The NYT can spend multiple paragraphs avoiding quoting a naughty word


1 Like

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

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

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”.

The New York Times does not give a single fuck.

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

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.

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