My ego-surfing search feeds recently delivered a couple of gems which display some intriguing intricacies of name-based ego surfing…

First of all, ego surfing is easier if you have an unusal name.

In my case, my last name (Gahran) is fairly unusual. (Here’s how to pronounce it.) Pretty much anyone who has that last name is related to me somehow – and none of my relatives, on my father’s side at least, appear to be nearly the online maniac I am. So searching any search engine (like Google) or feed aggregation service (like Technorati) for “Gahran” will mostly yield references to me.

However, people often misspell my last name – usually substituting the more common “Graham” (especially when I’m making restaurant reservations), but also sometimes mispelling it as “Garhan.” Blogger Garhan Attebury took note of this in a Feb. 9 posting, “Boredom Implies Dino-Jesus.”

It occurred to me, when I read Garhan’s posting, that perhaps this particular misspelling might be common enough that I should set up a search feed for it. That has proved interesting.

Here are some people who posted items relevant to me that I would have missed had I not been watching for this misspelling:

• Kami Huyse
• Will Richardson
• Matthew Stibbe
• Marnie Webb

Now, I’m not trying to poke fun at any of these bloggers – in fact, I appreciate that they mentioned me. I’m just saying that if I hadn’t kept an eye out for this common misspelling, I’d have missed what they said.

So if your name is frequently misspelled in a particular and somewhat unique way, it might be worth watching for that.

IN CONTRAST, MY FIRST NAME IS FAIRLY COMMON

I was amused to discover today that Kai Turner included me in his list of “Powerbloggers”. Here’s how he defines that distinction:

“The criteria for being a Powerblogger is to be the active author of a weblog ranked the highest by Google when searching for that author’s given name. And their given name must be one of the 10 most common names for a man or woman. I’ve used an American list of names, because (at the time) I could not find any other list of names based on current census rather than baby names. …”Falling short on Female Powerbloggers, I grabbed some of the top British women’s names for 3 more name searches…”

My first name, “Amy,” landed me on his list. (I had no idea that was a common British name!) I decided to check out his results. Honestly, I’d figured that “Amy” was so commonplace that it wasn’t worth Googling to see where I landed.

So just for the heck of it, I Googled “Amy.” Guess’s what I found (on the US version of Google, at the moment I happened to look): Contentious was #2 on Google! No kidding, here’s the screen grab. Wow, that surprised me!

I was outranked only by Amy Brown’s Fairy Art. That put me ahead of the Kevin Smith film Chasing Amy, singer Amy Grant, Amy Goodman of Democracy Now!, and Amy Ridenour of the National Center for Public Policy Research.

…At least temporarily. I’ve tried that search a couple of times since and the order of the results is slightly different each time, although I remained in the top 10 each time I searched.

Which goes to show, you can’t necessarily use a one-time search engine result to make a definitive statement about any site’s popularity or relevance. It varies moment by moment. So as gratified as I was to be listed as a “Powerblogger,” I don’t think it really means anything. Still, it’s fun.

And for me, fun is the name of the game online. Plus, it’s easy to spell.

(READ MORE about ego surfing tips at The Right Conversation.)

Now that I’ve learned more about Web 2.0 I think that, as an umbrella concept, it is indeed mostly hype. That is, this term seems to be tossed around mainly in order to promote or sell conferences, books, and consulting services; or to suffuse a person, group, or organization with a vague air of techno-coolness.

Of course, not all hype is useless, or baseless. I actually believe there is considerable value in the Web 2.0 concept. However, what makes it so valuable is not at all new, but rather as old as the human mind itself…

WEB 2.0 DEFINED, SORT OF…

Like most buzzwords, few people who use the term “Web 2.0″ agree on its meaning. So if you’re confused about what it is, exactly – well, get used to that situation.

Here’s my own take on Web 2.0:

More than anything else, Web 2.0 refers to a mindset. In turn, this mindset yields a decentralized, continuous approach to technology development, and a collaborative way of using tools or creating value.

