Tuesday, June 2, 2009
News The word is a "ghetto"
Posted by Scott Henry @ScottTheHenry on Tue, Jun 2, 2009 at 3:47 PM
Words can hurt.
Any writer knows that words can explain and educate, but they can also inflame and belittle. That's why we carefully choose the words we use. An ill-chosen word can stop a reader in his tracks, distracting him from the point of a story.
The day my most recent cover story was published — concerning crime on Boulevard and a proposed redevelopment of the street — I left for vacation, little knowing I'd set my editor up for a hailstorm of controversy (at least within our office).
Even when I got back yesterday, I didn't suspect any problems. The story had received a healthy number of lengthy comments online and another half-dozen e-mails, nearly all of them positive and none mentioning any concern over word choice. But then, those people likely read the story online, where the title of the article was, "Down on Boulevard: Positive change might finally come to Atlanta’s lawless street."
On the cover of the print edition, however, we went with a different title. This is typical; we have limited space on the cover and are forced to get the point across in fewer words. Underneath a photo of a street sign for Boulevard, the title on the print edition read:
Midtown's lawless ghetto readies for a revival
I had chosen these words carefully. Headline-writing is a balancing act; you want to grab people's attention, but you should be accurate. The more I'd learned about Boulevard during my reporting, the more the area seemed to fit the definition of a ghetto, which Webster describes as "a portion of a city in which members of a minority group live; especially because of social, legal, or economic pressure."
Certainly, "ghetto" is something of a charged word and one you don't see in newspapers much anymore, but in this case, it seemed a completely accurate description of a blighted, crime-ridden area consisting almost entirely of federally subsidized housing.
Accurate, perhaps, but was it appropriate? While I was out of town, there ensued a discussion — quite lively, I'm told — about whether readers might have found our use of "ghetto" on the cover to be insulting or, at best, insensitive. As far as I can determine, the argument was that "ghetto" is burdened with such painful connotations for African Americans that it simply shouldn't be used in a news context, regardless of how accurate a description it seems to be — in much the same way as you wouldn't described a person with serious physical handicaps as "crippled."
If "ghetto" has indeed become so loaded a word that most modern readers can't get around it — that it distracts from any article in which it appears — then I admit my ignorance in making a poor word choice.
But I'm not yet convinced this is the case. So I'm asking you, the readers, for your opinion. Is "ghetto" so derogatory that it's off-limits? Has it become a word that only African Americans are allowed to use? Or would informally banning it from print be a form of cultural white-washing, an effective denial that the social conditions the word describes still exist in America?
Because when you're down on Boulevard, it certainly feels like a ghetto.
Comments (58)
Showing 1-50 of 58
Curious... are German Jews also offended? http://fcit.usf.edu/HOLOCAUST/TIMELINE/ghettos.htm
like
dislike
i live very close to the area you wrote last week's article about. and while i believe some caution should be exercised in using it, the term ghetto effectively describes the conditions that that section of boulevard experience. so i agree with you on that... but to refer to ghetto as perhaps another "word that only African Americans are allowed to use" is short-sighted and racist. ghettoization is important for everyone to remember, including american natives, japanese, and other communities. african americans are not the only group to experience ghettos and the oppression associated with it here in the US. we must learn that the ghetto is not hip or cool. on the other hand, its also not off-limits. as an author you must be honest about what you're reporting. bringing to the surface unpleasant conditions on boulevard isn't the problem; the festering of ghettos filled with low-income people is the problem.
We should always use language to expand and improve our culture, so I applaud you for asking the question and waiting for replies. I think my opinion is less important than the opinion of people who live in the area you described or in other areas often described as "ghettos." I too will be interested in the responses you get, and they may well affect my viewpoint. But for now, my viewpoint is that we don't necessarily have the solid unyielding line that you describe, between using the word freely and excising it from our vocabulary. If I were writing something now, I would not put the word "Ghetto" in a headline, but I might well use it in a paragraph where I could surround it with a little explanation.
