There's been plenty of discussion on this blog regarding how the contortions involved in media self-censorship often transform what would otherwise be a simple report involving the use of foul or abusive language into an impenetrable thicket of euphemisms that leaves the reader at a loss to understand what the hell actually happened and who would supposedly be offended.

Of course, sometimes the meaning is perfectly clear, as in this example from – you guessed it – The New York Times:

Otherwise it may take a practiced eye and ear to realize that a popular Anglo-Saxon expletive is acceptable in a PG-13 movie as long as it is only heard once and does not refer to a sexual act.

Short of rendering the word in question as f--k, its hard to see how A. O. Scott – or, more likely, his editors – could have been clearer about the word in question while still keeping the article suitable for a family paper. Well, unless he just wrote out fuck, since, as he just noted, even as prudish a body as the MPAA is okay with 13-year-olds hearing the word in a non-sexual context, and it's not like anyone under 13 (or 30) is going to read this article. [The one part of Scott's phrase that doesn't help to clarify anything is his reference to an "Anglo-Saxon expletive." Pace anyone who still says "pardon my French," all of the popular expletives come from the Germanic side of the language.]

But Scott does give us a clue as to why newspapers still engage in this charade:

It is easy to scoff at that rating only if you have never received angry letters from parents or grandparents appalled by profanity.

So journalists, like movie producers, keep their language clean not because they're worried about what children might hear or read, but because they're concerned about what adults might worry about what children might hear or read. Which means that until the members of a profession that claim to stand up to presidents and CEOs show their willingness to stand up to Grandpa Simpson, it looks like I'll have plenty of things to post here.

12:05 AM :: Comments (7)

"By taking the first letter of each line, beginning with the third line, two words emerge: The first is obscene; the second is 'you.'" - New York Times

"As in, a certain four-letter curse word, followed by its familiar friend 'you.'" - The edgy San Jose Mercury News

"However, a vertical reading of the first left-hand letter in each of the seven lines of the main body of the email suggests that the former Kindergarten Cop actor, who is due to leave office next year, was passing on an altogether less statesmanlike message. It reads: 'F-U-C-K-Y-O-U.'" - The Independent.

Well, at least newspapers in the UK aren't afraid to print the news. Indeed, the Independent went so far as to call out the US reporters for self-censorship. "The California governor yesterday found himself attempting to play down the revelation that a blunt email he sent to one of San Francisco's Democratic Assemblymen contained what US news bulletins have somewhat prudishly described as an 'X-rated rebuke'."

On a side note, many media outlets are grabbing onto the word "acrostic" in order to describe the positioning of the secret message, which is presumably because they all read each others' articles before writing their own.

The Governor's office is denying the message was intentional. I personally don't believe Arnold's message was meant to say "Fuck You". If you look at the letter more carefully, the real message is "I Fuck You", a somehow more obscene phrase which has its own implications.

12:34 PM :: Comments (6)

Regular readers of this blog are familiar with all the self-censorship that goes on in today's media. But it wasn't always thus. As Radosh.net Senior Lexicological Correspondent Jesse Sheidlower notes in a recent article for Slate, the New York Times – the Gray Lady herself, so fond these days of reminding us that it is a family newspaper – used to object to this kind of behavior:

In 1966, Jess Stein, the editor-in-chief of the major Random House Dictionary of the English Language, told the New York Times about a meeting he convened with the company's editorial and sales staff to discuss the words cunt and fuck. "When I uttered the words there was a shuffling of feet, and a wave of embarrassment went through the room," he said. "That convinced me the words did not belong in the dictionary, though I'm sure I'll be attacked as a prude for the decision."

Stein did not have to wait long to be proven right on the last point: A mere two weeks later, the Times' own book reviewer wrote, "Unfortunately, a stupid prudery has prevented the inclusion of probably the most widely-used word in the English language. The excuse here, no doubt, is 'good taste'; but in a dictionary of this scope and ambition the omission seems dumb and irresponsible."

Anyone care to spend $3.95 to see if the Times actually printed that "most widely-used word" in the original piece? Actually, don't. I'd rather hold onto the fantasy. Instead, read Sheidlower's article for some great info on the correct usage of terms like prong and irrumo, and then buy the updated edition of The F-Word. I haven't picked up the new one yet, but the original is one of the best books on language I've ever read (and, yes, I have read more than one).

