Sun-Times Breaks Cursing Rule

Well, I wouldn't necessarily cheer for the end of "prudishness". I personally don't care if I read the words or not, but I respect the right of those who don't want to read it those words to not have to read it. Unless the newspaper comes with a "parental warning" thingy, I don't think it's fair to impose my who-gives-a-fuck-about-a-curse-word" attitude on someone else. Hell, I don't like it when someone tries to impose their view on how society should be on me.

I love to curse--one of god's greatest gifts to English speakers is the all-purpose word "fuck" and its many varieties--but I think I share some of Stealth's concerns. If the word really adds news value to a quote, use it, not the stupid dashes or symbols. But if cursing serves merely as a form of throat-clearing and place-holding--you know, like "uh" and "hmm" and the like--what's the point.

I also think all types of writers, whether nonfiction or fiction, are using curse words too much as a crutch, as a cheap and easy way to introduce some superficial edginess into their prose. I see this becoming more of a problem as newspapers struggle for hipness and edge. No, we should not ignore the realities of the world, or ways people speak, but we shouldn't roll around in the pig shi .. uh, waste ... just because we can.

Pet peeve: There is no such thing as "media self-censorship." Censorship, legally and historically--and despite efforts by some to cheapen the word and concept--means government prohibitions on speech and expression--prohibitions usually backed by threat of prosecution and/or persecution. Everything else is just a judgement call taken by a person or organization.

Margeret: Good point, but merely cursing--or recording a public figure cursing--does not make it newsworthy, I think. Context, meaning and intended target matter as well. It sometimes comes down to flash versus substance.

Yes, you are right, to a point, about censorship--much like "hero", "legendary" and "tragic," its meaning has broadened and been diluted so much that nearly any group with any grievance can cry "censorship" and find sympathetic ears. In short, the word, as its meaning has broadened, has lost much its specific meaning. (And some dictionaries, as good as they are, merely reflect the broadest popular use. That is what dictionaries do. But popular use does not automatically indicate logical use, or even respect for the history behind the word.)

but i think in this case, the point is made well by actually printing the word/s in question. the point is bristol can say this stuff and people clap him on the back and say, 'good work, son! defend yourself and your country.' but if a black man said that stuff, he'd be an angry man to be feared and potentially arrested.

it's my whole beef with people referring to the word nigger as "the n-word." it's an ugly, nasty word with terrible connotations and a long history of despicable behavior, including horrific killing and violence. so say it out loud if referencing another's inappropriate use -- let people hear how awful it is. let people be reminded that it was not so long ago that it was used in regular discourse without much thought.

fuck has lost a lot of that kind of power, but when used in the appropriate context, it can occasionally pack a good punch now and again.

it's my whole beef with people referring to the word nigger as "the n-word." it's an ugly, nasty word with terrible connotations and a long history of despicable behavior, including horrific killing and violence. so say it out loud if referencing another's inappropriate use -- let people hear how awful it is. let people be reminded that it was not so long ago that it was used in regular discourse without much thought.

Good point and I wholeheartedly agree... and i find no difference between the word whether it ends with an "er" or an "a", no matter what some no-high-school-diploma-havin' rapper says.

Agreed generally with the point of the post, but using these words on a blog post on a website is not the same as them being printed in the NYT for instance. Don't count your eggs or whatever yet.

But when that blog is owned and operated by the same people who prints the NYT, it matters. It's not like the stuff is being printed on the private blogs of the reporters. It's basically still "The New York Times", blog or no blog.

Regarding the above references to The New York Times, I don't consider that paper to have any more word-related wisdom than the Sun-Times.

Sure, the NYT is national, but it's become a national joke. And the Sun-Times is a local joke.

I don't care with whom the blog is affiliated, still isn't considered MSM which means in the end, this doesn't mean shit.

When blogs are quoted as factual news sources involving things that presidential races, they are "MSM" (whatever that means nowadays), matter how "snarky", etc. And it goes double for a "blog" (which is usually just an extention of the paper's regular columnist's work anyway) that is owned by the major newspaper. I mean, who writes the checks for that?

Guided by the NY Times? Are you serious? I highly, higly doubt these massive institutions of media wait to take the lead of the NYTimes. The actual newsworthy happenings might have a spec more influence on what gets covered, along with what drives viewership or readership. But as far as waiting to see or getting tips on what the NYtimes is covering is probably what pretty sad, pathetic, lonely, and poor bloggers do.