I think of the Web 2.0 mindset in this way:

• Developer’s perspective: Create a user-friendly web-based service or tool and let people play with it. Make sure it allows some user interaction (or at least interaction of users’ data) by default. Be flexible and open about what your creation can become or how people can use it. “Should” is a bad word in Web 2.0. Just watch how people use it, learn from that, and roll with it. This way, the more people who use it, the richer it gets.
• User’s perspective: Find new ways to create, publish, share, and explore with the help of simple web-based services, most of which are free. Use these services (or combine services creatively) to collaborate with other people as much or as little as you want. Whatever you create with those services is yours, and you can take it with you if you want to. Oh, and by the way, even if you’re using a service purely for selfish reasons, with no intention of sharing your contributions or creations, you’re still helping to enrich that service.

The Web 2.0 mindset borrows heavily from the culture of open source software. Although the technical details may differ, both leverage flexible collaboration (both direct and indirect) to create value and fuel continual evolution and refinement. Here are a few simple examples:

• Tagging: User-defined categories in services such as Del.icio.us, Furl, Technorati, and Flickr are perhaps the most ubiquitous hallmark of Web 2.0 services and tools. This allows users to collectively assemble somewhat inconsistent and chaotic but often intriguing and useful bodies of topical content.
• Feeds: Whether RSS or Atom, the point is that feeds allow people to share data conveniently and automatically. This becomes especially serendipitous and timely when combined with tags or search queries. When you picture feeds as a multidirectional intermingling of data streams, they start to seem collectively more like a tapestry than a technology.
• Comments: Whether on blogs, online photo collections, or product reviews, tools that allow users/readers to append comments to a piece of content expand the value of that content by creating a conversation. They also can link that conversation to other content items or conversations happening elsewhere. Creating or reinforcing new connections between disparate content items has the same effect on the web as growing neurons in your brain: The more options that information has for moving around, the more that can be done with that information.

THE IRONY: WEB 2.0 IS NOT NEW

One of the seminal missives defining Web 2.0 was published by Tim O’Reilly (of O’Reilly Media) on Sept. 30. 2005. In “What Is Web 2.0? Design Patterns and Business Models for the Next Generation of Software,” he observed:

“End of the Software Release Cycle. …One of the defining characteristics of internet-era [Web 2.0] software is that it is delivered as a service, not as a product.”

That’s a great point. But then: Why promote a buzzword like “Web 2.0″ which connotes a traditional software release? I just don’t get that part – but it does crack me up.

Here’s the thing: Web 2.0 is an extension of the very old concept of collective creativity. That is: People who work to develop something together – especially if they’re collaborating with a spirit of play or individual exploration – end up creating collective value which far exceeds anything that could have been consciously planned, outlined, and “released.” It’s a process of organic growth.

This is how languages, art forms, and architectural styles develop. It’s the treasure of derivative “remix” culture. It’s blurring the line between developers and users.

No matter how much of a loner you think you are, you rely on other people’s insight and efforts every day to form your opinions, make decisions, and choose actions. This process is largely unconscious. It’s just how the human mind works. We have developed fairly advanced mental skills and external tools for storing, recalling, and communicating information because we think better in concert.

So Web 2.0 is not new. It’s just that more technology and media have evolved to the point that our tools can now work a bit more like our minds.

But if you like the buzzword, if it helps you make certain points or focus certain efforts or discussions, then fine. Use the phrase where it’s helpful, and realize its vagueness, flexibility, and limits.

And remember: Before long “Web 2.0″ is likely to sound as dated as “Space Age.” So don’t get too attached to it.

The column by business counselor and writer Andrea Kay, “Workers Need the Write Stuff to Succeed,” bemoans the deterioration of writing skills in the business world. Since I provide writing coaching, and Catherine and I both edit lots of poorly written business content, we were both cheering this message, especially since it was being delivered so prominently.

…And then, the fumble.

In the version of this article published in the Tribune-Review (which doesn’t appear to be online as of this writing), Kay includes this quote from Beth Zimmerman founder of the business consulting firm Cerebellas: “The intense reliance on e-mail to conduct business has negatively impacted writing ability.”

At this, Catherine dropped her coffee and ran screaming into the bathroom. Her fine grammatical sensibilities, honed by the efforts of her mother (Peggy Dold of Venice, FL, proud winner of the 8th-grade English medal) were grievously assaulted by witnessing the brutal torture of innocent verbs.

So what’s wrong with that sentence?

