Readers' Ombudsman: This 'war' of words may offend but it is now a norm in language

Published on Sunday 8 June 2008 22:10

NEWSPAPERS have a role in society that requires them to be responsible and to be seen to be responsible, probably as much as any big corporation. In terms of use of language, newspapers have to have a greater responsibility, in my view. We take words and their use seriously.

A reader recently took issue with a word used in a front-page headline; more precisely, the context in which the offending word was used.

"I object to your use of the word 'war' in the front-page headline 'Holyrood and Westminster at war over oil and taxes'," wrote Donald Laurence.

"We have enough war in the world without using the word gratuitously. There are many words which define disputes in this instance and war is certainly not one of them."

There are several points to consider. Did the use of the word in that context have the potential to mislead our readers? Given the headline included the words "Holyrood" and "Westminster" as the protagonists, I think it did not. I think readers would have taken the meaning that was intended.

Was its use sensationalist? Well, it is dramatic, but is it deliberately setting out to lure the reader in with language that is not credible in the context? Many military words and expressions are used in everyday speech, particularly in the reporting of politics. Political battles are almost an everyday occurrence – ministers have been known to be ambushed by the opposition and MPs can drop bombshells. So the use of "war" in this context is not outwith normal ranges of language.

But I suppose the main charge is that by using it in that context, we are demeaning what war actually is. Does it belittle the valour and the tragedy, the enormity of the terrible human toll wars have taken and continue to take? Is it disrespectful to those who fight or have fought or to those who have suffered loss? Is it offensive? We would certainly not want to be guilty of those charges, but I don't think we are. Using it as we did does not display an attitude that we do not take wars seriously. There is a great deal of evidence in our coverage and leader columns to prove that is not the case.

I think it was a reasonable thing to do.

I NEED your help. I need readers to tell me if they use the VideoPlus+ numbers that run alongside TV programme listings in our pages.

In our continuous evaluation of services we offer readers, we want to know how many people use this system for recording programmes. It involves some fairly old technology and we want some idea of how many of our readers still find it useful. Are there other more relevant services we could offer?

Please let me know by e-mail, letter or a phone call. Contact information is at the end of this column.

IN THE good news/bad news category, a concise e-mail from John Edward: "It is very welcome to see a new regular column on EU matters. However, your Brussels correspondent, whoever she or he may be, should be aware that the current EU presidency is held by Slovenia, not Portugal."

Ah. Still, at least he thought it was a good idea. Most of the feedback on the changes we have made recently has been positive but always keen to have more.

REGULAR contributor Steuart Campbell has again taken us to task over unnecessary words in headlines. He has written before on his dislike of the word "finally". Now he writes concerning use of "at last".

"Better than 'finally', but still completely unnecessary ('Kirk attacks Mugabe at last after year of silence' – 17 May). Leave out 'at last' and the headline becomes more succinct and direct."

It would also leave the headline shy, and I feel it does reinforce the point of delay.

&#149 Contact Ian Stewart at [e-mail], or 108 Holyrood Road, Edinburgh EH8 8AS or on 0131-620 8663.