Beware the AP Stylebook
Posted on Friday, November 29, 2019 at 10:34 PM
Is the AP an infallible arbiter of style? Missteps in a special style
guide demand closer scrutiny of guideline updates.
By
William Dunkerley
Some whoppers in a recent AP Stylebook
supplement suggest a need for caution. Many editors look to the Stylebook
as a bible when it comes to style matters. Now there's reason to
exercise caution in relying upon the publication as an absolute
authority.
This came to our attention with the recent release of
the Impeachment Inquiry Topical Guide. Its purpose? "To help with
coverage of the impeachment inquiry, The Associated Press has prepared a
guide with key background, explanation and style points," said AP. But
the publication is seriously flawed on both counts: "key background" and
"style points."
While many of us are not covering the
impeachment issue, AP's editorial failures with this guide should put us
on alert for other questionable advice elsewhere.
Issue 1:
Transliteration Issues versus Language Differences
The most
straightforward goof is in the spelling of Zelensky, the surname of the
new Ukrainian president. AP claims that "he told the AP that Zelinskiy
was his preferred spelling." Because that is out of step with most other
romanizations of the Cyrillic spelling, I asked them to substantiate
that claim. They did not respond.
In Zelensky's name, when
written in Ukrainian, two different letters follow the letter "k." They
form a diphthong that is usually rendered in English as a single letter
"y." Tchaikovsky is an example. And the letter in "Zelensky" that
follows the "l" is romanized as "e," never "i."
Usage
practices can be readily checked with a Google search. I found that
"Zelensky" netted 15.1 million hits. "Zelinskiy" yielded only 64,700
results. That speaks for itself.
The guide also announces a style
change from Kiev to Kyiv. There's nothing fundamentally wrong with that.
But AP's rationale is mistaken. It claims that change is "in line with
the government's preferred transliteration to English." But it is not a
transliteration issue. The name of Ukraine's capital city is Kiev in the
Russian language. In Ukrainian it's Kyiv. It's a language difference,
not one of transliteration. It's like we say Moscow, they say Moskva.
Transliteration does not come into play.
(There does not seem to
be consistency in cross-language translation of geographical names. AP's
not necessarily to blame for that. For instance, the change from Peking
to Beijing was readily accepted. But the city Germans call Munchen is
commonly rendered in English as Munich. Perhaps international politics
plays a role in this. But editors should prioritize communication with
readers when making these decisions. For instance, the residents of
Barrow, Alaska, voted in 2016 to change the town's name to Utqiagvik.
The location first came to national attention with the advent of the
trans-Alaska oil pipeline in the 1960s. Utqiagvik may work for audiences
in Alaska, but outside the state it would cause confusion, at least for
now.)
Issue 2: The AP Gets Political
Beyond the
rendering of names, the AP guide delves into the political arena. And
that's where things went really wrong. Under the guise of providing the
editorial community with useful background, it has snuck in one-sided
versions of controversial issues that are far from settled.
One
example appears in the background on the unusual role of Rudolph
Giuliani in the Ukraine affair. AP makes reference to "the discredited
theory that Ukraine and not Russia tried to intervene in the 2016
election." Saying that this has been categorically discredited is boldly
false.
The facts are that the issue is currently under criminal
investigation by a US attorney. Surely AP is aware of that, and indeed
it reported on October 24, 2019, "DOJ review of Russia probe now a
criminal inquiry." An honest report on the cited theory would have said
that the matter is sharply contested and currently the subject of a
criminal investigation.
Another example is the question of
whether President Trump has violated his oath of office. His opponents
have strongly asserted that this is the case. AP advised editors that
"House committees are trying to determine if President Donald Trump
violated his oath of office by asking a foreign country to investigate a
political opponent."
But that allegation is far from
self-evident. By not warning readers of that fact, AP has misled
journalists again.
How is it not self-evident? Here's the
presidential oath of office:
"I, Donald John Trump, do solemnly
swear that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the
United States, and will, to the best of my ability, preserve, protect
and defend the Constitution of the United States."
The
premise of AP's argument is that asking a foreign country to investigate
a political opponent violates the oath of office. But the oath of office
doesn't mention such activity either way. It is an open issue as to
whether Trump committed a transgression here. Maybe he did, maybe he
didn't. That's a subject being considered by highly visible
Congressional inquiries in which some parties are seeking to impute
meanings to the oath, perhaps justifiably so. But for now the allegation
is unsettled and the supposed violation is not explicitly mentioned in
the oath.
AP's transgressions continue in the Guide's section on
"Key Places." It states that Russia "annexed Ukraine's Crimea region" as
if that were a settled matter. However, it is clearly in dispute. Most
Crimeans rebut the annexation claim, believing that they voted to be
reunited with Russia.
It is true that the United Nations passed a
non-binding resolution that claims the Crimean referendum on
independence from Kyiv was invalid. "Non-binding" is a critical term
here. What's more, that resolution would seem to conflict with the very
UN charter that cites "the principle of equal rights and
self-determination of peoples."
This is plainly a contested
political battle in which AP is playing the role of combatant.
AP
could learn a lot from the National Geographic Society. While claims
still abound that Crimea remains subject to Ukrainian sovereignty, the
society has drawn its maps to show Crimea as an integral part of Russia.
The organization's director of editorial and research for National
Geographic Maps put it simply: "We map the world as it is, not as people
would like it to be."
There are other signs of bias in AP's
guide that seem to indicate a persistent application of bias. It makes
frequent use of loaded terms.
For instance, it says that "Russia
tried to intervene in the election" of 2016. By any common definition of
the word "intervene," AP's usage is inappropriate. There was no force or
threat of force, there was no demonstrable hindrance or modification,
there was no demonstrable interference in an outcome. At worst, what
Russia has been alleged to have done is what is commonly called
propaganda. Given all the distortions in AP's guide, it seems likely
that its use of "intervene" is a deliberate provocation of fear.
At
this point it is necessary to reflect upon what AP is up to. What kind
of role is it playing in bringing vital political news to American
voters? A quote from Walter Cronkite can help put this into perspective:
"We
all have our likes and our dislikes. But ... when we're doing news --
when we're doing the front-page news, not the back page, not the op-ed
pages, but when we're doing the daily news, covering politics -- it is
our duty to be sure that we do not permit our prejudices to show. That
is simply basic journalism."
I can't think of a rational
argument that would support the notion that AP is practicing even basic
journalism. It has exploited the presumptive trust enjoyed by its Stylebook
-- a bible in the journalism field -- to covertly propagate one-sided
"background" to its unsuspecting readers.
If one
accepts Cronkite's concept of journalism, it might be unwise to give
unmitigated trust to AP's Stylebook. It's wrong on the political
issues. It's even wrong on the simple matter of how to spell the
Ukrainian president's name.
The AP Stylebook might more
honestly be termed a political document that manifests an insidious
propensity to propagate false and misleading information.
What a
sad and troubling conclusion that is.
William Dunkerley is
principal of William Dunkerley Publishing Consultants, www.publishinghelp.com.
Add
your comment.