Verbal Abuse: Twisted, misapplied “Frankenverbs” lie at the root of some of the most heinous crimes committed against the English language. One of the most prevalent of these is when the verb “to impact” is used as a synonym for “to affect” – as Zimmerman did above, and as Kay credulously quoted with nary a cringe.

For reference, here’s how the American Heritage Dictionary (via Dictionary.com) defines the verb “impact:”

v. im·pact·ed, im·pact·ing, im·pacts
v. tr.

1. To pack firmly together.
2. To strike forcefully: meteorites impacting the lunar surface.
3. Usage Problem. To have an effect or impact on: “No region… has been more impacted by emerging demographic and economic trendsâ€? (Joel Kotkin).

[emphasis added]

I do a lot of writing coaching, and through that work I’ve discovered that the “impact” problem seems to have a common cause. In my experience, business writers generally say “impact” because they’re not clear on the difference between “affect” and “effect.” They know which one they mean, but they’re unsure which to say. So they avoid the dilemma entirely by dragging in a thoughtless Frankenverb.

OK, get this through your heads everyone: If you can’t figure out whether you should say “affect” or “effect” in a sentence, it’s not OK to resort to “impact” instead.

It is also not OK to say “impact” when you wish to imply that the effect being discussed was particularly sudden or powerful. Unless you’re talking about one object physically striking another (as in: The grammar guide that Amy hurled across the room impacted her head sharply.), the better course is to learn how to use “affect” and “effect” correctly. Learn their correct synonyms, too. English is a rich language – we have lots of good synonyms.

Zimmerman’s verbal abuse doesn’t stop at “impacted,” unfortunately. Look at her quote again:

“The intense reliance on e-mail to conduct business has negatively impacted writing ability.”

What’s the subject of that sentence? Well, Zimmerman’s grammar is pretty convoluted, but it looks to me like “reliance” is the subject. In this case, “reliance” is a verb contorted to serve as a noun. This happens when the speaker is too lazy to consider who is really doing what, and so twists the first words that come to mind to convey that half-formed thought. A mere pause for breath during the interview can provide clarity of thought and clarity of language.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m not striving for absolutely perfect grammar in all instances, especially in speech. However, habitual linguistic laziness is a plague that diminishes everyone’s ability to listen and understand.

“My mother always regretted that I never learned to diagram sentences,” sighed Dold. “I guess she was right.”

In my experience, once people grasp the concept of what feeds do, it’s then easier for them to understand how feeds work – which then helps them actually start to use feeds.

This is why explaining why feeds matter was the core of the talk I gave yesterday to a public relations group. I’d been asked to speak on the future of technology – and it seems to me that if people can grasp the feed concept and start using feeds, then most of the communication technologies that are likely to become crucial over the next several years will make much more sense.

Over at The Intuitive Life Business Blog, my friend Dave Taylor is struggling with a similar issue. I just read his Oct. 18 posting, “What we needs is a great metaphor for RSS,” and commented on it.

I agree with Dave, we do need a great metaphor for this linchpin technology/channel/medium. I’d love to hear what Contentious readers have to say about this issue – especially since so many of you have managed to “get” the feed concept that the e-mail alert service for this weblog is now on hiatus.

Here’s what I said in my comment to Dave’s post…

Hi, Dave.

Great minds think alike! Explaining feeds was the core of a talk I gave yesterday to the CO chapter of the Public Relations Society of America (PRSA). I posted the audio of that talk as a podcast and I also posted my handout as a downloadable pdf .

You wrote: “…And no, I’m not talking about some superficial renaming of RSS to webfeed; that won’t solve the problem either.”

Being the person who held the contest to come up with a nongeeky nickname (not a renaming, just a nicknaming, mind you) of “RSS,” the winner of which was “webfeed,” may I officially say: Ouch!

Nah, no biggie – a nickname is a superficial matter, after all. However, in general acronyms are offputting to non-geeks, notwithstanding a few very rare exceptions like “TV.” (Honestly I don’t think “RSS” makes that cut and it never will.) So geeky acronyms are indeed a real barrier to acceptance of a new technology. (Let alone that “RSS” is only one type of feed format. There is also the Atom standard, and there probably will be others in the future.)

Terminology does indeed matter. So does metaphor.

For a while now I’ve just been saying “feed” because that’s exceptionally descriptive of what this technology DOES: It feeds people a steady diet of fresh content.

