The NYT can spend multiple paragraphs avoiding quoting a naughty word


#1

[Permalink]


#2

Scutwork? really? What percentage of the population know that Shitwork is a version of that?


#3

Wasn’t it at the Times that J. Anthony Lukas coined the “barnyard epithet” euphemism? At least that had the virtue of terseness.


#4

They once interviewed one of the Mythbusters, who said something like “This is the point in the show where we get to blow [stuff] up!”, and explained that he had actually used a different word instead of “stuff”.


#5

The New York Times does not give a single fuck.


#6

Came for the “Zero! Zero fucks given!” Left satisfied.


#7

Meanwhile, this from The Guardian’s Media Monkey on Wednesday, about the Daily Telegraph:

However, the Telegraph can’t quite bring itself to print the words “shagging”, opting for “s-------” instead and telling readers that it is “a vulgar term for sexual intercourse”. “B----” doesn’t make the cut either – it makes Monkey wonder how the paper manages to cover Wimbledon.

Fuck**g weird.


#8

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