Chicagoist: Sun-Times Breaks Cursing Rule

matilda

Thu, 18 Sep 2008 10:05:17 -0600

Mepps: You are wrong. Monitor the news sometime and see how many stories started as articles in the New York Times. Seriously, do it. Then report back with your facts. You can do this with local news, too: See how many radio or TV stories on local channels started as articles in the Trib or Sun-Times or even Daily Herald. I'll wait for your facts. Someone who comments on the media, I think, should have an idea of how the media actually works. You wouldn't comment on baseball, for instance, if you didn't know how it was played, right?

mepps

Wed, 17 Sep 2008 16:07:35 -0600

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.

matilda

Wed, 17 Sep 2008 14:50:09 -0600

Sure, the NYT is national, but it's become a national joke. And the Sun-Times is a local joke. Don't know what that has to do with anything, but because the NYT is such a joke, that must be the reason nearly every TV newscast--broadcast and cable--as well nearly every smaller paper, and many, many blog media outlets, including those that call themselves conservative, either directly use or are guided by the New York Time's coverage of the day. The paper simply has better resources, more reporting talent and more reach and influence than most other media outlets in the USA and world. You personally may not like the Times, and there's nothing wrong with that, but let's not dwell in fantasy, either, Ward.

Stealth

Wed, 17 Sep 2008 14:44:24 -0600

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?

Margaret Lyons

Wed, 17 Sep 2008 14:35:25 -0600

It's different. I was mostly joking about the "end of prudishness." It's definitely not the end, and I think if anyone were editing the ST blogs, this probably wouldn't have gone through. But I do think it's a good sign and not completely insignificant.

Ward Up

Wed, 17 Sep 2008 14:35:14 -0600

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.

jennyblur

Wed, 17 Sep 2008 14:23:56 -0600

@Stealth: It is absolutely different. NYT print edition is considered a newspaper of record and kind of a harbinger of journalistic standards. Printing quoted expletives on a regional newspaper's website isn't the same as a paper like the NYT deciding to print a quote like Cheney's "Fuck" or one of Bush's uses of "shit". 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.

Stealth

Wed, 17 Sep 2008 14:15:19 -0600

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.

jennyblur

Wed, 17 Sep 2008 14:05:59 -0600

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.

Stealth

Wed, 17 Sep 2008 14:00:13 -0600

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.

dopplerd

Wed, 17 Sep 2008 13:31:01 -0600

Are all utterances equal? Did the ST redact (which seems to be a better term than censor) the "Go fuck yourself" quote from Dick Cheney to Pat Leahy? Also I forward stuff I find on the internet to my friends and family all the time. Can I be a Suntimes columnist? That is the much bigger journalist issue here, IMO. While attribution is given it is an obvious cut-n-paste job. Maybe that is how the F-bomb slipped in.

smussy

Wed, 17 Sep 2008 13:30:39 -0600

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.

Slaphappy

Wed, 17 Sep 2008 13:27:49 -0600

The quoted passage in this post is 100% true. I've often wondered about the firestorm that would have erupted had a 17-year-old Obama daughter been knocked up by some black kid.

matilda

Wed, 17 Sep 2008 13:19:43 -0600

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.)

Stealth

Wed, 17 Sep 2008 13:18:11 -0600

It's not even a question of protection or if someone is "fooled" by them printing "f*ck" instead of fuck or something. Yeah it might be silly to substitute dashes or whatnot, but there is a large segment of society that for whatever reason, would prefer not to read the word. Silly? Probably. But it's not a big enough issue for me to insist that newspaper include the whole word or applaude when they do. Like I said, I can live without reading it or WITH reading it. And it adds nothing to include the key word if it's implied. (And not, it doesn't logically follow that they might as well "imply" the entire story).

Margaret Lyons

Wed, 17 Sep 2008 13:08:38 -0600

@matilda: I don't think writers should use it in an article ("There was a fucking massive traffic jam today at..."), but when it's a quote from someone in a story? It's news. Re: censorship, I think the definition is sufficiently broad.

garlic

Wed, 17 Sep 2008 13:03:49 -0600

It protects parents, by makeing them believe in the innocence of their children, even though said innocence is only in their mind.

matilda

Wed, 17 Sep 2008 13:02:07 -0600

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.

Margaret Lyons

Wed, 17 Sep 2008 12:49:42 -0600

But how is reading "f---" different? I don't get what that adds, or who that protects. If it's a quote, it's a quote.

Stealth

Wed, 17 Sep 2008 12:45:04 -0600

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.