Personally I like your “news wire” metaphor, but I doubt it makes quite as much sense to people who, unlike you and me, haven’t worked in the news business.

Yeah, we all have seen movies from the 1930s – 1970s where reporters rip paper stories off machines and scamper away to their typewriters, so that gives considerable cultural support to that metaphor… for now.

But how much would the news wire metaphor mean to someone in their 20s today (who might have been born in, say, 1981)? How much will it mean to someone who’s 12 years old today? We might as well be referring to a butter churn or quill pen.

Personally, I think the most effective metaphors are visceral in that they relate to fundamentally human roles and functions or to common real-world objects or processes. Such metaphors make the best and longest-lasting idiomatic expressions, like “sitting on” an idea, or giving someone “the runaround.”

“News wire” is a cultural/technological artifact of a particular media. Although it’s vivid, I don’t think it meets the “universally human and visceral” criteria.

Personally, I would like to see a metaphor for “RSS” based on the concept of “feeding” – that is, delivering a steady supply of content, just like you feed a baby spoonfuls of pureed squash. It implies the benefit of precise, timely delivery and effortless consumption. (Bib not included.)

So I’ll think more about this. Thanks for getting my gears going. Maybe we should get an animator in on this, whadya think?

- Amy Gahran
Editor, Contentious

TOP OF THIS LIST: Stupid Attractors. The attractor is key concept of the mathematics of systems. Hidden Dimension Galleries describes three types of attractors:

• A finite attractor is the solution to a system of equations which converges to a single point.
• If the solution converges to a periodic orbit, it is a periodic attractor
• If the solution is a fully determined, fractal curve with no recursion, it is a strange attractor (a cornerstone of chaos theory).

I posit a fourth type of attractor: The stupid attractor. Rather than create a meaningful pattern, here the “solutions” that converge are random bits of cosmic jetsam and annoying dunces. Examples of stupid attractors include shopping malls just before Christmas, or the IMAX theater just outside of the Grand Canyon.

However, in the grand design of the universe, stupid attractors serve the greater purpose of consolidating idiots in clearly identified clumps that can be avoided.

Read the rest of this list…

1. ‘In Other Words’: Translating the Untranslatable. I heard this interview today on NPR’s Morning Edition. It’s an interview with linguist Christopher Moore about his book In Other Words. My favorite part of the web feature: “taarradhin [tah-rah-deen] (noun) Arabic has no word for compromise in the sense of reaching an arrangement via struggle and disagreement. But a much happier concept, taarradhin, exists in Arabic. It implies a happy solution for everyone, an ‘I win, you win.’ It’s a way of resolving a problem without anyone losing face.” Excellent! Much better than the clunky, smarmy English phrase win-win situation, which never ceases to grate on my nerves. I’m going to start saying taarradhin now… It’ll be a pleasure to explain it!
2. Today’s Podcast, by Scott Brenner. An excellent brief daily podcast (2-5 min.) “offering words to the wise and the otherwise.” Each day Brenner explores an unusual word or intriguing quote. (Subscribe)
3. The LINGUIST List, a great resource for the most avid word geeks. Description excerpt: “Dedicated to providing information on language and language analysis, and to providing the discipline of linguistics with the infrastructure necessary to function in the digital world. LINGUIST maintains a web-site with over 2000 pages and runs a mailing list with over 20,000 subscribers worldwide. LINGUIST also hosts searchable archives of over 100 other linguistic mailing lists and runs research projects which develop tools for the field, e.g., a peer-reviewed database of language and language-family information, and recommendations of best practice for digitizing endangered languages data.”
4. Blogs are Banished! On Jan. 1, Crawford Kilian noted that the word blog and all its derivations made this year’s list of Banished Words from Lake Superior State University. Said Kilian: “Granted, it’s a graceless and cacophonous word, coined by someone too bone-lazy to say web log. And now that I think of it, Tim Berners-Lee should have thought twice about naming his creation the web. The purpose of a web, after all, is to halt travel and permit killing the traveler. The system we use is supposed to expedite travel and leave the traveler better off for the journey. (Journey, by the way, is also a banished word!)”
5. Lower-case internet and web: Where’s the fuss now? Back on Aug. 16, 2004, I drew a surprising level of criticism when I announced that in this weblog I would no longer capitalized the words internet and web, and their derivations. See Jargon Evolution: Ditching Unnecessary Capitalization. See also my followup article, Yes, I said “internet.” So Did NPR!, Sept. 30, 2004. I’d just like to note that since then, I’ve continued to lowercase those terms and no one has complained, or even noticed!

