The words we choose

We use this editor's blog to explain our journalism and what's happening at CBC News. You can find more blogs here.

Today we introduce a new feature of the editor's blog as part of our ongoing efforts to increase transparency and understanding of our journalism. The "Standards Notebook" will take over this space on occasion to explain in greater detail some of the decisions we make around language, the application of our journalistic standards and practices, and to answer common questions about CBC News journalism. 

Every day, our journalists face countless decisions about which words to use in their stories. They have to choose simple, precise language, avoiding unnecessary complexity and ambiguity.

But some concepts are inherently complex and challenging to encapsulate in simple words. And language use, just like journalistic standards, evolves over time, which is why we regularly review and update our guidance for CBC journalists.

For instance, how do you best describe eclectic groups of people with shared circumstances or a similar story – such as victims of racism and discrimination? How to best refer to all of those who have been or could be wronged because of the colour of their skin, their ethnicity, their sexual orientation or gender identity?

At CBC News, our first choice is to be as specific as possible when referring to individuals, especially when we can use their preferred description. But some stories are about larger groups and we spend a lot of time debating the words that will convey the truth of what we're describing. Recently, after a period of study and internal consultation, we decided to favour the word racialized as an umbrella adjective for groups of people who are not white — when it is relevant to the story.

Here's an example: Rishi Sunak is the first racialized prime minister of the U.K. If the goal was only to describe his ethnicity, we would mention that his background is specifically South Asian. But he's not just the first South Asian man to hold that office: his background is also significant because every one of his predecessors was white, and his rise to power illustrates a certain shift in British politics. Our stories explained all of that in great detail, of course, but it would have been difficult to write clear headlines or to accurately summarize the extent of that shift without an umbrella term such as racialized.

There are, of course, other words that also work and are widely used. Many still use BIPOC (short for Black, Indigenous and people of colour). Others prefer the standalone terms people of colour, an entrenched expression we're not retiring from our journalism altogether. We also heard from people of various backgrounds who believe non-white is more precise and accurate. 

For greater consistency, we settled on racialized as the default choice for CBC journalists, while acknowledging that other words will be used by the people and experts we cover. This decision was based on the recommendation of our staff-led Language Advisory Group, which spent weeks researching vocabulary trends and preferences within different communities. Though a consensus may be impossible, racialized has emerged as a common word that's easy to understand and explain. It reflects the fact that a certain perception of race, be it claimed or imposed, is at the base of whichever form of racial identity is being discussed.

Coined around 1920, this once-obscure word has evolved to replace the outmoded term visible minority in Canada. Racialized is tied to the noun racialization, which refers to how an intolerant society can treat people differently based on racial categories or identification. However, the term has started to follow a similar linguistic path as the word race (i.e., as a synonym for people of colour). And while there are varying opinions to this day on the term racialized, it has gradually become the most common default umbrella term used by various institutions in Canada to mean people other than those who make up the country's white majority.

It goes without saying that the people we interview can use the words of their choice, and we will quote them accordingly. This is just about consistency and clarity in the way our own journalists tell a story. And it doesn't mean this decision is carved in stone: just as society evolves, our language choices will adapt to whatever makes the most sense at any given time to describe the world fairly and accurately.

As always, we'll take our cue from the public interest, and as I'm trying to show here, we'll always be fully transparent about our choices.