(Disclaimer: Unlike this blog's originator/namesake, I've never actually met or corresponded with Jesse Sheidlower. I just appreciate a man dedicated enough to his job that he will track down the full usage history of phrases like "hotter than a fresh-fucked fox in a forest fire" and "you look like a monkey trying to fuck a football.")

1:36 PM :: Comments (8)

Deadspin gets in on the media self-censorship watchdogging with a particularly lovely item about a training routine whose name "cannot be mentioned in a family newspaper or on the Internet, but it has to do with, um, maturation."

I bet you didn't know there were words too outrageous for the Internet.

By the way, my NYT Mag piece on The Beatles: Rock Band originally included a special self-censorship wink for you, my blog followers, but unfortunately it was flagged and killed at the last possible second. A shadow of it remains, which I think you'll spot. Just know that the word "family" very nearly went to press as "uptight."

2:28 PM :: Comments (7)

Does media self-censorship sound more sophisticated with a British accent? A reader alerts me to this humorous decorum from Metro.co.uk.

Apprentice loser Ben: I was a k**b: "Fired Apprentice loser Ben Clarke... conceded he was a 'bit of a k**b' after making a string of enemies on the show following nine weeks."

In a related matter, here are some web sites 14-year-old British boys find absolutely hilarious:

Knob Gallery

Nice Knobs!

MyKnobs.com

Top Knobs USA

Knobs4Less.com

Bob's Knobs

House of Knobs

Blue Knob

Knobs N Knockers

4:25 PM :: Comments (6)

Last week, the New York Times had an authentically amusing article about the poor folks who live in British towns and streets with obscene-sounding names. Names like Crotch Crescent, Wetwang, Slutshole Lane, and Titty Ho.

Many of the names, the article notes, are found in the books Rude Britain and Rude UK, "which list arguably offensive place names — some so arguably offensive that, unfortunately, they cannot be printed here."

Yeah, you knew self-censorship was going to come into play here. And no one familiar with media prudishness would expect the Times -- even in an article that's entirely devoted to crude humor -- to print names like Cocknmouth, Shitterton or Twatt. (Though since Slutshole made the cut, a determined writer could surely have challenged prohibitions to Sandy Balls, Fingring Hoe, Rimswell, and Funbag Drive.)

What's odd, as Eric Nelson pointed out to me, is that this apologetic moment of decorum comes shortly after the following passage:

Several months ago, Lewes District Council in East Sussex tried to address the problem of inadvertent place-name titillation by saying that “street names which could give offense” would no longer be allowed on new roads.

“Avoid aesthetically unsuitable names,” like Gaswork Road, the council decreed. Also, avoid “names capable of deliberate misinterpretation,” like Hoare Road, Typple Avenue, Quare Street and Corfe Close.

(What is wrong with Corfe Close, you might ask? The guidelines mention the hypothetical residents of No. 4, with their unfortunate hypothetical address, “4 Corfe Close.” To find the naughty meaning, you have to repeat the first two words rapidly many times, preferably in the presence of your fifth-grade classmates.)

It's really mind-boggling. The newspaper can hold your hand and guide you inexorably to the words fuck off, but it can't actually print the words themselves. Because children might be reading. Except the paper then acknowledges that 10-year-olds not only already know these words, but are more likely than adults to conjure them given the slightest excuse.

On a related note, my memory is a bit hazy, but I'm pretty sure that back in 1999 or 2000 I was one of the first cybernauts to discover and propagate this. I was so juvenile then.

9:58 AM :: Comments (4)

In addition to the previously established (and established and established) problems with media self-censorship, William Safire's language column today points out that the words newspapers use interchangeably to substitute for the words they don't want to print are not actually interchangeable at all.

Personally I'd like to do away with the deceptively passive "unprintable." Just because a publication chooses not to print a word doesn't mean the press is going to break down if it tries.

2:44 PM :: Comments (8)

LA Times blogger Andrew Malcolm does his best to take on media self-censorship in a self-censored medium.

If some guy shouts "U-o%$#@-!" at a candidate's rally, print reporters can't write "U-o%$#@-!"

They must type something like, "He shouted an eight-letter barnyard epithet." Even then some wussy $#&*/=@ editor will likely delete that. How $#&*/=@ quaint!

Now, these fg9##$6_+ television reporters have another #g\g';[0 problem. They can't substitute stupid symbols for bad words on-air. They have to use one of those %%&*^/+@ bleeps...

