R eader Hugh Lefcort e-mailed an important question about language usage. He wrote: “I wonder why the paper refuses to call a spade a spade. Your desire for fairness makes it almost impossible for the Spokesman-Review to attach labels to individuals. Hamas ‘terrorists’ become simply ‘militants’ or worse, ‘activists.’ How does this comply with your stated view of being accurate?”

He’s identified one of the thorniest issues in news reporting: how to fairly label controversial issues or people. The Spokesman-Review follows standard conventions of U.S. journalism in approaching this issue. What is behind this journalistic convention of seeking neutral language to describe, for example, those who last week were behind that horrific suicide bombing in Iraq that took at least 120 lives? Is it good journalism to describe these perpetrators with the neutral term “insurgents,” or should we be calling them “terrorists”?

Dr. Lefcort’s question highlights the tension between the need for good journalism to be accurate and truthful, while also providing a neutral perspective on events that are perceived differently by different audiences. If we think news reporters have biases (and they do), take a look at the rest of us. A current example for some readers will be the State B basketball championships that ended last night. Think of those controversial calls that went against team X. If you’d been in the Spokane Arena, you’d probably have been amused at how opposing groups of fans would see reality so differently – so long as you weren’t supporting either team.

If we mortals have deep disagreements about whether an action was a double-dribble or a charging foul, how much more intensely are we going to disagree on defining truly important events or issues – those over which we fight presidential elections or wage war in Iraq? The journalist’s role is not to take sides, but to offer as neutral and fair an interpretation of events as possible. Journalistic standards require that reporters step back from representing any interest group: a political cause, the business sector, government or whatever. Only if journalists consistently strive for an evenhanded account of events can we trust them in the long run.

Well, that’s the theory. Journalists, like the rest of us, have biases, and at times these creep into stories. Good editing helps keep some of that out, but even the best newspapers at times betray their prejudices. U.S. journalists have often done poorly in this regard when it comes to providing wartime coverage. They face intense pressure to support our side; these troops are, after all, our sons and daughters, mothers and fathers, whose lives are in jeopardy. Yet good journalism demands that even in wartime reporters must deliver a truthful, fair and accurate account of what’s happening; they are to be recorders and interpreters of reality, not cheer leaders or advocates for our side.

Which brings us back to the question: why call a suicide bomber in Tel Aviv or Mosul a militant or an insurgent, rather than the terrorist he is? Journalists always are to be on guard not to let their language skew their reporting. They are required to avoid taking sides, even against those whom they may see as repugnant, evil or barbaric, and describe things as dispassionately as possible. That rule applies whether the stakes are relatively low (describing fairly a heated exchange at a City Council meeting) or high (reporting yet another Iraqi suicide bombing).

When we are caught up in the heat of the moment, our knowledge of what’s truly right and wrong isn’t as clear as we might think. Separating the “good guys” from the “bad” or right from wrong may not be as obvious as it appears. As we get distance from an event or issue, we may see it with greater perspective. For example, virtually all Americans now look back on slavery as a huge moral failing in this country. At the time, though, most white Americans saw it as morally justified. This doesn’t mean there are no enduring standards of right or wrong; the point is simply that we often have difficulty seeing the difference clearly when we’re immersed in the events or issues of the day.

By striving to use neutral language, journalists can to some degree resist being steamrollered by popular sentiment and even jingoistic terms. It’s only over the long term that we can look at how well papers did in this regard. So, where does that leave us in thinking about “militants” or “insurgents” rather than “terrorists”? Choosing these more neutral words reflects a journalistic commitment to fair and even-handed reporting. And whether or not that commitment lines up with our own emotive response to something as barbaric as a suicide bombing, you and I need that essential nutrient of neutrality in our news diet. Did the jingoistic, racist news coverage from World War I and World War II, about the evil Hun or Asian hordes, serve this country as it should have? What we need, and should demand, of our news coverage is reporting that will stand the test of time in a way that people will look back on in 50 years and will say was a fair and accurate depiction of today’s events.