Do political labels help audiences understand politics?

What is a Critical Conversation? | Printable discussion guide

When describing a politician or political group in stories, it’s easy to reach for labels — conservative, liberal, moderate, progressive, etc. They can be a quick way to identify where someone falls on the political spectrum. But these labels can be problematic when they generalize or oversimplify, e.g., “conservatives say X…” or “liberals want Z…”  Some editors discourage them. But news organizations don’t have time to adjudicate these terms every time they arise, so it is worth discussing them.

The discussion of political labels is becoming even more salient with shifts in American politics. Today’s dynamic political landscape often upends the traditional meaning or understanding of a label, making it even more important for journalists to seek precision and avoid blurry generalizations. For example, the terms “liberal” and “conservative” have taken on new connotations since the rise of politicians such as former president Donald J. Trump and U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders.

Who’s in this conversation?

Politics team, standards editors, copy editors, audience and engagement teams

Meeting prep

Get buy-in for this conversation

Buy-in for this conversation is important because journalists are often asked to keep stories succinct, so anything that might require them to add more descriptive words could conflict with that. It’s also important to make clear that this conversation doesn’t mean you don’t trust their word choices.

Consider these actions:

• Ask your political staff to reflect on the use of these terms before the meeting. Their insights will help prompt a more thoughtful (and potentially spirited) conversation.
• Make clear that you’re trying to inspire a thoughtful conversation about precise language, not seeking to impose blanket bans on terms or phrases.

The agenda

1. Look at whether you’ve been using political shortcuts in ways that might not be helpful to your audience.

Take stock of ways in which you have used political shortcuts in stories. In some cases, and with certain issues, audiences will know what you’re saying. But in others, they might not.

Consider this action:

• Look at 10 or so recent political stories that use political shortcuts. Look at terms like “conservative,” “liberal,” “moderate,” “progressive,” “centrist.” Have they been used with precision? Imagine yourself as a typical reader or viewer. Do you think they know what you mean?

2. If we don’t use these labels, what could we use instead?

When Bloomberg News was founded in 1990, Matthew Winkler, then the editor-in-chief (now columnist and editor emeritus), made clear that he didn’t want its journalists to use terms such as “conservative” or “liberal.” Those are subjective judgments, he said. Moreover, Bloomberg had an international audience, and those labels can mean something completely different in countries other than the U.S.

He wanted reporters and editors to avoid these labels, except in cases where politicians are describing themselves, and encouraged using specific descriptors to explain people’s political positions. He also discouraged “left” and “right.” He provided examples in his weekly notes to editors, one of which is included below.

Consider these actions:

• Look at the example below from one of Winkler’s notes. Think about whether giving your news organization examples like this would help reporters and editors be more specific with audiences. Could there be a stylebook entry that helps journalists think through ways to be more precise?
• Consider ways to be transparent with your audience about your approach to these terms — an editor’s note, perhaps, or a standing explanation to readers that you can link to when you use these terms. Link freely to this piece in politics stories.

3. How can we ensure we’re using terms that work for our specific audience?

One challenge for local politics reporters is that national politics in recent years have been increasingly so dominant, said Dartmouth University political scientist Brendan Nyhan. That means it’s easy for people to project their understanding of politics “downward” and apply what they know about national politics to the local scene.

But in many cases, the language of national politics doesn’t work on the local level.

The parties, for example, are not homogeneous across the country. The Republican Party in New York is different from the one in Wisconsin; Democrats in Ohio aren’t the same as those in California. Someone labeled liberal in one place might be considered moderate in another.

Consider these actions:

• Assign someone to talk to other local news outlets about how they approach these questions. Do they avoid national political language in stories about state or local issues? If so, how?
• Write an explainer that shows how the political philosophies in your region may differ from those on the national level. Are Republicans or Democrats in your community different from those on the national level? How? Link often to this piece in politics stories.

4. How might these labels be received by audiences?

Political labels might be processed by audiences in two negative ways.

First, writing about a group or political bloc rather than individuals can feel insidery, describing political gamesmanship rather than helping people understand the issues. If people see generalizations about groups or positions that they cannot relate to, it could be a turn-off. It sounds more like politics-speak than useful information.

For example, if you write broadly that “conservatives support proposal X” but a reader who considers themselves conservative opposes it, you could not only confuse them but make them question your analytical skills.

Second, journalism that focuses on groups, labels and taking sides rather than issues could reinforce tribalism. If your journalism explains issues through a lens of who’s taking which “side,” you may not be giving your audience the information to decide where they stand. All they know is that groups of people belong on one side or another.

Moreover, many issues are complicated and don’t fit into a binary mold of one “side” or another. “Sides” framing often oversimplifies.

Consider these actions:

• Attend or host focus groups or a public convening in which audiences could give feedback on what they think and feel when they hear these terms. Can they relate? When do these terms work and when do they not? Use their feedback to develop new ways of describing issues and various positions on them.
• Check out Trusting News’ checklist on avoiding polarizing language and this piece from Trusting News’ Lynn Walsh that discusses the problem with overgeneralizations when describing groups or political philosophies.