one-of-a-kind political savant, that she is a real-life martyr of GOP “voter suppression” tactics, have done exactly nothing to correct the record.

The truth matters, corporate media tell us. Yes, but apparently only some of the time.

Becket Adams is a senior commentary writer for the Washington Examiner.

Barack Obama Celebrates Michelle’s Birthday with Photo of Hawaiian Sunset Kiss: ‘My Best Friend’

]

Michelle Obama and Barack Obama

Barack Obama/Twitter From left: Michelle and Barack Obama

Barack Obama is celebrating the birthday of his “love, partner, and best friend,” Michelle Obama, with a photo of the two taken on a balcony in what appears to be one of their favorite vacation spots: Hawaii.

“Happy birthday, Michelle,” the former president, 60, wrote in a tweet Monday, along with a photo of the two in Hawaii earlier this month. “My love, my partner, my best friend…”

The former first lady turned 58 on Monday, and a host of big names spoke up in honor of her big day.

Current First Lady Dr. Jill Biden — a pal and collaborator since their time in the White House together — sent well wishes along with a throwback photo of the pair.

Video: Michelle Obama shares new family photo for Barack’s 60th Birthday

RELATED: Michelle Obama and Stars’ Moms Flaunt Superpowers of Persuasion Like ‘Too Many’ Texts to Urge Vaccination

Barack And Michelle Obam

Mark Wilson/Getty From left: Michelle and Barack Obama

Mrs. Obama, meanwhile, used social media to urge her followers to celebrate something else: the legacy of the late Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. by calling elected officials and urging them to pass the Freedom to Vote: John R. Lewis Act, a major reform bill backed by Democrats.

Mrs. Obama has been a vocal proponent of voting rights bills in recent months, recently writing an open letter about the need to protect the right to vote.

“From Georgia and Florida to Iowa and Texas, states passed laws designed to make it harder for Americans to vote. And in other state legislatures across the nation, lawmakers have attempted to do the same,” she wrote in the letter, which was published earlier this month as an ad in The New York Times.

She continued: “This type of voter suppression is not new. Generations of Americans have persevered through poll taxes, literacy tests, and laws designed to strip away their power — and they’ve done it by organizing, by protesting, and most importantly, by overcoming the barriers in front of them in order to vote. And now, we’ve got to do the same. We’ve got to vote like the future of our democracy depends on it.”

Story continues

RELATED: Tracee Ellis Ross Personally Asked Michelle Obama to Cameo in Black-ish Season 8 Premiere

Mrs. Obama also recently issued a call to action through her organization When We All Vote to protect voting rights and also set an ambitious goal: to register a million new voters across the country, ahead of the 2022 midterm elections.

Never miss a story — sign up for PEOPLE’s free daily newsletter to stay up-to-date on the best of what PEOPLE has to offer, from juicy celebrity news to compelling human interest stories.

She has also managed to carve out time for fun this past year, also, and made an appearance in the recent premiere episode of Black-ish’s final season.

She appeared in the episode as an unexpected guest at a fundraising event that Bow convinces husband Dre (Anderson) to attend in hopes of making some new friends, even though he is “convinced there will be nothing but dud husbands there to befriend,” according to the episode description.

The Obamas spent part of the recent holiday season in Hawaii, continuing a decades-long family tradition of celebrating Christmas in the place where the former president grew up.

U.S. President Barack Obama and his wife Michelle

Scott Olson/Getty From left: Michelle and Barack Obama in 2019

In an interview last year, Mrs. Obama looked back at the long arc of her marriage.

“Before the White House, before the kids, before careers, it was just me and Barack together shaping our lives, building a friendship, being one another’s everything,” she told PEOPLE.

And “that’s what we were able to return to once the White House was over and the kids were grown and you knew they were okay,” she said.

“We came through the struggle together, which makes our foundation even more solid than it was,” the former first lady said then. She added: “I am happy to say that I can now look up from all of that and look over across the room and I still see my friend.”

‘Zero for Two’: Katy Tur Laughs After Flubbing Attempts to Throw MSNBC’s Feed to Manchin, Schumer

]

MSNBC’s Katy Tur gave viewers a funny look at how the cable news sausage gets made when she tried, and failed, to divert the network’s feed to Capitol Hill.

President Joe Biden was in Congress on Thursday to meet with lawmakers about his push for voting reforms, so Tur spoke with Chuck Todd and Andrea Mitchell to break down the political back-and-forth. As Todd was giving his analysis, Tur broke in to announce “We have Joe Manchin speaking right now. Let’s listen to him.”

The feed cut to Congress, but it turns out West Virginia senator was walking away at that very moment.

“He almost knew I was going to go and put him on television,” Tur chuckled. Mitchell got a few of her own words in after that, but Tur announced she was diverting the feed to Chuck Schumer, only to see the Senate majority leader walk away too.

“I’m zero for two,” Tur sheepishly said while Mitchell and Todd laughed over the unfortunate mishap.

“Some bad luck,” said Todd, who admitted “I know that feeling.”

Live TV, everyone!

Watch above, via MSNBC.

Have a tip we should know? tips@mediaite.com