Recent coverage in The Washington Post about a swim coach’s longtime sexual relationship with an underage swimmer sparked discussion among journalists about using the adjective "alleged" to describe victims.

My position: If there is any doubt as to whether a crime was committed, it is inaccurate to declare the person is a victim.

A different approach is recommended by one of my bosses, Steve Buttry, Digital Transformation Editor for The Saratogian’s parent company. An Oct. 26 entry in his informative, thoughtful blog, “The ButtryDiary,” reads in part:

“I want to call on all journalists and news organizations to stop using the term ‘alleged victim,’ especially in stories about sexual abuse (almost the only type of stories where it appears). It’s a blame-the-victim term we should banish forever from the journalism lexicon.

“You want to know why? Here’s the second definition of “alleged” at Dictionary.com: doubtful; suspect; supposed

“And here’s a fact about victims of sexual abuse: Their stories are almost always credible. So, in most cases, alleged victim is not only insensitive, but inaccurate.

“(The first definition for alleged, “declared or stated to be as described; asserted,” is accurate, but if people could read a second definition as the meaning, we should look for a more accurate word.)

“I’ll grant that we need to listen to lawyers and avoid identifying a victim prematurely. But we also should avoid casting doubt on victims of crimes (and nearly all turn out to be true victims; even in cases where the defendant gets off, that’s often because of the difficulty of meeting the high reasonable-doubt burden, not because the person wasn’t a true victim).”

Buttry suggests the alternative word “accuser” when referring to an alleged victim.

I have tons of respect for Buttry, an experienced journalist who does not take ethical issues likely. We in the media do not want to discourage victims from reporting a crime for fear of their identity becoming public. But I’m with @Baltimoresun journalist Michael Gold, who Tweeted rhetorically @migold: “You don't think "accuser" has a more negative connotation than alleged victim?”

I do. We’re reaching for words, when the right one exists. “Alleged victim” does the trick of making clear that someone says a crime has been committed against them, but that claim has yet to be corroborated. Accuser does sound negative. And it doesn’t work when the perpetrator — or alleged perpetrator — is unknown.

 It is regrettable that the terminology casts doubt on the veracity of the claim. But I’m not convinced we should drop “alleged” in describing the victim based on the reality that most claims are true. Some turn out to be false. We should err on the side of accuracy.

We’re dealing with that now in Saratoga Springs, with the victim of an assault. There is no question that the woman was assaulted. But was she raped, as she initially reported? That has not been determined. It is accurate to write that the woman reported she was raped. That makes her an alleged rape victim.

It’s a bit different with people accused of crime. Someone charged with rape is an accused rapist, not a rapist, unless or until the defendant pleads guilty or is convicted. While the case is pending, the defendant can be described as an accused rapist or alleged rapist, though the word “alleged” does not protect a news company from liability for erroneously accusing someone of a crime.

In the case of victims, using “alleged” isn’t a matter of liability. It’s about striving to choose words that report the situation correctly, fairly, and with sensitivity.