Blog tracks NYT's avoidance of naughty words




"obscenity favored by mobsters"? Which one is that?


MOTHERFUCKERS, we dwell in an obscenity-ridden culture and the Times is ON IT.


They interviewed Adam Savage* from Mythbusters once. The article said something about like
' "Now's the part of the show where we get to blow stuff up" (He actually used a different word instead of "stuff".)'

(*I think it was Adam rather than Jamie, but it was long enough ago that I could have been misremembering that.)


"The rapper French Montana gave an unaswer that features two unprintable worlds with that between them"
What, exactly, is an unaswer?


You will have to travel to an unprintable world to find out.


"Ah, Applesauce! You better make with the Cabbage real soon or your Broad is gonna have to get you fitted for a Chicago Overcoat, see??"



I definitely have memories of the newspaper in the closest city to me printing full quotations without censoring words. They seem to have stopped that when they got bought by Sun Media. The local TV news still occasionally airs stories without bleeping what someone said. They usually give a "strong language" warning just before though.

I'd much prefer they just print the actual quote. Printing that someone "used a derogatory phrase for a homosexual man" can mean a lot of things. The specific words used can make a huge difference in meaning. "Knob-gobbler", "cocksucker", and "fucking queer" all mean different things.


This really annoys me. First, do they think their readers are twelve? Second, the policy seems to stem from a linguistically silly assumption that words have a single inherent, fixed meaning that offends (and ought to offend) whatever the context.


This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.