In today's LA times, there's a profile of Karl Rove, a key staffer for President Bush. The following paragraph appears:
The dynamic is reflected in the two nicknames Bush has for Rove. One is "boy genius." The other is not suitable for a family newspaper.
This phrasing seems oddly prissy, for the paper of record for the city which has a near monopoly on the production of heterosexual pornography (a distinction we'll lose if the Valley secedes). You'd think they'd have given you enough clues to figure the nickname out.
In any case, does anyone know what this "other" nickname is?
> In today's LA times, there's a profile of Karl Rove, a key > staffer for President Bush. The following paragraph > appears:
> The dynamic is reflected in the two nicknames > Bush has for Rove. One is "boy genius." The > other is not suitable for a family newspaper.
> This phrasing seems oddly prissy, for the paper of record > for the city which has a near monopoly on the production > of heterosexual pornography (a distinction we'll lose if > the Valley secedes). You'd think they'd have given you > enough clues to figure the nickname out.
> In any case, does anyone know what this "other" nickname > is?
Ben Zimmer wrote: > Mike Oliver wrote: >> In any case, does anyone know what this "other" nickname >> is?
> Turd Blossom.
Well, I have to say I'm a little surprised the Times wouldn't print *that*. I'm pretty sure I've even seen the word "shit" in the Times--not in the main newspaper, but in one of the insert tabloids, perhaps the book review. I guess standards are to some extent left to the individual copywriter.
Mike Oliver (oli...@math.ucla.edu) wrote: > Ben Zimmer wrote: >> Mike Oliver wrote: >>> In any case, does anyone know what this "other" nickname is?
>> Turd Blossom.
> Well, I have to say I'm a little surprised the Times wouldn't print > *that*. I'm pretty sure I've even seen the word "shit" in the > Times--not in the main newspaper, but in one of the insert tabloids, > perhaps the book review. I guess standards are to some extent left > to the individual copywriter.
What sort of article was it? A lot of times, columnists and feature writers, or someone writing a features-ish article, will say that some word "isn't usable in a family newspaper" in a jocular or facetious sense, especially if they believe that a lot of readers will already know what the word is. The use of "family" in the phrase "family newspaper" is, I think, intended as the tipoff that there's a twinkle in the writer's eye. It doesn't *literally* mean that some higher-up at the newspaper told the writer not to use the word; if a newspaper doesn't want to print something, it generally doesn't come right out and say so like that. The writer or copyeditor will just leave it out or just find some way to dance around it, or so it seems to me. Rey Aman has some examples of this on his Web site.
>===== Original Message From Mike Oliver <oli...@math.ucla.edu> ===== >Ben Zimmer wrote: >> Mike Oliver wrote: >>> In any case, does anyone know what this "other" nickname >>> is?
>> Turd Blossom.
>Well, I have to say I'm a little surprised the Times wouldn't >print *that*. I'm pretty sure I've even seen the word >"shit" in the Times--not in the main newspaper, but in >one of the insert tabloids, perhaps the book review. >I guess standards are to some extent left to the individual >copywriter.
Some papers actually *do* have lists of words they won't allow, even in advertising...I remember that the movie "Whore" (starring Theresa Russell) had to be listed in some places as "If You Can't Say It, See It"...El Paso comes to mind; I think they had problems some years earlier with "The Best Little Whorehouse In Texas", which was known in its own titular state (oh, stop it!) under the title "The Chicken Ranch"....
Some time later, a music festival here in Phoenix found one of its headliners abbreviated as "B. H. Surfers" in all printed mention of the event...the same newspapers apparently had no problem with another group called "The Chingaderos"....r
-- What good is being an executive if you never get to execute anyone?
>===== Original Message From Mike Oliver <oli...@math.ucla.edu> ===== >Ben Zimmer wrote: >> Mike Oliver wrote: >>> In any case, does anyone know what this "other" nickname >>> is?
>> Turd Blossom.
>Well, I have to say I'm a little surprised the Times wouldn't >print *that*. I'm pretty sure I've even seen the word >"shit" in the Times--not in the main newspaper, but in >one of the insert tabloids, perhaps the book review. >I guess standards are to some extent left to the individual >copywriter.
Some papers actually *do* have lists of words they won't allow, even in advertising...I remember that the movie "Whore" (starring Theresa Russell) had to be listed in some places as "If You Can't Say It, See It"...El Paso comes to mind; I think they had problems some years earlier with "The Best Little Whorehouse In Texas", which was known in its own titular state (oh, stop it!) under the title "The Chicken Ranch"....
Some time later, a music festival here in Phoenix found one of its headliners abbreviated as "B. H. Surfers" in all printed mention of the event...the same newspapers apparently had no problem with another group called "The Chingaderos"....r
-- What good is being an executive if you never get to execute anyone?
> >>> In any case, does anyone know what this "other" nickname is?
> >> Turd Blossom.
> > Well, I have to say I'm a little surprised the Times wouldn't print > > *that*. I'm pretty sure I've even seen the word "shit" in the > > Times--not in the main newspaper, but in one of the insert tabloids, > > perhaps the book review. I guess standards are to some extent left > > to the individual copywriter.
