I Hate Non-Words

What you and Shale decide to do is of little concern to me. Dude.
However, it seems that you have neither moved on *nor* given up on taking the last "pointless kick" for yourself. Ay?

 

There will always be words that news organizations will not print. Should a newspaper review of George Carlin's famous routine or of a Richard Pryor performance quote the performer's words directly? The fact that certain words are acceptable in one context does not confer acceptability in all contexts.

A newspaper is not Huckleberry Finn. As discerning readers we are able to make the distinction between works of art and public forums like newspapers. News organizations make judgment calls of which words they will print and which they won't, based on FCC regulations as well as their own vision of journalistic propriety. Censoring these words doesn't imply that the news itself is censored. It becomes simply a matter of following the newspaper's journalistic protocols.

A "no-print" list comes about because all objectionable words are not equal. Some words carry connotations of such hatred and ugliness, and are so inflammatory, that perhaps it's best to simply avoid them altogether. Personally, I don't see a problem with that. I can see the point of view of a news organization wanting to add a layer of indirection between itself and words like "******". It's analogous to the indirection created by referring to people arrested for a crime as the alleged murderer. The use of "alleged" clarifies the newspaper's distance from the accusation itself.

Obviously, a newspaper's readers are free to disagree with its no-print list, just as they are free to be outraged at Huckleberry Finn. Fortunately, we have a choice in the newspapers we read.

 

Ironically, there is a free weekly here, Miami New Times that has printed all of Carlin's forbidden words. And any kid can pick that paper up out of a box on the street. It is just The Miami Herald that finds it necessary to protect someone's definition of "family values."

As the examples in my first post show, The Miami Herald chooses to make code words for "******" unlike the actual phrase of the Associated Press writer, which was printed in other respected newspapers.

And, my major complaint is with the infantile use of "Non-words." It would not be so glaring if the newspaper would just print "n----r" as a substitute for the word. F--k, they could use that style for "F-Word" to differentiate it from f----t.

The Miami Herald is the only daily in this area. We had a more liberal paper once but it did not survive in this conservative market in the 1980s. So now there is the stodgy Herald and the free weekly, which ironically often scoops the Herald on local issues.

Or, is the Herald avoiding those inflammatory stories of local hatred and ugliness that New Times digs up the same as it avoids unpleasant words?

 

I'd say it's an example of each publication choosing to set its own journalistic protocols. Why would the free weekly's choices be more valid than anyone else's?

Again, it's their choice.

I understand. I'm not unsympathetic to your opinion. I just don't happen to share it.

I don't see how that's the Herald's fault. And you can always choose newspapers from other cities, or online.

 

FCC does little to limit 'offensive words' in news works. News works are more free than any works, I mean, just look at 'To Catch a Predator'. They are protecting themselves from their audience.

The use of "alleged" however, is proper. If they do not say alleged, they are reporting false information.
The use of these non-words causes their information to be less accurate. Bad analogy.

Personally, I don't see much of a problem with the organizations choosing not to print 'offensive' words - but I sure as hell won't respect them.

The problem to me is that this is the standard (and that people get offended by dumb things =P).

 

The use of the word "alleged" is to avoid libel lawsuits. It has nothing to do with journalistic accuracy.

But you're not the one who decides what's "dumb" and what isn't, except to yourself. You are free to choose the news source you prefer.

 

I didn't mean to imply that literary works of art and newspapers were the same; I only wished to show that the words we use, or choose not to use, can change the impact of a story and alter the audience reaction.

I would say that the newspaper has censored the news, if it uses non-words instead of reporting verbatim, because it changes the impact of what actually happened or was said. What you're arguing here is whether or not that censorship is valid and reasonable. I guess that would depend on who we asked. There seems to be at least some consensus that verbatim reporting is preferable to fuzzy, feel-good, code words.

This is absolutely true. And what a good thing it is that we have not only the right to choose, but the variety of options from which to choose.

I think it's a safe bet that the bulk of a paper's readership would agree with its "no-print" protocol. Mainstream America tends to like things neat, clean and sanitized. I think most people would misconstrue a newspaper's use of forbidden words as the paper, itself, lacking moral integrity. They would identify the use of a word and the report of the usage as one and the same. We know this is true, because the same bunch of knuckleheads comes around perennially, trying to get Huckleberry Finn banned from school reading lists.

There are simply those who get it and those who probably never will.

 

That was excellent. Thanks for sharing. I couldn't agree more.