Arson investigators are fire investigators

A reband is needed, from arson investigator to fire investigator.

There is an issue across the world with media outlets using the term arson investigator.

What is the issue with this?

Impartiality is Key: Referring to someone as an “arson investigator” implies that a fire was intentionally set before the investigation has even started. This can create bias and lead to assumptions about the cause of the fire that might not be based on the physical evidence. This can also swing public opinion about a matter in the early stages before the judicial process can begin.

Avoiding Confirmation Bias: If an investigator is already framed as someone who investigates “arson,” they may unintentionally fall into confirmation bias—seeking evidence that supports a preconceived notion of arson rather than objectively analyzing all possibilities.

Focus on Facts, Not Assumptions: Starting with the term “arson” can shift focus away from the scientific process of fire investigation and toward a specific outcome, which can lead to overlooking important evidence.

Conclusions Based on the Evidence: Fire investigators are not just involved to confirm if the cause was arson. All the evidence gathered is used to identify the origin and to determine specific cause of the fire. In some instances the conclusion will be undetermined for various reasons (we will go into this later). 

In summary, calling fire investigators “arson investigators” skews the perception of our job, the validity in our findings and what we do.

Yes I understand one of the largest associations for fire investigators is called the International Association of Arson Investigators. It was founded 75 years ago and since its establishment the field of fire investigation has evolved rapidly.