TOP OF THIS LIST: My new hero is Steven Pinker, a linguist and psychologist (or “cognitive scientist”) from Harvard. About a month ago I picked up his 1994 book The Language Instinct: How the mind creates language just as I was sorting through a thorny style guide revision for a client. I began to see language, and the role of grammar, in an entirely new way. What timing! Pinker’s work helped me puzzle through some tough stylistic issues, which I’ll be writing about later.

All editors should read Pinker’s work! The to-read book pile next to my bed currently features his titles The Blank Slate, How the Mind Works, and Words and Rules: The Ingredients of Language. In Spring 2005 he’s teaching a course called The Human Mind.

His work is a bit controversial, but controversy is good – it forces you to think for yourself. I like how he thinks so much that I even forgive his occasional lapses into pedantic tongues.

Read the rest of this list…

1. WordCount, a project by Jonathan Harris which bills itself as “an artistic experiment in the way we use language.” It’s simple and intriguing, although not especially useful. Basically, Harris displays data from the British National Corpus (a linguistic resource) in a slick, clean Flash interface. It’s information design meets word salad. From the about page: “The goal is for the user to feel embedded in the language, sifting through words like an archaeologist through sand, awaiting the unexpected find. Observing closely ranked words tells us a great deal about our culture. For instance, ‘God’ is one word from ‘began,’ two words from ‘start,’ and six words from ‘war.’ Another sequence is ‘america ensure oil opportunity.’”
2. Online Etymological Dictionary by Douglas Harper. I’m such a word geek, I find this incredibly fun. I keep looking up stray phrases. For instance, haywire: “‘poorly equipped, makeshift,’ 1905, Amer.Eng., lit. ‘soft wire for binding bales of hay,’ from hay + wire. The extended sense being of something only held together with this, particularly said to be from use in New England lumber camps for jerry-rigging and makeshift purposes, so that haywire outfit became the term for a logging camp chronically ill-equipped and short on supplies. Its springy, uncontrollable quality led to the sense in go haywire (1929).”
3. Long Words in German: Man, am I glad I chose to study Italian in college! Oberammergaueralpenkräuterdelikatessenfrühstückskäse? Give me a break!
4. …Not that English is much better. The highly idiomatic nature of English, especially US English, is confusing and annoying to people all over the world. Need help? Check out English Idioms: Sayings and Slang by Wayne Magnuson. What I like is that this searchable online guide not only lists meanings but examples. It even includes phrases I wouldn’t immediately consider idiomatic, but which in fact are – like “up to date.” (Thanks to Nancy White for this link.)
5. Merriam Webster Words of the Year 2004: The most-looked-up word in 2004, says the famed dictionary company, was blog. I’m amazed that defenestration made it into the top 10. Hmmmm, that’s a little scary…

The words we choose to describe actions play a key role in shaping perspectives, opinions, and responses. When it comes to the great evils of this world – torture, genocide, war, and so on – it seems to me that muted words often are selected to publicly describe and discuss what happened – and what should be done in response.

This is not always a deliberate propaganda tactic. Indeed, some words, like “torture,” are inherently loaded. Avoiding loaded language often reflects an effort to avoid sensationalizing an issue before the facts are in. However, in some cases muted word choices may reflect an attempt to avoid running disastrously afoul of public opinion or even international law.

Case in point: Abu Ghraib…

Right now there’s a huge public controversy over the recent “abuse” of Iraqi prisoners at the hands of US soldiers within US-run prisons.

Would the public reaction, official US response and accountability, and international response be more intense if English-language headlines and official discourse around the world used the word “torture” instead of “abuse?”

I suspect it might. That’s a point worth pondering.

“TORTURE” VS. “ABUSE”

First of all, does the word “torture” accurately describe the US soldiers’ actions? That depends:

• I have no doubt that the prisoners who endured that treatment would describe it as torture. On the one hand, theirs would be an inherently biased perspective. On the other hand, theirs is also an extremely relevant perspective on this issue.

