Contemplating Flammable and Inflammable Things

Last week, I actually had stuff I wanted to ramble about. But I decided to post the scary pic of McCain since I'm sure the election has a bit more import than my fixation on the intricacies of style and usage. I was also more pumped up about it at the time.

Anyhow, last week as I was thumbing through the assigned Strunk and White reading, I came across the entry for "flammable" in the chapter on misused words and expressions. I'm quoting it since I think it's one of the more memorable passages:

An oddity, chiefly useful in saving lives. The common word meaning "combustible" is inflammable. But some people are thrown off by the in- and think inflammable means "not combustible." For this reason, trucks carrying gasoline or explosives are now marked FLAMMABLE. Unless you are operating such a truck and hence are concerned with the safety of children and illiterates, use inflammable (47)

I read this three times last week. The first time, I laughed because I was insulted by the last sentence. The second time, I paused and thought, "Ooookay, I need a snack to up my blood sugar. I'm probably reading this wrong." The third time was just as brilliant; I thought, "Huh. Interesting. Note to self: blog about this later."

It's an interesting entry. When I searched Merriam-Webster Online, I got some interesting results. "Flammable" means capable of being set on fire while the entry for "inflammable" is more itneresting. The entry lists two definitions: "flammable" and "easily excited or angered." The etymology of "flammable" and "inflammable" is identical--they come from the Latin inflammare. The entries include that "inflammable" was first used in 1605; "flammable" was first used in 1813. There's 213-year gap between their usage, they mean the same thing in standard usage but Merriam-Webster never explains why.

And so, this is why Strunk and White is pretty awesome. The AP Stylebook doesn't even have entries for "flammable" and "inflammable."

But then, there's a problem: Do we then default to Merriam-Webster, which says that the two are interchangeable? Would you use "inflammable" when you need a synonym for "flammable" or vice versa? That could confuse readers. Or should you use "flammable" since your story will be read by people who don't know the distinction between the two words and have been using "inflammable" as the antonym for "flammable" for most of their lives? Do you submit to the awesomeness of Strunk and White and use "inflammable"?

My brain got tired sorting this all out. It's just one word that I may or may not use during my entire existence as an individual that writes. The world just might not end. For now, I opt for being consistent and taking the matter up with copyeditors and editors in the distant future.

Don't Try This at Home

Jill Greenberg is at it again. In 2004, Greenberg made the news for a photo exhibit titled "Four More Years." She later admitted that she gave the toddlers in her photos candy and took it away to make them cry.

Four years later, she's made the news again. This time, Greenberg was on assignment for Atlantic Monthly. During her photo shoot with McCain, she took the cover shot for the magazine's October edition as well as a few other photos that she later manipulated with Photoshop and posted on her web portfolio. The full slide show has all the graphic details, if you're interested.

What a bright idea. Atlantic Monthly will an apology to John McCain and has decided not to pay Greenberg for the photo shoot. The magazine is also considering legal action, according to the Fox News report.

But what I find most interesting is this: Atlantic Monthly and James Bennet, editor of Atlantic Monthly are issuing apologies. Maybe they were partially responsible since they contracted a photographer with a record of expressing her anti-Republican views in radical ways. But I think they expected Greenberg to put aside her opinions and act professionally.

And what is Greenberg doing? Yes, she does have some pretty extreme politics, but that doesn't excuse her for the ethical breach she committed. Yet, she gloated to the New York Post about how she "tricked" McCain into posing for unflattering shots. She also went on to say, "Some of my artwork has been pretty anti-Bush, so maybe it was somewhat irresponsible for [The Atlantic] to hire me."

It seems just as irresponsible to take advantage of a contract with a magazine and take some unflattering photos of McCain. And then, to take those photos (which she may not even hold the copyright to) and manipulate them to express her obvious distaste for McCain.

Interesting. Do editors need to cross-examine every reporter or photographer's views and interests before hiring them or assigning them a project? Should reporters and photographers set aside their personal views and try to be fair? Trust is a tricky, tricky thing.

Tackling THE Media

On my way to swing dance class (scary, huh?), I got into a little argument about 'the media' and 'objectivity.' I just couldn't help it--not after the last two lectures.

In general, I get irked when my friends go on tirades about 'the media.' In most cases, when people I know talk about 'the media,' they mean the news media. If it's not the news media, it's the movie industry. But 'the media' covers everything from newspapers to the recording industry.

In my opinion, news organizations get the most criticism because they're expected to be accurate, fair, balanced and objective. In fact, my latest victim argued that no news source except BBC is objective. But no one can be completely objective, as we discussed earlier. The public has very idealized notions of what news organizations are supposed to do. And the high standards the public has sets the news media apart from everything else huddled under the umbrella. Filmmakers and hip-hop artists aren't obligated to cite sources or provide balanced coverage of an event.

But when you boil it all down, when people gripe about the media, 'the media' attached to it, they’re griping about culture. Thank you, Professor Follis, for putting it so simply in lecture. Newspapers, the Internet, television, radio and everything else people like to lump together under that word mirror current society and culture. It just so happens that people don't like that reflection, and it's easy to blame the ominous 'media.' What do you think?

Pick of the Week

So...I almost forgot to make a post this week. My mind is like a large, large fishbowl. And lots of random things swim around in there. This week, a front page story from the September 3 issue by Michael Logli, "Senator speaks to student organization," got caught in the whirlpool of my wandering thoughts.

It's been marinating in my cerebral fishbowl for the last couple days. And it all started with the headline. It wasn't a terrible headline. I just thought that "speak to" could have been replaced with "addresses" or even better, "Senator urges campus democrats to unite." I know space and time is limited, but I felt the headline was a bit one-dimensional.

Once I got past the headline and delved into the story itself, I got confused. Obviously, Students for Barack Obama did not plan for Durbin to appear that night--the lead makes that clear. So...who did? I guess it was the College Democrats, who were mentioned in a quote from Mike Frerichs. And that's where I got confused, since mention of College Democrats seemed rather arbitrary.

I also got the impression that Students for Barack Obama attended and ran the entire event. Logli mostly focused on Students for Barack Obama, in terms of the organizations present for Durbin's appearance. Even the headline misled me since it referred to a single student organization. College Democrats were only mentioned once while Students for Barack Obama appeared in the caption and the lead.

A correction in the Daily Illini along with lunch at Basil Thai on Green St. fixed up the confusion. Lunch with a friend who used to be involved with College Democrats enlightened me with further details. As it turns out, College Democrats arranged for the event and was present that night.

My point for picking on Logli's story is that words have a funny habit of sticking in our heads when they're repeated. Logli never wrote that Students for Barack Obama was the only student organization at the event or that they ran the event. But all that repetition made it seem (at least to my poor brain) like the organization did.

Well...hopefully next week I'll have something more interesting. Until then, I have to go clean out my fish bowl...