The original use of the term "ghetto" was to describe a portion of eastern European cities where Jews were REQUIRED to live. Clearly the contemporary operational definition of the word with the absence of any racial connotations accurately describes the area on Boulevard in the story. The appropriation of words by socially defined groups or subcultures often creates a double standard in that the true meaning of the word is bastardized and gets some sort of negative stigma and notoriety attached to it if used by people outside of that social group or subculture. Even if you use the word correctly (as you did), there are those who will take offense AS IF they have some ownership and exclusivity to the use of the term. They don't. Let's see what songwriter Mac Davis said about the "ghetto" in 1969, through the voice of the king: "As the snow flies On a cold and gray Chicago mornin' A poor little baby child is born In the ghetto And his mama cries 'cause if there's one thing that she don't need it's another hungry mouth to feed In the ghetto People, don't you understand the child needs a helping hand or he'll grow to be an angry young man some day Take a look at you and me, are we too blind to see, do we simply turn our heads and look the other way Well the world turns and a hungry little boy with a runny nose plays in the street as the cold wind blows In the ghetto And his hunger burns so he starts to roam the streets at night and he learns how to steal and he learns how to fight In the ghetto Then one night in desperation a young man breaks away He buys a gun, steals a car, tries to run, but he don't get far And his mama cries As a crowd gathers 'round an angry young man face down on the street with a gun in his hand In the ghetto As her young man dies, on a cold and gray Chicago mornin', another little baby child is born In the ghetto" Nope, not a word about race in that tome. With all due respect, why create problems where problems do not exist? It is everybody's language in America, let's share it honestly and equally.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Ox1Tore9nw I vote use it. I also vote using "gives a cold shit" in more blog posts too.
Scott, I think a major problem is the specific taxonomy of Boulevard. As someone who lives and works in Midtown, Boulevard is where Monroe turns into Boulevard over Ponce. However, the Boulevard area could refer to the entire corridor, even all the way down past Oakland Cemetery. So, I think one problem could be changing definitions of Boulevard, depending on where one lives 9or grew up) in Atlanta. In the headline, you talk about "Midtown's lawless ghetto," which to me evokes that first taste of Boulevard NE past Ponce and North Ave. It's amazing how Atlanta changes as you drive east along Ponce. Boulevard contrasts greatly with the other nearby environs at that intersection. BUT -- to answer your only question: the term 'ghetto' should never be off-limits. You might have used the term 'enclave' if the minority group were replete with economic wealth. However, in my mind, Midtown's Boulevard isn't a ghetto as much as a rougher part of the area. In my mind, 'ghetto' refers to a wider area, a neighborhood, that is defined by drug use and violence. To some people, ghetto can be used to glamorize hard core street life. I just think readers are questioning your definitions of 'Boulevard' and 'ghetto' versus their own.
Actually, James, with all due respect for Mr. Davis and the King, I believe "ghetto" does connote an area populated by a racial or ethnic minority, which still fits Boulevard. And, yes, the word certainly came into common use long before it was attached to black, inner-city neighborhoods. But again, I'm less concerned with whether the word is technically accurate than whether a reader would deem its current use unnecessarily inflammatory.
If walks like a duck and quacks like a duck it's a duck. So what do people want to call it economically challenged? America has asian, white, hispanic, etc. ghettos. Color has nothing to do with it.
As someone who studied how newspapers covered UGA's desegregation riots, I am very interested in this topic. I think sensitivity in news articles is important and I think journalists should take into account word connotations/associations & how they change. I was interested in your article right up until the last sentence. You say "Because when you’re down on Boulevard, it certainly feels like a ghetto." And it seems that you're closing off the conversation before you get any comments. But here's another question for your readers: is the use of the word "ghetto" in the headline different from the use of the word in the article?
"the definition of a ghetto, which Webster describes as “a portion of a city in which members of a minority group live; especially because of social, legal, or economic pressure.” Scott, your own definition of a "ghetto" does not explicitly imply "race" as a defining factor. My point is that the word has a "literal" definition now adversely affected by a more recent socially appropriated value. I generally support literal over socially appropriated, especially where communication needs to be concise.
anyone who knows the area knows it's a ghetto. i encourage anyone who has a problem with the word to travel to that stretch of boulevard and then report back.
everytime one of your favorite politicians utters the word globalization, your hood gets one step closer to being a ghetto. then pancho and the cisco kid move in and you might as well move to Macon or Gwinnett County.
oversensitive nonsense. I concur with Paul, wesleywhatwhat and other comments in support of Scott. can't we all sing Elvis' "In the Ghetto" and get along? Blvd is putting on airs to be called anything BUT a ghetto.
