Obscure Box

I howled listening the ABC radio report last night about the assassination of a Hamas leader.

The report itself was very disturbing and my laughter was not directed at the content of the story itself. What is it with Israel?

My laughter was at the reaction the assassination was creating in the countries.

In the report Gang that assassinated Hamas leader used stolen European passports on PM (Wednesday 17 February 2010) presenter Mark Colvin was speaking with Fairfax correspondent Paul McGeough who had written a book that described a failed assassination attempt by Israel in 1997 against another Hamas leader.

The conversation described how stolen British, Irish, German and French passports had been used by the assassins and that had the potential to cause a diplomatic row.

How concerned then were these four countries?

PAUL MCGEOUGH: Well the British Government is very upset. The Irish Government is very upset. The German Government is quite upset and the French are annoyed.

MARK COLVIN: All of them had passports used?

PAUL MCGEOUGH: All of them had passports used. Six Israelis, three Irish, one German, one French.

So the French are only annoyed? Come on guys, some more outrage would be appropriate.

That's why I howled.

Many style guides for news organisations here in Australia are lax of the use of commas in numbers 1,000 t0 9,999.

They prefer to drop the comma and opt for 1000 to 9999. Commas are fine higher numbers with digits grouped in threes so it's 10,000 and 1,000,000 and so on.

I think the commas should be there from 1,000 onwards. Why? Why not!

Why have a split rule? Why not be consistent? Most computing technology these days allows for the comma to e used from 1,000 onwards. No split rule.

I also think there's a risk of some ambiguity on what's being said, especially when general style allows the commas to be dropped from street numbers and years.

Take this line from the Oscar preview story Aussie filmmakers at Oscar's luncheon posted on the Sky News website (Tuesday 16 February 2010).

For many of the other 2010 nominees - make-up artists, editors, special effects geeks and Aussie short filmmakers Luke Doolan and Drew Bailey - the Oscar luncheon was another magical experience full of pomp and ceremony on the way to the highlight of their working lives, the March 7 Academy Awards ceremony at Hollywood's Kodak Theatre.

How many nominees?

The sentence is ambiguous. It can be read to say there are 2,010 nominees or it can be read to say the nominees for the year 2010.

The actual number of nominees for the year 2010 is 121, according to the news report.

A consistent policy on commas in numbers would have avoided any potential confusion.

Okay, this was only an Oscar preview story. The context and familiarity of the story should avoid any confusion. Why worry?

What if I was talking about many of the 2002 Bali bombing victims?

How many victims? As time goes by the context and familiarity of a story can fade.

The Australian Federal Police says in Bali bombings 2002 (Page Updated: May 2, 2008) that 202 people died in the bombings, including 88 Australians.

See my point?

Not by telephone, if you're thinking of contacting Australia's Prime
Minister Kevin Rudd.

Just been trawling the PM's website www.pm.gov.au and I can't find a telephone number listed on any of the pages.

Nice office but not a telephone in sight. (Not sure what the blur is hiding either)

None. Not a single contact number listed anywhere. Not even on the
Media Releases.

I can follow the PM's Blog or Twitter, engage in a web chat, even send
him an e-mail but I can't pick up the phone and give him a call because
I can't find a telephone listed anywhere.

Now I can find a couple of numbers listed for the PM if I head over to
the Parliamentary website and look up Kevin Rudd's personal page. Both Canberra and
Electorate office numbers are listed.

But that's not the point.

You'd have thought the best place to look for a telephone number for
the PM would be the PM's website.

Good look then to any potential investor, donator, contributor, world
leader or whoever wants to give him a call in the future.

I'm growing increasingly puzzled by the comments that are allowed on some news stories posted online.

Sometimes there are none. Does that mean no one really cares about the story?

Sometimes there are many. Too many. Hundreds. When you read through a few it's quite clear that the majority of commenter’s have not read any of the other comments as the same points are often repeated ad nauseum.

Sometimes the comments provoke debate. Sometimes that can be useful. Sometimes it can act as a huge distraction away from the original story.

Then sometimes the comment can be so off the mark as to make you wonder how it got there in the first place.

Take this offering from the Times Online in the UK on the story headlined "Google Earth helps find El Dorado" (January 10, 2010).

The story's about a possible lead to the discovery of the legendary lost "golden city" in South America.

So why this comment?

Ken Lancaster wrote:
Ferguson doesn't deserve the respect he gets. One decision, which was clearly offside within the laws of the game went for his team - which he supported, one (where the renowned dirty Darren Fletcher) was red carded for a foul was apparently very wrong. Had exactly the same decisions been made for and and against Birmingham his position would, without a doubt, be reversed. Ferguson should be a leader in the game yet he does his level best to undermine officials decisions at every opportunity. Until the FA take a proper stance against Ferguson people will conclude that there is one rule for Ferguson and another for the rest. In other words there will be a perception that no only Ferguson is a cheat but the FA are complicit in his antics. The FA need to develop some backbone and give this man the punishment he so richly deserves.
January 10, 2010, 3:34 AM GMT

What has a comment on UK soccer got to do with lost civilizations (don't tempt me)?

Others were obviously equally puzzled.

Marcus Brain wrote:
Ken lancaster is obviously a very bitter and jealous Liverpool fan who feels he has to comment about Manchester United on any story, even one about the Amazon!
January 11, 2010 10:32 AM GMT

Then there was this one.

Alex Penn wrote:
After reading this article and comments:

i) Hopefully this is El Dorado - what a find that would be!

ii) Yes, Ferguson doesn't deserve the respect he gets.

January 11, 2010 12:50 PM GMT

Is there no gatekeeper checking the comments for relevance?

But then a glance at some other comments reveals some strays about the possible use of Google Earth to track missing UK child Madeleine McCann who disappeared from a holiday home in Portugal in 2007.

Again, not relevant and an unwelcome and ill-informed distraction from the original story.

I think it's time for those involved in publishing comments to clean up their act.

Just like the letters published in a newspaper and the talkback callers on radio (or TV these days), there needs to be some sort of editorial control involved to publish only the relevant comments, or all comments on stories will just become an irrelevance themselves.

It's a brave sub that opts for a headline with so much potential for mispronunciation.

So it was that the ABC posted a story it headlined "Cup punt not child's play" on Melbourne Cup day (Tuesday November 3, 2009).

Read the headline with care

I'm sure the linguists have a name for it; that move from the first word to the second requires some care when reading aloud.

The vocal move from "cup" to "punt" requires an extra pause to stop the words running into each other, and that pause can make the second word come out all wrong.

Broadcast blooper tapes are full of such unfortunate mispronunciations.