Wow. Our experiment is off to a great start—let's see if we can finish it off sooner than expected.
Day 62 and we're well beyond the point where "oil spill" does justice to the slow motion tragedy unfolding in the Gulf. Spill, of course, suggest that a finite quantity has been released. But not only is the Gulf gusher still gushing, we still don't know exactly how much it's spewing. The latest federal estimates the well could be leaking as much as 65,000 barrels per day. An internal BP document, meanwhile, indicates that it could reach 100,000 barrels a day if the worst-case-scenario plays out.
So how should those of us reporting on the disaster refer to it? "Spill" has been the noun of choice, likely because it is both short and the term we are most familiar with based on previous oil accidents, like the Exxon Valdez. But this piece in the Biloxi Sun Herald yesterday raises a good point: Why don't reporters start referring to it by something more accurate?
Some of the ideas floated in the piece:
I figured we should throw this out to readers as well. What do you think reporters should be calling this?