First off, The article itself was great and the word was definitely used in appropriate context. Although, yes, the word "ghetto" should be off limits. No matter how accurate it may be, it's very insensitive and offensive. It might not be politically incorrect, but it does have the same effect. I lived in pre-gentrification east lake and I currently spend much of my time with family and friends who live in low income, blighted areas of Atlanta such as MLK, Vine City, Thomasville, Dill ave, and YES the 4th ward section of Boulevard; As an African American with a low socioeconomic background, it does offends me. No its not a word that only African Americans are allowed to use, it would still be offensive in this context no matter who said it. Even if an African American uses the word, if they aren't from the environment then they have no need to say it. Its like how I can call my car shitty all I want, but that doesn't mean you should as well. The word is simply condescending. For example, If my mother is ugly, everyone might know this, but I'd be damned if you call her ugly in my face. Its true, but still disrespectful. This is how the people of the boulevard corridor/ 4th ward area might feel about you calling their neighborhood a ghetto. Especially the people that do take pride in there homes and property, because not all people in the area neglect their residence or are "ghetto". Don't call the physically handicapped "crippled", don't call immigrants "aliens" and don't call our(the low income population of the city) neighborhoods "ghettos". But as mentioned before, the article was great and I enjoyed reading it. Keep up the good work. (besides using the term "ghetto" of course lol!). I also appreciate the admittance of a poor word choice because admitting a mistake is hard and most writers probably would not have done the same. Thanks for being considerate. And other readers might not find the term as derogatory as i do, but I bet they don't live in a low income area of Atlanta either.
Scott, It's a bad word choice. A word that distracts readers from the message you want to convey does not help you tell your story. You said so yourself. Complaining that "only African Americans are allowed to use" this word, to readers whom you’ve already offended, is unprofessional. We know you are enamored with the word “ghetto” and that you don’t buy into arguments against it. You’ve just told us so. This makes your request for readers’ opinions sound insincere and condescending. It doesn't matter what you or Mr. Webster think. Meaning is determined when a word hits the eye of the reader or the ear of the listener. This debate you’ve started shows proof that the point of your story – whatever it was – has been sidetracked. Stop defending a bad decision. Learn your lesson and move on.
As someone who grew up in a ghetto I don't take offense to your use of the word. Most people I know that lived/live in the ghetto are trying to get out.
As a former resident of the particularly awesome stretch of Boulevard between Ponce and North, I think ghetto is a kind description.
Scott, I think the pertinent question is, "Did anyone outside of the CL office bring up the issue?" By asking the question you've altered the perception. Offer each person that thought your headline insensitive the chance to prove themselves right. Armed with a copy of last weeks issue, have them head down Boulevard to ask people, "What do you think of this story?"
It is a ghetto and, for those of you who have not traveled to other major cities across this grand country of ours, the word is not limited to African Americans. Being a Black male (is that PC?) myself, I can have been in Korean ghettos, Latino ghettos, Irish ghettos, and Italian ghettos across this nation. No single ethnic group has the lock on poverty, crime, poor education, pollution, and poor access to services in this country. Use the word and, if it hurts to hear it used to describe your community, get up, organize, and do something about it.
Milo Ippolito - "It doesn’t matter what you or Mr. Webster think." WTF? Using a word accurately doesn't matter? Words mean what they mean, not what you think they mean. And we wonder what is wrong with education? Scott - you were right and used the most appropriate and accurate word. You owe no apology. To anyone who is upset that the area was described a s a ghetto, quit bitching about a CL article and spend that time trying to fix your neighborhood.
Rather than eliminate a word, eliminate the situation. Anyone who spends time complaining about word choice should instead be busting their a's to revitalize any area so described. Use of another word does not make the ghetto disappear, nor does it improve the lives of those who live there.
Good word. Bad word. Doesn't matter. If a word draws more attention to itself than to the thing it describes, it's the wrong word. Perception is reality, Dale C. In other words: "You think I am an idiot, therefor I am."
