Profanity Has Its Eff-ing Place In News Reporting

Reply Fri 5 Aug, 2011 06:42 am

Think of the F word.
Yep, the one that ends with U-C-K.

Yeah, that one. Firetruck.

Tune into the news tonight and you'll probably see people dead, dying or both. No one complains. But use a profanity in print, on TV or the radio, and watch the complaints roll in.

Why are people so quick to pounce when a few of the 26 letters in our alphabet are arranged in a certain order?

There may be the occasional nun or some pious soul with a dodgy heart who feels their blood pressure rise when faced with a "bad word," but for most people, it's all an act.

People pretend to be offended by cursing because they think they are meant to be outraged. They hear a particular word, and instead of imagining what that word actually means, they take it as a trigger to act the role of the offended person. Some deserve an Oscar for their carrying on.

Case in point: if I write S#@&, are you offended? If I write feces or excrement, does that go too far? When you read each of those words, you knew exactly what I was referring to, but only if I type all four letters of the slang word will some people feel the urge to be upset.

Vulgarity is in the ear or eye of the receiver. You can choose to ignore the word or you can choose to be offended.

There's further proof that cursing is a figment of our imaginations: if a word is bad, isn't it bad forever? Apparently not, because society's standards change with the calendar. Damn was a hell of a word for newspapers a generation or two ago, but can be used freely today without complaint.

This week, a French newspaper in Montreal used a bit of Anglo slang in a headline to describe possible falsehoods spoken by the Quebec Transport minister. Let's play the written version of charades: eight letters, starts with bull and ends with a word meaning excrement.

Should the editors have allowed it to be printed? People will land on both sides of the issue, but there's no doubt bull*&%! can now gleefully appear in Quebec newspapers without attracting many complaints. Society's standards have changed yet again.

When the media gets on board with common usage of language, it's good news for readers – even the ones who pretend to be offended. People who read the news expect to be presented with facts, not fairy stories.

If a media company took out the potentially upsetting bits of a story – maybe turning starving people into well-fed ones – the news outlet would be slammed and then spurned by readers, viewers or listeners. No one would trust them to deliver the truth.

Why should it be any different in situations when profanity has news value: when a political candidate calls an opponent a fornicator, or a famous actor attacks someone else's religion by equating them to rodent feces?

You can choose for yourself: there's no reason to ask the media to decide which words are OK for your eyes or ears.

Should the media print or air profanity when it's intrinsic to the story? Or should they bleep them out or use *%# symbols in their place?

i'd love it if newscasters just told it like they think it is, we all know how it is, it's the news, but if you're reporting a story about a drunk driver who killed a family and you want to call him a piece of ******* ****, i'm all for it
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 9 • Views: 2,967 • Replies: 10
No top replies

Reply Tue 9 Aug, 2011 06:17 am
Maybe it comes down a person's perspective, I personally dislike cursing, some words worse than others. I don't like it in movies or the news. To me it takes away from the whole story or plot and merely focuses on the word. Plus I just don't like cursing. I hope the day don't come when news reporters use curse words as much as they do in the movies and it just becomes common place. To me, it is just trashy. But then, we all have our own particular view of things.

Your right though, bleeping or symbols are just ridiculous and childish.
Reply Tue 9 Aug, 2011 07:10 am
I understand where you're coming from and to a large degree I agree, but too much cursing becomes ineffective and can sound ugly. Often it's unnecessary and doesn't do anything for the story. Well-placed curses, however, can be extremely effective. I don't need to read or hear a story that goes like this:

Reporter to victim: So what happened?
Victim: The ************ stole my ******* car, the ******* asshole!
Reporter: So what did you do?
Victim: I called the ******* pigs and told them a motherfucking asshole stole my ******* car!

Know what I mean?
Reply Tue 9 Aug, 2011 10:01 am
Yeah. That sounded like an episode of "The Sopranos." Laughing
0 Replies
Reply Tue 9 Aug, 2011 11:24 am
You swore Mame! Crying or Very sad I'm telling Mother Hamster on you. Sad
0 Replies
Reply Tue 9 Aug, 2011 11:30 am
I don't like it in movies or the news.

So an illiterate thug/drug dealer should be speaking in perfect Victorian era English?

Now, I can see your discomfort on the subject of swearing in the news and the greater trend, BROADCAST television sitcoms and dramas where the censors have become far more relaxed in allowing some pretty strong language that has never passed before.

To me it takes away from the whole story or plot and merely focuses on the word.

It's a sign of really bad writing when this happens and/or you have a severe affliction of ADHD and you're easily diverted from a simple plot or subplot thread.
0 Replies
Reply Tue 9 Aug, 2011 12:24 pm
Mame wrote:
...too much cursing becomes ineffective and can sound ugly. Often it's unnecessary and doesn't do anything for the story. Well-placed curses, however, can be extremely effective.

Yes. And I wouldn't say I'm offended so much as annoyed by abundant cursing, as I prefer the affore mentioned more strategic usage.
0 Replies
Reply Tue 9 Aug, 2011 12:37 pm
Nobody was ever abused, killed, robbed or beaten up by the word ****.
Reply Tue 9 Aug, 2011 12:38 pm
Perhaps, but it could be a contributing factor - it can be a rather inflammatory, provocative word.
Reply Tue 9 Aug, 2011 12:47 pm
My late wife loved hearing the legendary Peter Cook swearing.
Reply Tue 9 Aug, 2011 08:08 pm
Video not available in my country..
0 Replies

Related Topics

There is a word for that! - Discussion by wandeljw
Best Euphemism for death and dying.... - Discussion by tsarstepan
Let pupils abandon spelling rules, says academic - Discussion by Robert Gentel
Help me!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! - Question by lululucy
phrase/name of male seducer - Question by Zah03
Shameful sexist languge must be banned! - Question by neologist
Three Word Phrase I REALLY Hate to See - Discussion by hawkeye10
Is History an art or a science? - Question by Olivier5
"Rooms" in a cave - Question by shua
  1. Forums
  2. » Profanity Has Its Eff-ing Place In News Reporting
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 11/29/2022 at 09:11:19