• The American Heritage Dictionary defines “torture” as: (1) To subject (a person or an animal) to torture. (2) To bring great physical or mental pain upon (another). (3) To twist or turn abnormally; distort: torture a rule to make it fit a case.

• The 1949 Geneva Conventions (which the US has signed and sworn to uphold) specifically prohibit torture, humiliation, and inhumane treatment. However, those documents do not specifically define those terms. As far as I can tell, as long as torture remains undefined, and the word “torture” is assiduously avoided when describing certain acts, the perpetrators of those acts (and their governments) probably could avoid charges under this law.

• The 1984 UN Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment does define torture, as follows: “For the purposes of this Convention, the term “torture” means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.”

  The US has agreed that this law applies to the Abu Ghraib incidents, so it will be up the the UN to determine whether those actions can be classified as “torture” as defined by this convention. It’s unclear whether the UN intends to take a stand on this matter. Today (May 21) the UN Committee Against Torture concludes its first 2004 meeting to review measures adopted by several countries (including, intriguingly, New Zealand – but not the US) to prevent and punish acts of torture. It’ll be interesting to see whether the US shows up on this committee’s agenda anytime soon. (More on this from Newsweek.)

• In a May 20 article, Sgt. Samuel Provance (a military intelligence soldier who worked at Abu Ghraib prison last fall) told the Washington Post that much of the humilation-oriented “abuse” at the prison was part of a deliberate, culturally specific strategy crafted by military intelligence officers in order to “break” the prisoners. (See: Sergeant Says Intelligence Directed Abuse) If true, this would indicate that the soldiers in question were not merely willful actions of a small group of soldiers or a failure of leadership by their commander, but rather part of an orchestrated intelligence strategy. If true, this may push the acts of “abuse” closer to the “torture” end of the definition spectrum in the eyes of the public and of international law.

• On May 5, Xeni Jardin observed in the popular Boing Boing weblog, “It’s torture when they do it. It’s abuse when our guys do it.”

THE NEWS: WHO’S USING THE “T” WORD

In most parts of the modern world, the mass media plays a key role in shaping public opinion. One way to keep tabs on what the mass media are saying is to conduct keyword searches of Google News and Yahoo News. So far, if you keyword-search either of those services for “torture,” the vast majority of news stories will be related to the Abu Ghraib incidents – but are published by non-US news organizations.

Considering the vast amount of coverage Abu Ghraib is receiving, so far very few US news organizations have opted using the word “torture” in that coverage. And in many cases, those that have even mentioned the “t-word” have only done so in very circumscribed ways. Here’s what the past few day’s headlines have to offer on that front:

• The current issue of newsweek magazine appears to have taken the strongest linguistic stance on the “t-word” to date with this investigative feature: “The Roots of Torture: The road to Abu Ghraib began after 9/11, when Washington wrote new rules to fight a new kind of war.”
• Today the Detroit News ran a staff-written article “Ex-prisoner details Iraq torture claim that uses both terms, “torture” and “abuse.”

• On May 13, PBS Newshour ran a segment entitled, “Bending the Rules?” which featured an in-depth expert discussion of whether the events at Abu Ghraib can be considered torture.

• The Contra Costa Times today ran an article syndicated from the Washington Post under the headline “Rape threats, torture at Abu Ghraib detailed.” The Post’s own version of the story bears the headline “New Details of Prison Abuse Emerge: Abu Ghraib Detainees’ Statements Describe Sexual Humiliation And Savage Beatings.” The only mention of the “t-word” appears at the end of the story, in this hearsay quote:

  “The detainee said the soldiers handcuffed him to a bed. ‘Do you believe in anything?’ he said the soldier asked. ‘I said to him, I believe in Allah.’ So he said, ‘But I believe in torture and I will torture you.’”

• A May 19 USA Today story bears the headline, “Conyers asks whether torture denial was a lie. This use of the “t-word” echoes a specific line of Congressional inquiry.

• Today the Baltimore Sun ran a guest-written op-ed piece with the headline “Torture damage won’t soon heal,” by Mary Cogar (director of Advocates of Survivors of Torture and Trauma). However, the Sun appears to be generally avoiding the “t-word” in its staff-written stories.

