The Naming Of Things...

If a newspaper publishes a style guide to ensure the accurate and consistent use of words and terms, the equal and opposite reaction that naturally follows is a series of requests for changes in those rules.

Translation: ‘Oh, god, we’ve created a monster!’

One such request came after a columnist writing about superinjunctions – a word that is often misused to mean all injunctions, including, very occasionally, in the Guardian – produced the following sentence: "Child porn on the net is censored, and its users prosecuted."

Who could possibly object to that? Other than Gary Glitter…

The reader had very strong objections to the phrase "child porn". He said: "Please can you not call it this in future articles of this nature – 'child porn' is both a very offensive and trivialising term to use, especially (but not exclusively) to people who have been abused and filmed." They have suffered an everlasting offence, he argues, being abused and exploited as children, and then knowing that this is online somewhere for ever. "These images or films are of children being sexually abused or exploited (quite literally crime-scene photos or films). Porn they could only be described as if the media is aiming their stories at paedophiles.

And where any other newspaper would roll their eyes, laugh about 'the green ink brigade' and then file this letter in the round file, the 'Guardian' immediately went into spasm:

'Indecent images' is a far more accurate and acceptable term." The more such images are described as porn, the more it suggests an element of consenting adults: "The more this legitimises this crime in the eyes of the offenders, and also (my own view), the more it 'normalises' it in society," he writes.

You know, I think most normal people would disagree with you, but hey, I don'r work at the 'Guardian', a place where getting the most PC-agreeable term of reference is probably the first thing on everyone's mind...

… the reader makes a strong point that he then reinforces by describing the attitude of child welfare organisations to the term.

For instance, the Internet Watch Foundation, which fights child abuse on the web, states: "The IWF uses the term child sexual abuse content to accurately reflect the gravity of the images we deal with. Please note that child pornography, child porn and kiddie porn are not acceptable terms. The use of such language acts to legitimise images which are not pornography, rather, they are permanent records of children being sexually exploited and as such should be referred to as child sexual abuse images. If you see such content online please report it to the IWF."

Well, if the IWF is pro, the 'Guardian' could hardly be anti, could they?

The NSPCC only uses the term "child abuse images". The reader adds: "This is what the NSPCC have previously said to me: 'The NSPCC would agree with you that the expression "child porn" gives a misleading and potentially trivialising impression of what is a very serious crime. The NSPCC typically uses the term "child abuse images" as we consider this offers a more accurate indication of what these images portray'."

And so the 'Guardian' hurries to fall into line:

David Marsh, the editor of the Guardian's style guide, agrees, as do I, that this is a sensible change to the way the Guardian refers to images of child abuse. He intends to create a new entry in the guide and inform all staff of the new style.

'You VILL obey ze new rules...'

Of course, a new style guide entry doesn't stop the terrible abuse of children, but when we describe such images it will separate a despicable crime from a broader area of human sexual activity that washes back and forth across moral and legal boundaries that are harder to define.

Abused children everywhere will no doubt breath a sigh of relief that the 'Guardian' now knows what to describe them as...