Last week’s story in Lookout Eugene-Springfield on the tentative union contract agreement repeated language that I have long thought the media should be careful about using in labor negotiation stories.

It said, “Workers had been demanding higher cost-of-living wage increases …” The typical next sentence, which did not appear in this story but very often follows in U.S. news coverage, goes something like this: “The administration had offered XXX …”

When I taught copy editing, I used to engage my students in a thought experiment, asking them to flip around the verbs. “The administration (management, owners, etc.) demanded and the union offered.” Sounds odd, doesn’t it? We are so used to the typical language — “unions demand, management offers” — that we don’t give it a second thought.

But if the media aim to be fair, shouldn’t the language used be more neutrally when referring to both sides?

“Demand” is a loaded word, possibly suggesting unreasonableness, maybe even anger. The word “offered” is much softer, suggesting conciliation or reasonableness. It might be the case that occasionally the word “demand” is closer to the truth, but as a matter of fairness, if not accuracy, I’d suggest using terms such as “proposed” instead of what is often a kneejerk default.

In U.S. labor law, the parties are considered equal and both have an equal right to negotiate. Shouldn’t the language reflect that?

John Russial
Eugene