The Joy of Words

Over the weekend, I picked up a small stack of quality books from an estate sale for a mere $5; if I'd had $100, I could acquired about 500 books but several repair bills (central air conditioning, car, dryer, car again, laptop, dryer again, in that order ) claimed priority  on my budget.

Among the books were these: The Story of English, which was a companion book to the PBS series; The Handbook of Good English, by Edward D. Johnson, and the sixth edition of Wheelock's Latin.  All of them are pleasures to read with whatever level of commitment can be summoned. Latin, in particular, is something I feel drawn to but have never studied beyond the very basics (the word "ablative" freaks me out.)  Maybe some day.

When 'Disaster' Isn't Enough

What to call the Gulf oil disaster continues to confound people who are trying to adequately and accurately describe the situation.

"Spill" doesn't cut it, since it was and is no such thing, and "leak" doesn't do it, either.  I think "gusher" might be a bit better but still not strong enough.

Some links:

New York Times primer
Fake reporting by BP

In Need of Revelation

I've been in the news biz for quite awhile so I don't think I'm naive.

But could someone please explain to me the value of beat reporters, especially in Washington, DC,  "having access" to key players if it doesn't help them, you know, break stories? I keep reading that reporters do what they can to maintain their access but I'm failing to see the benefit to the people they serve. That would be readers.

As usual, Jay Rosen doesn't pull his punches, even when others are. And Jay is not the enemy. Crappy reporting and editing, failure to do our jobs,  are the enemy.

Politico wrote this before pulling it later, as Jay notes:

McChrystal, an expert on counterterrorism and counterinsurgency, has long been thought to be uniquely qualified to lead in Afghanistan. But he is not known for being media savvy. Hastings, who has covered the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan for two years, according to the magazine, is not well-known within the Defense Department. And as a freelance reporter, Hastings would be considered a bigger risk to be given unfettered access, compared with a beat reporter, who would not risk burning bridges by publishing many of McChrystal’s remarks.

From Howard Kurtz.

Updating the Bible

The Missourian's night editor explains why the stylebook is important and how updates are made. I especially like the "I respectfully disagree" notes.

Politics, Journalism and Theater

The same people who brought us the fake "documentary" used to dismantle ACORN have succeeded in once again making someone look stupid.

 Thanks to the foolish response of a Democratic congressman (if the video hasn't been edited improperly, that is), Andrew Breitbart's little band of provocateurs look like victims. I won't argue the politics here and only hope that the congressman in question takes a serious look at his own actions.

But there are several weirdnesses here at the intersection of politics, activism and journalism. It would appear that Breitbart's crew takes on the image of journalism--approaching a political figure on the street and asking only slightly loaded questions (less loaded than, say, some of Bill O'Reilly's ambush squad) while playing by a very different set of rules that only they know.

 But they refuse to identify themselves and they refuse to add context. They simply walk up, call out a question, and, when asked, will say no more than they're working on "a project."  That's bound to irritate people. If someone did the same thing to me, I'm not sure how friendly I'd be, either. If someone waves a microphone in your face and demands an answer, it's sort of nice to know who you're talking to. Or at least who they represent.  (I'm not defending the congressman, who foolishly responded by grabbing the guy's arm and not letting go. At one point, it almost looks as if he's going to put the guy in a headlock.)  But the truly weird part is that the guy's face is blocked out by the video editing, as if he were a young child being taken away from an abusive parent.

What? So what are you guys? Do you think you're entitled to the protections of the First Amendment? ( I do.) Do you think a congressman walking on the sidewalk should answer any and all questions whenever you demand it?  (Maybe, may be not.)  And do you think you should identify yourselves? (Yes). Sorry, felt the urge to answer all the questions for you.

This won't be the last. Theater is now part of our political/journalism nexus and it will only get worse.

Something Different

Not a headline you encounter very often:

US players stuck in traffic jam caused by elephant...  

When 'Slut' Just Won't Do

Let me hasten to add I'm not calling anyone a slut, just enjoying the fact that Josh Marshall seems to have come up with a new term for what he endearingly calls "serially sexually questing women."

