Words. Despite writers' tenacious love affairs with them, we too must admit that sometimes they are ascribed too much authority. Sometimes the power of words is misplaced.

Worse: Misappropriated.

Dangerously devolved into an oft-repeated justification for aggression has been one simple phrase, now revealed to be (at best) a misquote. According to a 2005 New York Times article, Iranian President Ahmadinejad was quoted in translation that he wants to "wipe Israel off the map."

Guess what? That's not the correct translation, and he didn't say it anyway. He was quoting the late imam Khomeini, who said he wanted a "change of regime in occupied Jerusalem," a holy city to all three Abrahamic religions. Leaders of nations often talk of regime changes, even forced, but that's a far cry from suggesting an entire nation be wiped off the (unmentioned) map.

So posits Canadian economics professor Michael Chossudovsky in his new book, "Towards World War III Scenario: The Dangers of Nuclear War." Never mind the author or his opinions; the quote can be translated by anyone who speaks Farsi. I do. He's right.

If not words themselves, their meanings can also be misappropriated.

The relative powers of two other words come to mind: Talib. Jihad.

Talib (-an for plural) simply means "student." So many kinds ofstudents there are - of philosophy, mathematics, plumbing...

Jihad - a word with which I fell in love as a young child for its quiet wisdom - means simply, "struggle." Mainstream Muslims see jihad as a vehicle of human development. A daily inner struggle against life's common difficulties, a chance to develop the strength to overcome temptations, weaknesses, and challenges. Jihads are against jealousies, prejudices, avoiding responsibilities, judgment, fatigue, laziness, dishonesty, unkindness - all those human foibles each of us fights to overcome through life. Kept pure, a beautiful word.

On the other hand, sometimes words are not given enough measure.

In this frenetic atmosphere of over-information from dubious sources, the instant gratification Internet and its unverified "facts" cloaked in tempting bias, I miss the fairness doctrine. Born of Congressional concern in 1949 that the new TV networks would have too much influence over the American public (and weren't they right?), the fairness doctrine was an FCC rule that TV and radio had to include alternate perspectives in their broadcasts on issues of public importance. Ah, those were the days.

The fairness doctrine ended in 1987. While Congress took stabs at reviving it, the attempts died under threats of veto by the Reagan and G.H. Bush administrations. The doctrine still has proponents, although President Obama hasn't declared himself much of a fan, either. Lobbies are strong; the networks' one-sided "news" talk shows are heavy hitters. Ironically, the doctrine wouldn't apply to them anyway; the FCC never included talk shows in its application.

With ever-increasing need in this sound/e-alert/text bite age, it's incumbent upon the information consumer to think critically and independently, to skeptically verify, to seek out other perspectives before forming conclusive opinions. It is our jihad, perhaps the greatest of modern civilization.

Sholeh Patrick is a columnist for the Hagadone News Network. Contact her at sholehjo@hotmail.com.