Type in "Alberta tar sands" into Google, and you get 852,000 results. Perform a search for "Alberta oil sands" instead, and you end up with 334,000 results—not even half that. And if you change "Alberta" to "Alberta's," the gap widens even further.

So why do most media outlets tend to default to the phrase "oil sands"? Is "tar sands" pejorative? Or do both terms carry their own bias?

Here's a sample of some of the headlines local and national media outlets bestowed upon their coverage of today's protest on Parliament Hill over the controversial Keystone XL pipeline. (Note: since this is an evolving story, it's entirely possible that the headlines will have changed by the time you click on them. But they were accurate at around 1-1:30 p.m.)

"Oil sands"

Ottawa Citizen: Demonstrators arrested at anti-oilsands rally on Parliament Hill

Huffington Post Canada: Ottawa Oil Sands Pipeline Protest: Hundreds Gather To Oppose Keystone XL Pipeline

CBC Ottawa: LIVE: Oilsands pipeline protest on Parliament Hill

Macleans.ca: Police blanket Parliament as oilsands protestors gather

Globe and Mail: Oil-sands opponents to descend on Parliament Hill

"Tar sands"

Rabble.ca: UPDATE: 1,000 on Parliament Hill to protest the tar sands

APTN News: Tar sands protest begins on Parliament Hill

Neither, but the reporter uses "oil sands" when not quoting a source

Toronto Star: Several hundred people gather on Parliament Hill to protest pipeline

Neither "oil sands" nor "tar sands" in the headline or the story

CTV Ottawa: Small number of pipeline protesters cross barricades

It's interesting which two outlets chose to use "tar sands" in their headlines: Rabble.ca and the Aboriginal People's Television Network. Many of the names endorsing today's protest belong to associations actively opposing the pipeline project (including Rabble's founding publisher, Judy Rebick), First Nations groups, or both—which suggests that other media outlets see an element of bias in the phrase "tar sands."

But is "oil sands" the neutral alternative? Here's a twitter exchange that occurred after This Magazine ran a story on the etymologically-disputed sands earlier this year:

And here's how The Tyee summed up the difference between the two phrases in a story earlier this year, after a Calgary Herald editorial criticized late NDP leader Jack Layton for using the phrase "tar sands":

Anyone involved in the battle over Alberta's unconventional oil industry knows each term represents a distinct political position.

Both terms have been in use for well over half a century, and there was a time when even Albertan promoters of bitumen mining saw no slur in the word "tar sands" (see sidebar).

These days, environmentalists opposed to further development generally favour "tar sands" because it sounds dirtier. And industry and government stick to the supposedly more benign "oil sands."

So which is it? We've sent an email to The Canadian Press, the authors of the venerable Canadian Press style guide, to see whether they prefer a certain term—and if so, why. If we get a response, we'll let you know.

And by the way, we went with "Keystone XL pipeline" in our earlier story.

UPDATE: Here's what senior editor James McCarten has to say about why the Canadian Press prefers the term "oilsands":

Canadian Press style calls for the use of the term "oilsands" (all one word), as it is both the official term used by the petroleum industry and the least susceptible to misinterpretation or misunderstanding. It is also in keeping with accepted style for terms like "oilpatch" and "oilfield" -- consistency is a critical element of any effective writing style.

It's also important to choose the most neutral term available. "Tarsands," while at one time the industry's chosen term, has been appropriated in recent years by opponents of the oil industry and has taken on political connotations, so we choose to avoid it.

Photo by @Mark1310 via yfrog