The importance of pronouns in media from a journalistic perspective, and a word on grammar.
A high school library was the first setting that I experienced a request for anonymity from a source on the basis of privacy.
The bell rang after my last class on a Friday, and I felt my chest rise and fall in a preemptive sigh, knowing that while the students around me flooded out the school doors into their respective weekend activities, I had to prepare myself for one of the most intense interviews of my reporting career up to that point. It was my first year writing for the school paper, and while I had done some interviews, there was a lot I had to learn about a journalist’s responsibility to their sources.
I hadn’t seriously considered the consequences of many of my actions as a journalist when it came to the safety and comfort of the sources that I interviewed for my articles. I had a grasp on the ethics of journalism from the fact-sheet I had glanced over during the first week or so on the school paper’s staff, but that was as far as my research had extended as I walked into one of my first long-form interviews with an emotionally compromised source.
The Society of Professional Journalists (SPJ) has a comprehensive code of ethics that is meant to be used as a guide for journalists to follow to maintain their journalistic integrity in situations that are ethically gray. There are four main principles within the SPJ Code of Ethics: Seek Truth and Report it, Minimize Harm, Act Independently, and Be Accountable and Transparent. The principle titled “Minimize Harm” contains multiple subcategories of values that detail the importance of reflection when deciding if a sources’ privacy outweighs the importance of the information that they are giving you. Oftentimes, this situation falls within a gray area where many journalists may differ in outcome, and the Code of Ethics is there to help guide them through those decisions. There are two passages that I followed instinctively as I sat down for the interview at library table on a Friday after school despite not knowing of the SPJ Code of Ethics’ existence:
1.Realize that private people have a greater right to control information about themselves than public figures and others who seek power, influence or attention. Weigh the consequences of publishing or broadcasting personal information.
2. Show compassion for those who may be affected by news coverage. Use heightened sensitivity when dealing with juveniles, victims of sex crimes, and sources or subjects who are inexperienced or unable to give consent. Consider cultural differences in approach and treatment.
Out of earshot from the scattered groups of students studying on the tables and booths lining the walls of the library, I took a seat across from a person who had agreed to tell me their incredibly vulnerable story about breaking away from their family’s Mormon faith. I’m not going to detail the contents of the interview now, but I did make the decision to run their interview in print under the protection of anonymity in the case that one of their family members came across the article.
The preservation of my source’s home life, especially because they were a minor telling me specific details about their family, outweighed the importance of including their name in print.
I’d like to pause here and ask: at any point during this essay, have you been confused by my grammar? I am curious to know if during the anecdote you believed that I was talking about multiple people in the library, sitting across from me requesting anonymity.
If your answer is yes, that my story was complicated for you to read, then I have done a poor job of writing it. It is largely the author’s job to assure that a story is completely clear in its meaning while simultaneously maintaining the integrity of their sources. If your answer is no, that it was clear to you I was referring to a singular, anonymous person in my story, then I’ve done my job right in upholding both clarity and integrity.
Like my anonymous source, many of the people that I have interviewed throughout my journalistic career have requested that I refer to them as “they” or “them” in the final article. This could be for a variety of reasons, from preferring that their gender remain unknown to being a gender non-conforming person that doesn’t identify with designated “male” or “female” pronouns. As a reporter, but more importantly as a public servant, I consider the dignity of my honest and non-public sources invaluable. Referring to the SPJ code of ethics, I always make a point to “realize that private people have a greater right to control information about themselves than public figures and others who seek power, influence or attention. Weigh the consequences of publishing or broadcasting personal information.” Disrespecting the identity of a person who has agreed to be honest and vulnerable on a public level is a disgusting misuse of the privileges that journalists have to publish information in the first place. The use of they/them pronouns runs much deeper than grammatical clarity.
The Associated Press (AP) stylebook is a widespread journalistic tool used to maintain consistency throughout publications. It is a rulebook of grammar, spelling, punctuation, dates, times, money, and more that is taken as writing law by most major news outlets. The entry in the stylebook on the use of they/them pronouns is (to put it bluntly) unethical.
“They/them/their is acceptable in limited cases as a singular and-or gender-neutral pronoun, when alternative wording is overly awkward or clumsy” the 2020-22 updated version of the AP stylebook explains. “However, rewording usually is possible and always is preferable. Clarity is a top priority; gender-neutral use of a singular they is unfamiliar to many readers.”
The irony of explaining gender-neutral pronouns as “unfamiliar to many readers” while the singular “they” has been widely used long before gender non-conforming identities became normalized seems to be lost on the Associated Press. I’ve written plenty of articles as a high school journalist where I had a source that requested I use they/them pronouns for them in print, and I have not once been told that my final published article is confusing to read or that the singular “they” is grammatically incorrect. A common but effective analogy: if you found someone’s wallet on the sidewalk and was not aware of that person’s gender, you would say something along the lines of, “oh, someone dropped their wallet. I’ll pick it up for them and turn it in, hopefully they’ll come back to claim it.” Why does the singular they in this context not receive ridicule? Is it possibly because the argument against using they/them pronouns for gender non-conforming sources has nothing to do with whether or not it’s actually a clerical issue?
The Associated Press is an incredibly useful tool in assuring consistent grammar and punctuation use across publications, but there are some contexts in which journalists must be trusted to write as clearly and concisely as possible. If a reporter can’t refer to a single person as “they” without confusing the reader, then they lack talent as a writer and must learn to analyze their sentence structure so writing that could be misconstrued does not reach print. Essentially, the job of assuring that a source’s identity is respected in a way that’s understandable to readers falls on publications. The Associated Press needs to update its stylebook to reflect the community that journalists serve.
Even with a baseline knowledge of both the SPJ Code of Ethics and the AP stylebook as a high school sophomore, I knew that there are unwavering values that journalists have a responsibility to uphold. If a source requests to be anonymous, I will evaluate the circumstances and act with compassion accordingly. If a source tells me that they identify and feel comfortable being published with they/them pronouns, then I will grant them that request without hesitation. I know how to properly structure my sentences so that it is clear I’m referring to a singular person, and I would hope anyone who has gone to the lengths it takes to become a journalist would know how to do the same. I refuse to see my sources as a few quotes that progress an article. Sources are not just words, they are part of the community that I serve as a journalist.
To separate an article from the humanity of the sources contained within it is to compromise journalistic integrity on every level. You are confirming the notion that news is a series of stories and not the real, lived, emotionally vulnerable lives of your community members.
I will treat my sources with the respect that they deserve. Every journalist that wants to make change in the world should recognize that we cannot do so without extending basic human decency to the people that make our jobs as journalists possible in the first place.
To the Associated Press: update your stylebook to uphold the very principles you claim to follow.
Comments