Choice of words

Yesterday, we had an interesting discussion in one of my classes about the use of the word "refugees" in describing people displaced by Hurricane Katrina. The professor asked if the news media should be using that word to describe them, as the word has two definitions. According to the dictionary definition, it applies to anyone seeking refuge from anything. But according to the general UN definition, and the way it is used in the media worldwide, it means someone who has come to one country for fear of persecution in his or her own country.

The professor asked various students to comment on whether it was appropriate to use the term refugees for people displaced by the hurricane. Several people stuck to the basic dictionary definition, and said that, yes, technically, they are refugees, so it is ok to use that word. Others said it was not ok to use it, as the people it refers to are American citizens, and as such, they are not refugees.

When I was talking to a couple of others in a small group later on, one of them said that the word refugees has been used in the American media to describe people fleeing natural disasters in other countries, e.g. after the Dec. 26 tsunami. One of the others in the group, a lawyer in a former life, who has done several fascinating things, including serving on a few election monitoring missions in the Middle East, pointed out that the media in other countries hadn't been calling those affected by the tsunami refugees.

My question is. . .why the need for this debate at all? The appropriate term for those who have been displaced by Hurricane Katrina is "evacuees". Not refugees, not internally displaced, as someone else suggested. While people can't be faulted for choosing to use the word refugees according to its dictionary definition, journalistically, it is inappropriate. The media does anything but operate in a vaccum, even a vaccum called the United States. While local media who don't know better might get away with using the word "refugees", national publications, such as the New York Times, cannot afford to stick to dictionary definitions. Because the New York Times is, in many ways, an international paper too, and if it veers away from the internationally accepted definitions of words and chooses to endow on certain words meanings that are not recognised internationally, it could lead to a great deal of confusion. And the whole point of the news media is to clearly and accurately inform people of the truth.