WELL MY OPINION IS THIS.....IM A AFRICAN AMERCIAN AND THE WORD" GHETTO" IS NOT A THREAT TO ME WHAT SO EVER. FOR ONE! THAT WORD WAS USE BACK WITH THE JEWS AND AFRICAN AMERCIAS TOOK AS A COOL WAY TO DESCRIBE OUR " HOOD" . SECOND WORDS CAN ONLY HURT IF THERES POWER BRHIND IT SO NO! IME PERSONALLLY IS NOT AFFINDED UNLESS YOU USE THE "N" WORD THEN WE WILL HAVE A ISSUE......
ALSO! I STRONGLY AGREE WITH SOURPUSS WE NEED SOLUTIONS NOT NAME CALLING. TO MUCH ENERGY IS SPENT ON NEGATIVE THING WHEN WE SHOULD COME TOGETHER AND FIRGURE WHAT CAN WE AS A WHOLE DO TO MAKE THINGS BETTER FOR ALL......
Does this mean that we have to rename the Ghetto burger from Miss Ann's Snack Shop? Seriously, there is nothing wrong with using the word ghetto. The word ghetto totally embodies what that area has been allowed to become. Even Stevie Wonder could see that. I don't think that it necessarily indicts the people that live there. Now calling someone "ghetto"...well, I don't think anything is wrong with that, but a lot of people do. Usually, the people that would be offended are ghetto indeed!
To Milo, I agree with your premise. I said it myself. But the issue rests on the crux of that "if." That's why I wanted to put the question out there — to see how the word affects readers. And, yes, I'm talking primarily about black readers. I can't imagine any white person, such as myself, having a strong sensitivity toward "ghetto" because it's never really been applied to them. Finally, it's not a case of "buying into arguments." I'm not a big advocate of political correctness for its own sake, but this is about the visceral reaction a particular word stirs in a reader, regardless of whether its use can be defended as technically accurate. Again, I agree that if a word proves a distraction from the message of a story, then it's the wrong word.
"Again, I agree that if a word proves a distraction from the message of a story, then it’s the wrong word." Wouldn't that be a function of how many people are distracted by the word vs. how many people understand the story better based on the correct use of the word in the context of the story? What is that old quote about "pleasing people..."?
Thank you DaleC for pointing out something that seems to keep getting glossed over. No matter how touchy feely we may be about what word is used to describe a particular area, the most important thing is to do something about the reality of it. Nitpicking words is useless in creating change. Also, the term "ghetto" has become particularly offensive when used to describe people, not places. Calling a neighborhood a ghetto should not be problematic if it in fact embodies the qualities per the definition. To be upset about that is to be in denial. Saying some individual is "ghetto" is implying they directly contribute to the creation and/or perpetuation of those qualities. That's something to get angry about. Not calling Boulevard a ghetto won't help make it better, any moreso than calling it one will make it worse.
Point taken, James. Yes, it arguably comes down to a question of consensus. One online commenter took genuine offense at my reference to "hookers," indicating I should instead have called them "street-based sex workers." So I realize it's impossible to please everyone.
When you guys solve this global crisis, give yourselves a break from the masochistic mental masturbation and do a quick count of your area jail capacity situation. Then start pricing some tents and raw land.
Ghetto isn't used so much as a geographic/socio-economic descriptor these days as it as used as a derogatory slur. "She's so Ghetto" "No napkins? That's so Ghetto" And in my experience most often by people who I know for a fact have never ever even been to a ghetto. This is mostly like the place where such comments about the usage of "ghetto" are coming from. I'm 110% sure you didn't mean any malice and I, a black woman who's lived all her life in ATL, do not oppose your usage. I don't find it offensive. However, I find your "apology" insulting. "But I’m not yet convinced this is the case. So I’m asking you, the readers, for your opinion." Makes it sound as if you think the people who found it offensive are overreacting and don't really have any right to find objection. And you're looking to confirm these thoughts by having readers agree with you. "Is “ghetto” so derogatory that it’s off-limits? Has it become a word that only African Americans are allowed to use?" Really? This sounds a bit flip. Like you're really chapped about the negative reaction. Like you're just about to complain about how you can't use that word. Again, I'm pretty sure that's not what you meant (having read a lot of your writings), but that is definitely what's coming off. getting someone else to agree with you that they aren't offended (which is great and all - it's nice that you didn't have experience feeling upset for whatever reason) but it doesn't necessarily make you right. nor is it really the ideal way to approach the fact that SOMEONE ELSE was offended by your remarks. I understand why you ask, but still.
