x Do not use racially charged or similar terms as euphemisms for racist or racism when the latter terms are truly applicable. #ACES2019 #ACESAPstyle — AP Stylebook (@APStylebook) March 29, 2019

Late last year, author and history professor Lawrence B. Glickman wrote an article which detailed the “racist politics of the English language” where he researched the history of the media’s tortured use of euphemisms and weasel words, even ones which make no logical sense. An Oct. 2018 article in The New York Times claimed Trump and the GOP decided to “escalate race and fear,” leading to the question: “How exactly does one escalate race?”

According to Glickman, the attempts by the media to find neutral terms on racism began in the 1950s and ’60s. When Strom Thurmond and other Dixiecrats opposed civil rights legislation, article titles would flatly state: “Racists Hit Rights Bill as ‘Vicious’” or “Racists Rally in Nashville.” But when conservatives and southern racists decided to shift their language to be more coded and abstract in their discrimination, as segregationists lost more and more arguments on civil rights, the news media shifted with them to “color-blind” language.

And sometimes the language the press used was absolutely shameful.

The nadir of euphemism is surely a dead tie between the Associated Press’s 1964 description of “racially tinged explosions” which were set off “near the recently desegregated campus of the University of Alabama” and “across town near a Negro cafe”; and a 1953 Associated Press story that described the trial of two white men who kidnapped a black motorist and set him on fire as a “racially charged case.”

So, last night and this morning, instead of sleeping and enjoying life, I decided to go from website to website and channel to channel to see how Trump’s latest racism was covered by different news organizations, and whether it was actually called racism or racist by the press corps.

Now, it’s one thing to point this out. It’s another thing to figure out the hows and whys of the continued use of this sophistry by people who should know better.

But I have some ideas.

A famous quote attributed to, but disputed by , Michael Jordan goes: “Republicans buy shoes, too.” It allegedly was Jordan’s response to questions about his refusal to inject his star power into the 1990 Senate race between Democrat Harvey Gantt and Republican Sen. Jesse Helms in his home state of North Carolina. The campaign was noteworthy for being ugly and very racist on Helms’ part. The apprehension to use the words “racist” or “racism” is arguably based on economic considerations about alienating a significant part of the audience which is either racist or sympathizes with racists. And there are stories from reporters where they were forced to change accurate descriptions to keep from offending anyone in the audience.

During the controversy on Rachel Lindsay’s season of The Bachelorette, when contestant Lee was found to have racist tweets, my publication wouldn’t let me say “racist.” It was “racially charged” or “racially sensitive,” etc. I would write “racist,” and then my editor would change it during the line editing process. The directive came from higher up than my direct editors, but I don’t know how high. As a general rule, this publication takes the teeth out of anything you write because they’re so worried about offending anyone — literally anyone. So it doesn’t matter if you’re writing about men’s rights activists or feminism or racism. They like to make it more palatable.