Although these are specific examples, they serve as a reminder for any newspaper that journalistic consensus and stylistic dictionaries can – or can not – be a sure path. Ian Mayes, readers’ editor of the Guardian and president of the Organization of News Ombudsmen, defends the use of ‘the Gulf’ and argues the terminology of ‘friendly fire’.

It’s “not something that the Guardian has suddenly or arbitrarily introduced,” wrote Mayes. “A Guardian journalist who was foreign editor for part of the 1990s promoted the term ‘the Gulf’ on his pages because of its neutrality, deliberately avoiding both ‘the Persian Gulf’ and ‘the Arabian Gulf’.”

In this case, the newspaper (and many other news sources) chose neutrality. Yet a reader’s letter clearly shows that this alleged neutrality is deemed offensive by Iranians. In that case, the paper must then either decide on a new terminology, or make no change, focusing on its primary readership and dismissing its ‘secondary readership’.

The main problem, for international papers or online newspapers, is that the distinction between both readerships itself becomes more arbitrary. Though most of a newspaper’s audience may come from a certain social and cultural context, this shouldn’t mean that the minority audience’s opinion should be disregarded. Democratic majority doesn’t exclude tolerance of minority’s concerns.

The challenge is by no means easily solvable though.

Mayes also discusses the term ‘friendly fire’, which is supposedly put in quotation marks. Many writers do so, but after being edited, articles often appear without the quotes.

The style guide used by The Guardian, Collins, deems that friendly fire – without quotes – is an acceptable term. Obviously, this is not a thought shared by all readers.

Again, The Guardian, as do other newspapers and news sources, must then choose whether to follow the stylistic consensus, or reform it for a better worldly fit.

Source: The Guardian