> What sort of article was it? A lot of times, columnists and feature > writers, or someone writing a features-ish article, will say that some > word "isn't usable in a family newspaper" in a jocular or facetious > sense, especially if they believe that a lot of readers will already > know what the word is. The use of "family" in the phrase "family > newspaper" is, I think, intended as the tipoff that there's a twinkle > in the writer's eye. It doesn't *literally* mean that some higher-up > at the newspaper told the writer not to use the word; if a newspaper > doesn't want to print something, it generally doesn't come right out > and say so like that. The writer or copyeditor will just leave it out > or just find some way to dance around it, or so it seems to me. Rey > Aman has some examples of this on his Web site.
A quick Nexis search shows:
--------
"'Nothing will excuse my not seeing the two together and saying, "Shit, this is wrong,"' [Times senior vice president for advertising John] McKeon now concedes." A BUSINESS DEAL DONE -- A CONTROVERSY BORN FOR THE RECORD, LA Times, 12/20/99
"Throughout 'Tough Jews,' Cohen reads himself into the action, imagining the words and feelings of his gangsters in triumph and in defeat. A sample: 'As he ran, the Kid Abe Reies must have been thinking, Shit. Joey. Joey Silver. Multiple epithets. Set us up. Chose the wrong gang. Better hope we don't live.'" Book Review of "Tough Jews", 3/29/98
"'I'm sorry for what happened Jesus Christ I'm disgusted I'm not that kind of a shit really!'" Excerpt from "You Must Remember This" by Joyce Carol Oates, 10/4/87
-------
The second and third are simply quoting from novels, so perhaps the Book Review has laxer standards. But the first one is fascinating, because it comes from an expose the LA Times ran *on itself* regarding a controversy over a special issue of the Sunday magazine on the Staples Center (it turned out that the advertising profits from the magazine were split with the Staples Center). So they can quote their own ad exec saying "shit" (apologetically) but can't quote the President saying "turd" (jocularly)? Interesting...
Ben Zimmer (bgzim...@midway.uchicago.edu) wrote: > So they can quote their own ad exec saying "shit" (apologetically) > but can't quote the President saying "turd" (jocularly)? > Interesting...
I think you need to reread what I wrote. I put the important part in all caps this time.
>> A lot of times, columnists and feature writers, or someone writing >> a features-ish article, will say that some word "isn't usable in a >> family newspaper" IN A JOCULAR OR FACETIOUS SENSE,
The "in a jocular or facetious sense" refers to the "will say" above; in other words, the writer of the newspaper article is the one who is being jocular or facetious. Continuing right along:
>> especially if they believe that a lot of readers will already know >> what the word is. The use of "family" in the phrase "family >> newspaper" is, I think, intended as the tipoff that THERE'S A >> TWINKLE IN THE WRITER'S EYE. IT DOESN'T *LITERALLY* MEAN THAT >> SOME HIGHER-UP AT THE NEWSPAPER TOLD THE WRITER NOT TO USE THE >> WORD; IF A NEWSPAPER DOESN'T WANT TO PRINT SOMETHING, IT GENERALLY >> DOESN'T COME RIGHT OUT AND SAY SO LIKE THAT. The writer or >> copyeditor will just leave it out or just find some way to dance >> around it, or so it seems to me. Rey Aman has some examples of >> this on his Web site.
> Ben Zimmer (bgzim...@midway.uchicago.edu) wrote:
> > So they can quote their own ad exec saying "shit" (apologetically) > > but can't quote the President saying "turd" (jocularly)? > > Interesting...
> I think you need to reread what I wrote. I put the important part in > all caps this time.
> >> A lot of times, columnists and feature writers, or someone writing > >> a features-ish article, will say that some word "isn't usable in a > >> family newspaper" IN A JOCULAR OR FACETIOUS SENSE,
> The "in a jocular or facetious sense" refers to the "will say" above; > in other words, the writer of the newspaper article is the one who is > being jocular or facetious. Continuing right along:
> >> especially if they believe that a lot of readers will already know > >> what the word is. The use of "family" in the phrase "family > >> newspaper" is, I think, intended as the tipoff that THERE'S A > >> TWINKLE IN THE WRITER'S EYE. IT DOESN'T *LITERALLY* MEAN THAT > >> SOME HIGHER-UP AT THE NEWSPAPER TOLD THE WRITER NOT TO USE THE > >> WORD; IF A NEWSPAPER DOESN'T WANT TO PRINT SOMETHING, IT GENERALLY > >> DOESN'T COME RIGHT OUT AND SAY SO LIKE THAT. The writer or > >> copyeditor will just leave it out or just find some way to dance > >> around it, or so it seems to me. Rey Aman has some examples of > >> this on his Web site.
> Got it now?
Sheesh, no need to get snippy about it. The examples on Rey Aman's site (see http://www.sonic.net/maledicta/quickies.5.html) suggest that the policy of the LA Times and other major papers is to censor obscenities across the board, jocular or not. He notes that the LA Times bowdlerized Tom Delay's use of "gutless chickenshit" to a House colleague, saying merely that he "directed a profanity". I was merely pointing out what seem to be the *exceptions* that the LA Times has made to the obscenity ban: 1) writers of prose and fiction, and 2) (more strangely) its own vice-president.
|
