The readers' editor on… the style guide's advice on appropriate terminology
Changes in language tend to happen either through evolution or revolution. The Guardian stylebook is constantly being updated to reflect changes in usage where it can be demonstrated that new words are effective and widely used.
When the change is evolutionary there comes a point where it appears perverse not to adopt a new use. Other words lose their validity when people see an outdated value attached to their usage and campaign for their abandonment. Examples of both types are now firmly embedded in the style guide.
Use of the word gay is the most obvious example of such a change. Saying someone has learning disabilities rather than describing them as mentally handicapped or retarded would be another, along with speech-impaired for "dumb" – many of these newer expressions are in areas where the previous terms are now widely recognised as offensive. Similarly, we now prefer to say humankind or humanity rather than mankind.
Not all the changes that concern readers are loaded with such emotional commitment. Sometimes readers see a word slipping and are quick to try to catch it before it falls. "Please, please get your paper to stop using the word 'reforms' to describe the government's changes," wrote one. "I accept it is shorthand of a sort but they aren't reforms. Reform means, according to the Shorter Oxford Dictionary, 'The amendment of some faulty state of things, esp of a corrupt or oppressive political institution.' So the headline 'Reforms will see "shut" signs going up on UK hospitals' is really irritating. The correct word is changes."
When former British boxing champion Gary Mason was killed while riding his bicycle in south London, the Guardian described it as a "cycling accident" in both the news report and the obituary. The use of the word "accident" angered one reader, Andrew Curry: "The word 'accident' implies circumstances in which the outcome is beyond the control of the individuals involved. This is rarely true of injuries or deaths arising from traffic collisions. (Indeed, in the case of Mason's death, you also reported that the van driver whom Mason collided with 'was arrested on suspicion of causing death by careless driving'.) [Police are still investigating Mason's death.]"
Curry is a member of a charity, Roadpeace, which is campaigning for the use of the word "crash" rather than "accident". It says: "We understand that many collisions occur without intent. But we object to the use of 'accident' as the standard term for all collisions, including those where the driver is convicted of causing the death, manslaughter, or even murder.
"Our campaign is for the use of appropriate terminology that does not demean the devastation caused by crashes; does not excuse any culpable behaviour; does not contribute to the discrimination against road crash victims; but instead promotes accountability and an evidence-based approach."
Roadpeace wants the media, the police, the emergency services, health professionals and others to adopt what it describes as "a neutral, constructive terminology when referring to collisions on the roads such as crash, collision or incident". A later email from Curry made a further point: "My son asked me what the difference was between 'accident' and 'crash' or 'collision'. Crash or collision is descriptive. Accident is a description with a judgment embedded in it." And he wants us to change our style guide to accommodate that change.
David Marsh, the style guide's editor, has some sympathy with Curry's views but does not feel a change is right. He said: "There's an irony about this campaign which is that for many years journalists were taught not to say crash at all and to say someone was 'in collision with' someone else (rather than 'collided with') because these terms were thought to impute blame and therefore would be legally dangerous. Perhaps that is why accident became the most widely used term.
"I have some sympathy with his argument but accident is a neutral term – a drink-driver may be negligent and dangerous, but even they don't deliberately set out to kill anyone."