For those not paying attention to politics, two South Carolina men set aside their manners and Southern charm to claim they had had sex with Republican gubernatorial candidate Nikki Haley.

Marshall, having already identified the Mark Sanford neologism "hiking the Appalachian Trail" to cover for an affair, says he'd be honored to be credited with inventing "manizer."

That takes us to Language Log, who writes, "there's a lexical lacuna here.  A male politician who is prone to out-of-wedlock hookups would be called a womanizer, but there seems to be no appropriate equivalent for a female. The term slut, for example, has connotations that are entirely inappropriate for a case of this kind. So Josh's attempt to coin manizer is an entirely rational move, though I'm not sure it will catch on."

And so we get, once again, to the very different attitudes toward the sexual behavior of men or women. At another time, I might have gone off on a harangue. Tonight, it's an interesting point of language.

But I do get to use the "sex" tag for this posting.

Anti-Semitic or Anti-Israel? Or Neither?

2nd UPDATE: That didn't take long. Poynter has changed it to say "offensive comments."

UPDATE: "Helen Thomas to Retire After Making Anti-Semitic Comments"

Oh, boy. Poynter, your headline is inappropriate. Thomas's comments, especially the "go back to Europe" one is, in my opinion, wrong and deaf to history but anti-Semitic?  Given the sensitivity of her "get out of Palestine" and subsequent remarks, and the different possible interpretations, they  should not be characterized as anti-Semitic since the intent and result are exactly the issue.

Here's Wikipedia's definition of anti-Semitism:

Antisemitism (also spelled anti-semitism or anti-Semitism) is prejudice against or hostility towards Jews, often rooted in hatred of their ethnic background, culture, and/or religion. In its extreme form, it "attributes to the Jews an exceptional position among all other civilizations, defames them as an inferior group and denies their being part of the nation[s]" in which they reside.

Antisemitism may be manifested in many ways, ranging from individual expressions of hatred and discrimination against individual Jews to organized violent attacks by mobs or even statepolice or military attacks on entire Jewish communities. Extreme instances of persecutionFirst Crusade of 1096, the expulsion from England in 1290, the Spanish Inquisition, the expulsion from Spain in 1492, the expulsion from Portugal in 1497, various pogroms, the Dreyfus Affair, and perhaps the most infamous, the Holocaust under Adolf Hitler's Nazi Germany. include the
While the term's etymology might suggest that antisemitism is directed against all Semitic peoples, the term was coined in the late 19th century in Germany as a more scientific-sounding term for Judenhass ("Jew-hatred"),^[2] and that has been its normal use since then.^[3][4]

 -------------------
A number of stories about Helen Thomas's comments about Israel and Palestine have referred to her "anti-Semitic" remarks, which brings us to an old debate: If you're opposed to actions of the Israeli government, or even the existence of the state itself, are you anti-Semitic?

While perturbed by the "go back to Europe" comment, I'm not sure I'd characterize her remarks as anti-Semitic but rather  anti-government. Specifically, opposed to European Jews, including most recently, those from former Soviet nations, settling in an area where others also claim a right to live.

 I guess it depends on how closely you identify all Jews with Israel, and vice versa and so would want to be very careful with describing her remarks this way.

To be clear, I respect history, including Jewish claims to the land. I have always thought that different sides seem to want to start the timeline of history at whatever point most favors their demands but Jews have a strong claim to an ancient connection.
 
If you have a stake in the region---your son serves in the military of a Mideast country, for example, or your family hails from the region, are you automatically suspect? Should you be restrained from reporting on that region?  What if you're a cable TV commentator complaining that there are too many Jews on the Supreme Court? Where's the line?  If you've spent any time in a newsroom, you know that nothing sets people off more than claims and counter claims of bias in Middle East coverage.  So we ought to be extra aware of labels.

One Way to Reduce the Staff

The New York Daily News sports department decided to collectively lose some weight and voila.