Constant Content

I'm writing an article on communications in poorer countries, and I've found myself using the term "third world" a few times in the process. I know this isn't the accepted term for poor countries anymore (I think it's LDCs or LEDCs or something) but the acronyms cooked up in the last twenty or thirty years just sound clunky and stupid. Will the editors think there's a problem with my using this term?

Can't speak for the editors, from if I would look at it from your target audience's perspective. If they're Joe Average, then "third-world" is probably a good term. If it's a little more PC article, then maybe "economically disadvantaged." I wouldn't use the "proper" acronyms unless they're in general use by your target audience or you take the time to explain them. At any rate, I would suggest against using the term "backwards savages" as that tends to have a somewhat negative connotation.

Ha, yeah. I'll be sure not to use that then.

But seriously, I think third world is probably okay, except for the fact that I'm not talking just about "third world" countries. Economically disadvantaged is a good term, thanks. I'm also using "less affluent". Just trying to not say the same thing over and over.

What's your article's target? People in rich countries or people in poor countries? I live in a "third world country" and I don't like the term, because it has been used in derogative ways. I would avoid the term if possible and would opt for "developing countries". It seems like a polite alternative to me. Hope my opinion helps.

I was going to suggest "developing countries" as well...

I'm writing about the different methods people use to communicate by cell phone or over long distances in poorer countries, and some of the issues those methods have caused (telecom companies lobbying governments to block/outlaw the use of free services like Skype, for example.)

"Developing countries" is also a good term, thanks. I know the term "third world" is a leftover from the Cold War era, and that it's not really that acceptable anymore. My own impression of the new terms in use is that they're great ways to make the problems that less developed countries have seem like not such a big deal by softening the language (compare the terms "third world country" and "less economically developed country.") But that's just my opinion, and I know a lot of people don't share it.

Also, the target is people in rich countries, since I'm guessing most of them wouldn't know a lot about this subject but that they might be interested in it.

"Developing" and it's variations is somewhat controversial (in some circles) because it implies industrial development is the "right" kind of development. Also, many non-industrial nations are stagnant so they're really not developing at all. There's really no right term that's suitable to everyone. If I were you, I'd pull up a few magazines (National Geographic would be good) and see what kind of terms they use.