Rove's nickname?
Mike Oliver
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
Turd Blossom.
Time Magazine had no qualms printing it:
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,107219,00.html
An explanation is given in "First Son: George W. Bush and the Bush
Family Dynasty", by Bill Minutaglio:
"Everybody must have a nickname, and the spin doctor has a quality
nickname, Turd Blossom — as in
wherever-he-goes-something-is-sure-to-pop-up."
See http://www.nytimes.com/books/first/m/minutaglio-son.html
--Ben
Mike Oliver
> 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.
Joe Manfre
> Ben Zimmer wrote:
>> Mike Oliver wrote:
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.
JM
--
Joe Manfre, Hyattsville, Maryland.
R H Draney
>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?
R H Draney
Ben Zimmer
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
Joe Manfre
> 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?
Ben Zimmer
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.
--Ben