Milo Ippolito - Perception is not reality if that perception is ill informed, uneducated, racist, bigoted, etc. I am confused by your statement "In other words: “You think I am an idiot, therefor I am.” How about "You think I am an elephant, therefore I am". It doesn't make you an elephant no matter how vehemently someone believes that to be true. The fact is you are not an elephant, and no amount of ill informed perception will make that true. Reality is reality. Perception is filtered, and often misunderstood, reality.
Scott Henry - try using the word "transvestitute" and see what happens to you :-)
Writers not using evocative descriptions stop being writers. I wasn't offended but as you pointed out, my contextual perspective is probably quite different from others. However, Scott, you ask an important question about a misunderstood part of journalism: headline writing. As goofy as that sounds, think for a moment how many times you've heard 'the AJC/Creative Loafing/Pick your favorite liberal nanny rag is biased, just look at this headline!" One of the other commentors made the relevant point that this controversy emerged internally - not externally. So was this a case of true journalistic concern or a case of liberal hand wringing in the halls of The People's Republic of Ben Eason? I don't want to distract from the original question but it might elucidate as well as create more transperancy into the world of journalism to provide more details of the genesis of this little kerfluffle.
gd, is "transperency's" genesis in anyway related to transpersonal psychology? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transpersonal_psychology
"Is “ghetto” so derogatory that it’s off-limits? Has it become a word that only African Americans are allowed to use?" I just don't like the word because it has negative racist and classist connotations. "I can’t imagine any white person, such as myself, having a strong sensitivity toward “ghetto” because it’s never really been applied to them." Right. And therein lies a part of the problem--it is a word of stigma. Using the word ghetto says "this is an area of poor, pathological black people" and looks down upon the residents with scorn.
everyones definition of ghetto is different. In that it means something different to everyone but still has some sort of meaning to everyone. An Asian, a Hispanic, an African American, and Caucasion all have different concepts of what is a ghetto and what is "ghetto". Furthermore the difference is even greater when looking at each individual class within each culture. ....your not gonna please em all.....
The history of the word ghetto is clearly explained in other posts. So to have it be a word that only African-Americans can use is preposterous. Also, it is not a word that should be off limits. The word is not offensive; the condition of Boulevard in the area between Ponce and Atlanta Medical is offensive. That area fits the description of a ghetto and needs help. How many makeshift memorials are erected along that stretch of Blvd. honoring people who have died? How many children ages 1 to 17 are on that street past midnight? How many drug deals occur on that street? How many lives are in limbo in that section? The answer is too many and by that the definition fits as a ghetto. I'm not for cleaning it up and bringing middle class white folks in to save the day. That doesn't work either. Just look at East Lake. It's racist and offensive to think of it in those terms. However, it is possible to clean up the buildings, give the working poor a sense of pride in their apartments, move mixed income people in (and keep poor people there, too!) and get the drug/criminal element out. Eliminate the symptoms of a ghetto then the world doesn't need to be used.
Having never lived in a "ghetto" I take no offense to the use of the word, though I feel that the word "ghetto" was used in proper context in the original article and was not intended to offend. It could be misinterpreted but it get's the point across well. Good writing Scott. Keep it up.
I'll admit, I didn't read the article. Mostly because the word in question turned me off. This was mostly because of the overuse of the word ghetto, and while scanning the article, I was afraid I'd meet the same oversimplification that often makes these things seem like they should have some type of black and white answer. The word is very offensive to me when used in the sense of something being broken, not up to par, or someone behaving with a nasty attitude. But I can understand it when used as a geographical term. Nevertheless, "ghetto" has been aligned with negative connotations and often assigned to a certain group of people, and I don't feel like it can be slung around. Nevertheless, I have lived on Boulevard and Peace, and remember how rough that area can be. But then, that's the standard with Atlanta. At least the parts of it that aren't receiving a gentrification-makeover. So, final comment before I go read the story...ghetto as a region=painful but acceptable. Ghetto as an adjective=inappropriate, crass, derogatory.
