The term used to describe the swine flu (Mexican Flu, H1N1 Influenza A, North American Flu) outbreak has become controversial.

The original, and colloquial name, “swine flu” has run into objections from pork producers who say that it spreads fear about eating pork. You can’t get swine flu from eating pork.

Fiona Fleck, a spokeswoman for the World Health Organization explained to the New York Times on Wednesday that the World Health Organization would start using the term “influenza A(H1N1)”

In Canada both CP24 and CTV has started using the term H1N1 flu. The CBC continues to use the term swine flu, because the term “H1N1 Influenza A” is a lot put in a script, “but more importantly, at least one infectious disease expert we consulted says it is inaccurate,” a CBC producer said.

The WHO take a different stance on the issue. “We’re a scientific organization. A(H1N1) is a scientific name. That’s it. But the scientific name is not very user friendly. I think it would help all of us if we could find a name that’s easier to say that’s more popular.”

Fleck suggested there could be a competition, and members of the public could come up with a better name.

Swine Flu naming contest anyone?

	9 Comments »	Email This Post
	In Plain English, Media Coverage	Posted at 1:38 pm (01 May 2009)

Hello friends … It’s Friday the thirteenth, in FEB-roo-EHR-ee … the month I receive calls and emails from incensed members of our audience … the month that has TWO “r”s in it … the month that is difficult to pronounce. But I know we can do it! We’re professionals!

1. This is also a month of difficult weather across the country. Snow. Rain. Ice. Sun. Snow. Rain. Ice.  Everything possible. The weather has been a news story, so we tried to vary our description, and make it sound new and fresh. “Schizophrenic” and “insane” are two words that are not particularly appropriate.

2. Taser is a registered brand name for a product. It should always be written with a capital “T“. It is becoming common to hear it used as a verb. Try to avoid that, and explain exactly what it does to a person. It stuns, shocks, disables, hits.  One alternative phrase is “electroshock gun”. There is a fuller discussion in the Lang File   (alt/F2 … enter Taser in the search window)

Now for your consideration, some alternative “understandings” of common medical terms …

Artery……………………. The study of paintings
Bacteria………………….. Back door to cafeteria
Barium…………………… What doctors do when patients die
Benign…………………… What you be, after you be eight
Caesarean Section…….. A neighborhood in Rome
Cat scan…………………… Searching for Kitty
Cauterize…………………. Made eye contact with her
Colic…………………….. A sheep dog
Coma………………………. A punctuation mark

[Read more →]

	7 Comments »	Email This Post
	In Plain English	Posted at 12:56 pm (13 Feb 2009)

I’ve always been a proud (and yes, like we all are, slightly snobbish) grammar geek. I’m proud to know the difference between a jail and a prison, that to evacuate hundreds of people would be reeeeeally messy, and that they actually feel “nauseated,” not “nauseous” by my grammar snobbish behaviour.

But one definition that has always eluded me is the difference between “more than” and “over.”

My gut feeling tells me that you use “over” when it’s in reference to physical measurement properties (over six storeys high, over eight feet tall, etc.) and use “more than” for non-physical references like (more than 600 people, or more than $400,000, etc.)

Anyone want to weigh in with their understanding of the right way to use these two?

	12 Comments »	Email This Post
	In Plain English	Posted at 5:25 pm (30 Apr 2008)

First, the background.

The Canadian Television Fund, a partnership between the feds and cable/satellite companies, essentially taxes those cable and satellite companies. The money gets redistributed to support producing and broadcasting Canadian content.

Broadcasters don’t get any money from the CTF, but rather the CTF directs it to the various independent shows they are ordering. The producers of those shows get the actual money from CTF, provided the shows meet Fund’s eligibility.

The CBC’s allocation is 37 per cent of the fund (minus administrative and other minor costs). In news releases, you’ll see allocation referred to as our “envelope.” (Why not just “allocation”? Who knows.)

The amount of money most broadcasters get changes from year-to-year based on things like audience success and regional activity. Over the years, audience success has become a more important factor to the CTF in determining how much of that pie you’re going to get (eat?).

The CBC’s 37% portion, though, doesn’t change. This is because, as the national public broadcaster, the CBC is mandated to deliver a wide range of Canadian content. So maximizing audience is not necessarily as big a goal as private broadcasters, for whom audience share (and, thus, advertising revenue and ultimately share price) is the primary consideration.

What the CBC proposed earlier this week.

1. That the fund not be split into two streams (one funded by government, one funded by cable/satellite providers)
2. That our 37 per cent envelope be retained as a minimum
3. That our success be measured the same way as that of other broadcasters, so that if our performance entitles us to more than 37 per cent of the Fund, we should get the higher amount

According to the CBC, if our recommendations are accepted, it would “ensure the Fund remains the best vehicle to promote Canadian programming, and would ensure that Canadians are able to see high-quality independent productions on television in prime time.”

	1 Comment »	Email This Post
	CTF Allocation, In Plain English	Posted at 1:14 pm (08 Feb 2008)