Earthquake 5 : mind your language

Nearly 2 weeks after the first earthquake, but only 6 hours after the latest tremor, there is a little more time to reflect on the experience. The use of language to describe it has been interesting. We have been reading reports on the news, writing reports ourselves and also written an appeal letter to raise funds to help with rebuilding.
There is a temptation to use extreme words, although in terms of global news this was a relatively unimportant, 1-day story : the death toll was under 40 and none of the essential services were affected. How do you generate interest in a “minor” earthquake in an obscure part of central Africa? By using language like “ripped”, “major”, “disaster”. These draw attention, even though the resulting descriptions cannot really said to be an accurate reflection of what has happened, what life is like or how it feels to be here for most of the population.
Of course, it is different for those who have been suddenly bereaved, or for those whose house is badly damaged, or even for those who are wondering how they will afford even the small repairs which are necessary.
So, on the whole this is not a “catastrophe”, but it is certainly a big setback for many families and for the communities. While we can hope for a response which is appropriate and considered, we are also hoping for one which is generous and loving.
Postscript - there is also a temptation to show the most dramatic pictures and I freely confess to succumbing to this. The photos I published recently showed the worst damage we have seen. My excuse is that there simply is no point in taking pictures of hairline cracks in a wall. I watched a whole minute of these on Congolese television and it was excruciating.