I agree with the last comment. While always a word that described a dramatic concept naturally tied to social injustice, the word 'ghetto' has taken on a meaning (and a different part of speech) through popular American English that is stereotypical and usually racist. It is similar to use of the word 'gay' to mean flawed, disagreeable or generally inferior, except it's the other way around: instead of a particular descriptor of a subculture being turned negative, it is the use of an already negative and charged word being used to describe conditions or behaviors associated with that negative environment. To make things worse, the use of this word seems to describe conditions or behaviors most often associated with a particular race of society. So while I do not disagree with proper use of the word in general, I can see that its sensitivity and complex connotations may make it, as you have already pointed out, a dangerous choice for a headline, a form of communication designed specifically for maximum impact on the reader's consciousness.
People that live in the "ghetto" can’t be offended that it is a "ghetto". You are either the solution or the problem. If you do not like the word then change the environment so the word does not have to be used! I live in the "ghetto" and I make every effort, through my actions, house upkeep, lifestyle, etc. to change that. But until it is changed, I will continue to live in the "ghetto".
Damned if you do, damned if you don't. It's all relative, really. If you grew up in a hard area, Boulevard might not seem that rough. If you were silver spooned, anything that doesn't sport granite countertops and stainless steel appliances might be "hood." Sound extreme? Go check out parts of Mumbai and see how their ghetto inhabitants dwell. It'll make any ATL ghetto seem posh. Let's return to valuing accuracy in reporting over extreme political correctness.
Ghetto is correct. We would also have accepted shithole, festering sore, or place where stoplights are optional after dark. You cannot even drive through there. I almost got carjacked next to the Pizza Hut on North at a light. I honestly cannot imagine growing up with that as "normal".
Alex Trebeck: There are children that are forced to live like that and that is "normal" to them. The solution is to help your community so that nobody is subjected or effected by those types of environments.
A ghetto is first and foremost an ethnic neighborhood (as in Warsaw ghetto). A slum is an under-served neighborhood (as in slum lord). If your goal is to improve living conditions, call it a slum. If your goal is to ship the residents out, call it a ghetto.
I lived in several ghettos in several states: a dirt town in N.C. that doesn't show up on anyones map (mostly populated by poor whites and poor blacks), the lower east side of Manhattan (mostly puerto ricans, dominicans and blacks), Brooklyn, College Park (ATL) and now south east san diego. A ghetto is a ghetto, black, white, candy striped, cut it any way you like. I don't believe it should be off limits to anyone. When used accurately and in its truest form, it describes not a specific race, but a condition, a reality of a group of people in the thick of it.
As someone who knows the dictionary definition and the popular connotation of the word "ghetto", when I saw the title I was struck less by the word and more by it's relationship to midtown, lawless, and revival--words appearing in the title. Your use of ghetto revealed, for me at least, a troubling subtext to your article, which you perhaps were unaware of in putting it together, and your professed ignorance, I believe, is feigned for the purpose of provocation. My initial reaction was that it was used to grab attention, which, as Milo points, out only distracts from your story. Moreover, given the prestige and desirability of Midtown (Midtown), the spread of gentrification in African-American communities (Rival), and the pejorative usage of the word ghetto in contemporary parlance(Lawless), for me, the combination of words hits at and betrays a larger more disturbing trend--the displacement of low-wealth ethnic communities by the privileged. This "lawless ghetto", syn-tactically placed as a possessive of Midtown, is no exception to this trend. I don't accept the argument that you, Scott, were unaware of the social implication of "ghetto". As a journalist, you should be aware and hence more sensitive to the communities about which you write. You should be remiss given the widespread usage of the term as an insult to poor, ethnic minorities--not only African Americans, and as a pejorative adjective used to distinguish whats in or what's acceptable, e.g. that's so ghetto (which could be replaced by that's so black, so old, so cheap, or so unacceptable). Regardless of how the dictionary defines a term, it's the social context that adds gravity to its meaning, and that should ALSO be figured into your calculus when you make decisions about what words to use.
Latest in Fresh Loaf
-
Ringling Bros. Circus kicks off tonight, but there's an elephant in the room 2
Or, tent, I suppose
-
Blogging today: Lines get fuzzier at AJC and elsewhere 4
New AJC blog blurs line between editorial and marketing
-
Newt Gingrich's Georgia strategy: Resurrect the dead, trick former Peach State residents into moving back 5
Don't think he won't do it!
- More »
Author Archives
-
Mr. Reed goes to Washington — again 17
Mayor Reed is at the White House so often he has his own toothbrush
-
First Slice 1/26/12: 1
- More »