• Similarly, Time Magazine recently published a guest-written “Viewpoint” piece, “The Real Shame of Abu Ghraib,” by Darius Rejali (a “nationally recognized expert on the causes and consequences of torture,” Professor of Political Science at Reed College, and author of the forthcoming book Torture and Democracy. This article offers a detailed historical and cultural perspective on torture, and frames Abu Ghraib within that larger context.

• On May 16, New York Times staffer Michael Slackman penned an editorial for the “Week in Review” section entitled, “What’s Wrong With Torturing a Qaeda Higher-Up? The article does not focus on Abu Ghraib, but does include this anecdote illustrating the unreliability of information obtained through torture:

  “In Iraq, a man named Saddam Saleh Aboud told The New York Times that after being hooded and handcuffed naked, doused with water, threatened with rape and forced to sit in his own urine over 18 days at Abu Ghraib prison, he was ready to confess to anything. [Mr. Aboud recalled in an interview in Baghdad that they asked], ‘Do you know the Islamic opposition?’ ‘I said yes. [At one point, Mr. Aboud said] ‘They asked me about Osama bin Laden. I said, I am Osama bin Laden. I am disguised.’”

• Today the Associated Press story “U.S. Military Releases Group of Prisoners mentions the “t-word” only in this context: “The military periodically frees prisoners from Abu Ghraib, which was also notorious as the site of executions and torture during Saddam Hussein’s regime.

• Chicago news radio station WBBM today ran the story “Chicago Demonstrators Denounce Iraq Prison Torture,” which confines the use of the “t-word” to the protestors’ perspective.

In contrast, here are just a few typical headlines from the non-US major news media:

• “US faces more allegations of Iraq torture,” Financial Times, UK
• “Torture Scandal Grows With New Photos,” Zama, Turkey
• “Soldier Accused of Torture Pleads Guilty,” The Scotsman, UK
• “Troops, torture and the politics of ambiguity,” Taipei Times, Taiwan. (Commentary by Michael Manning, a former specialist interrogator with the 142nd Military Intelligence Battalion, US Army National Guard.)

US NEWS ORGANIZATIONS: PLEASE CLARIFY YOUR CHOICE OF WORDS

…I’m not saying that US news organizations necessarily should be saying “torture” alongside (or instead of) “abuse.” However, as a journalist I am unsettled at how the US government and military’s choice of terminology to frame this controversy has been almost universally repeated, with little examination, by highly trained and experienced editors and journalists throughout the US.

Loaded language is a regular topic of discussion in newsroom meetings throughout the world, and particularly in the US. However, depending on the situation the most intense term is not necessarily the most (or the only) “loaded” one. Sometimes less-intense words are heavily loaded with an intent to deflect or dissuade – which may not serve the purpose of accurately portraying the news.

Given the severity of the Abu Ghraib events, I would like to see newsroom staff publicly debate this particular choice of words. They probably have very sound reasons for saying “abuse” rather than “torture” – but their audiences deserve to have that decision clarified, I think.

In my opinion, the VR blooper is becoming an art form in its own right. Someone, somewhere ought to run a contest for the best VR blooper. (If such a contest exists already, please let me know about it.)

Susan Fulton’s Computing Out Loud site offers an entertaining VR Goofs page. The examples here demonstrate not just the intriguing and amusing ways that VR packages mistranslate words, but also how they interpret stray sounds. For instance…

Here are a couple of my favorite examples of translated sounds from that page:

“When my landlady walks around upstairs (old wooden house), Dragon Naturally Speaking types “unplugging, unplugging” until I feel like doing just that.”

And…

“My husband was sitting next to me watching me “speak words on the screen.” I think he was getting bored watching, and reached down and goosed me. I let out whatever sound one makes when goosed and Dragon Dictate printed ‘Clinton’ on the screen. (Even back then these things were smarter than you’d think.)”

I was reminded of the rich entertainment potential (and sometimes Zen-like profundity) of voice recognition bloopers when earlier today I read a newsbrief in my very favorite “news source,” the parody newspaper The Onion. (See “Voice Recognition Software Yelled At,” under the “News in Brief” heading, about halfway down the home page.) I was laughing so hard I literally could not finish reading the punchline out loud to my husband, I gave up after five tries. Worth a read.