We’ve had several tough discussions over the last week having to do with words. What we name things locates them in our view of the world.

We act as if words have existence of their own. But words point toward what’s real, and how well words do that pointing depends not only on “writer,” but also on “reader,” in a relationship of “context.”

Words are tools.

A reporter is working on a story about the less advantaged who face food insecurity in our affluent community.

There, did you see it? Many terms could have been used besides “less advantaged.” But following social norms, the sting of words like “poor” or “destitute” is avoided. But is “less advantaged” being honest with you? Or was I hiding truth with words that may be more accurate but have less meaning?

Pitching a story, the reporter used “food insecurity.” While “food insecurity” may be accurate and capture nuances like nutrition, I felt we needed to use words like “hunger” and “hungry” because not having access to food causes changes in thinking, anxiety and anger. Hunger hurts.

Distance. That’s what failing to use meaningful language gives us. Distance allows us to feel less, and do less. Does “food insecurity” elicit shame that we let this happen to a 6 year-old and his grandmother in this land of great wealth?

Our writers at The Leader are independent, reflect the current “context” better than I do, and they will write the stories as they will. My job is to push past the obvious, but admittedly, use of “less advantaged” seems less judgmental, too, less likely to demean. Less likely to hurt.

So there’s a dilemma: Do we use words less honest but that cause less pain? Do we avert our eyes because someone will be uncomfortable? Tuck a burglary story on back pages and run a  Disney film review on page one? Or is there an advantage to presenting it “real?”

We received a text banner message that announced a protest against racism in a trial: Jury was White, the suspect of color, therefore racism. But what if there was no racism in the arrest, the verdict, or the punishment? Is that equally newsworthy?

Or does the “cause” of eliminating racism take precedence over accuracy? That’s not to say that racism isn’t a glossed-over element in our Liberal enclave. What voice do we give to those offended by a man wearing a turban and doing brown-face comedy to a White sold-out house?

Of course the feelings are real, but is “microagression” an offense, symbolic of a more-aware society, or evidence of over-sensitivity? Does the newspaper have to take a stand or simply provide a forum to different points of view? When is providing a forum bowing to an agenda?

What words should we use to describe?

We discussed a story on drug abuse. Editor was harsh: “Junkies die. Where’s the story? What’s the problem, from society’s point of view, and what is society’s obligation? What about personal responsibility, accepting consequences? Can anything be fixed — we’ve spent billions over decades, and no one has said we’re making progress. And keep it local.”

The pushback was immediate, and beneficial. But do readers even want to read these stories in their local paper? Is the subject too complicated for a small town weekly?

These are the discussions we have about what you read from us. The decisions we make are not always the right ones. But that’s not because we haven’t spent time on them.

~ ED.