That's what makes this information business so hard. Everything is a judgment call; there are no rules -- or rather, what is a rule today will not be a rule tomorrow. I'll give you an example: This paper and the New York Times both ban the term "pro-life" to describe the anti-abortion movement. I think that's a terrible idea because it is the only term that gives you a real sense of what the fight looks like from the anti-choice side. That's what they think the stakes are, like it or not.
Well, yes. I think that's exactly what they think the stakes are. And it's what I think the stakes are, too. But I'm on the other side of the issue, and if I call myself "pro-life" people are going to get confused. Letting the anti-choice people claim "pro-life" by default defines me as "pro-death," to which I take extreme exception. It permits them to set the discourse in a particularly unpleasant way. So I say, "Go, NY Times and SF Chronicle" on this one.