I was reading the archives of the blog Language Log, which in a post from June discussed the censoring of obscene language in newspapers. It contrasts the New York Times, which avoids the topic by using euphemisms such as "f-bomb" for "fuck", with the English newspaper The Guardian, whose style guide establishes that swearwords should always be spelled out in full when used in quotes or in the body of an article, though careful thought should be given as to whether the word is necessary and whether it will offend when not used in the context of a quote. Fair enough, I think. The post on Language Log goes on to mention other examples, but what do you folks think? Should newspapers, magazines and radio stations be considerate of their readers/listeners, or should they tell it like it is? And is there a difference between using a profanity in the context of a quotation and using one in the general text of an article? And within that, are there further divisions — say, could the word "bullshit" be used in an opinion piece but not in a news article? I ask for your consideration.
Sorry if it seems like I haven't replied to some of your comments. As the discussion facilitator I'm trying to step back from the discussions, such as in the last sex ed post. It would really help if I could get more comments and stimulate proper discussion, though! I do understand that the Blogger interface certainly doesn't provide for the ease of discussion that an h2g2 thread would, but it does allow people both from the online world and the real world to comment here. So comment, dammit! (Or should I not be saying "dammit" on a blog?)
Sunday, October 15, 2006
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Should an opinion piece be allowed to say, "George Bush is a fucking cunt"? Sure, it's fair comment, and the sort of language I use myself in daily speech...but it's hardly a reasoned argument, is it? Similarly, "bullshit" makes the point that the opinion writer disagrees with something...period. Let's have some reasoned argument! I've nothing against sweary-words per se, but I can't see them being effective too often in editorial content.
Yes, this is an area where the the more serious UK papers (The Grauniad, The Independent) are less prurient than the US...although our mass-market tabloids still go for asterisks and nudge-nudge, wink-wink. The Grauniad led the way a couple of years ago with a long cover article in their daily supplement section on Fuck (spelled out in big letters), in which they argued that the word is so prevelant that it can hadly be considered obscene. It also fairly regularly prints 'cunt' - a word which still causes media high-horsedness. And see also the Grauniad cartoon on my recipe blog (you'll have to scroll right down, due to some html madness)
(Oh...and you might also like my latest on http://bonoboworld.blogspot.com)
btw...I hope you understand that 'Guardian' is traditionally spelled 'Grauniad'.
A local paper once had, in the middle of a very well-written opinion piece, a starred-out swear word. It distressed me.
Why would you want to do that? Either don't use it at all (good general rule), or, if you feel you have a good reason, do use it. Properly. Starring it out seems sort of half-hearted.
Still, it is a free paper entierly supported by advertising, so perhaps he was worried about offending people's sensibilities.
TRiG. (I might sign up for a proper account here some day.)
I wrote "Guardian" for the benefit of our American readers, Edward. ;-)
I agree with TRiG — to star out a word is ridiculous. Any adult reading the publication is going to know the word and understand it from context.
Should an opinion piece be allowed to say, "George Bush is a fucking cunt"?
Absolutely, but sometimes a picture is worth a thousand words... ;)
no caption necessary
Post a Comment