Who are we $#&*/=@ kidding here? You know =)&%9\ well what every one of these $#&*/=@ euphemisms means. Even if we mix up the symbols in each &#$-*@/ phrase, you can @/-$&#* figure it out.

Same on the (bleeping) TV bleeps. It's a royal pain in the bleeping %$*. We don't even allow )%-$ in the Comments section here because that would be $#&*/=@ rude.

9:19 AM :: Comments (5)

When the New York Times headline is Avery Punished for Vulgar Remark, you don't have to know who Avery is to know that reading the article will in no way inform you what the vulgar remark was.

True to self-censorship form, the newspaper of record-ish will say only that hockey star Sean Avery "used a derogatory term to refer to his former girlfriends, saying that it had 'become like a common thing in the N.H.L. for guys to fall in love with' them."

So what unprintable term did Avery call Elisha Cuthbert et al? Bitches? Hos? Cunts? Chicks?

Nope. Thanks to less scrupulous tabloids (and YouTube), I learned that what Avery actually said was, "I just want to comment on how it's become like a common thing in the NHL for guys to fall in love with my sloppy seconds. I don't know what that's about. Enjoy the game tonight."

Enjoy the game! Such a polite Canadian!

The wire services split on this one, with UPI daring to actually report the most relevant detail of the story and AP opting to protect the delicate sensitivities of hockey fans. Guess whose lead most papers followed?

As far as I can tell, the Times has only used the offending phrase twice and never about a person (once incorrectly in a food article and once in a review of what sounds like an alarmingly bad gay comedy, Eating Out 2: Sloppy Seconds. Why they printed the full title is anybody's guess). The phrase has gotten the media in some trouble in the past, but not everyone is so demure. Us Weekly used it to describe Ashlee Simpson.

[h/t: Colby Cosh]

10:17 AM :: Comments (8)

Just sloppy, or has self-censorship moved from the media to the masses?

12:02 PM :: Comments (1)

More media self-censorship that's both totally ridiculous and completely unnecssary, this time from the New York Times' review of "Z Rock." Unless the writer was trying to fill some minimum word-count, is there any point to including the second sentence here?

So one thing to note about “Z Rock” is that it’s bringing a premium-cable level of nudity and profanity to a basic-cable series. (Of course, many of the unedited movies on IFC’s schedule are much rougher.) This is a show in which a character sets the mood for an episode not by saying, "The Yankees lost again last night," but by saying, more or less, "The Yankees engaged in a sex act illegal in many states until 2003 last night."

[Citation added for those of you who aren't Supreme Court groupies. Without watching the show, there's no way of determining whether the actual quote is "The Yankees sucked dick last night" or "The Yankees got fucked in the ass last night," though either one would adequately describe some of their recent games.]

11:51 AM :: Comments (4)

Jack Shafer in Slate and Gary Kamiya in Salon nail the New Yorker controversy.

Shafer:

Calling on the press to protect the common man from the potential corruptions of satire is a strange, paternalistic assignment for any journalist to give his peers, but that appears to be what The New Yorker's detractors desire... Only weak thinkers fear strong images. The publication that convenes itself as a polite dinner party, serving only strained polenta and pureed peas, need not invite me to sup.

OK, I differ slightly with the characterization of the cover as a strong image. One complaint about it is that it merely presents the smears without putting the extra spin that would mock them, but New Yorker covers aren't supposed to be jokey and heavy-handed, they're always somewhat genteel, no less so when they're trying to be edgy. It's supposed to elicit a wry smile, not a self-satisfied laugh. Judged on its own terms, rather than Colbert's, the cover clearly succeeds.

Kamiya also notes that some critics say ridiculously say the image doesn't even exaggerate the smears. More Kamiya:

Some on the left, however, are so terrified that Americans, in their cosmic stupidity, cannot distinguish between satire and smear that they reject satire. After Obama wins, they decree, there will be time for all the sophisticated ha-ha. But right now, imagery must be as tightly controlled as at an exhibition of Stalinist realism paintings. As Ari Fleischer said, we must all watch what we do, watch what we say. Such reactions are utterly political and deeply skeptical: They're based on the belief that journalism is all about power, that it must cater to the lowest common denominator, and that the critical and ironic thinking satire requires is an outmoded luxury...

The magazine's left-wing critics, understandably scared (and perhaps deafened) by the vicious noise of the right-wing attack machine, are demanding that those on the left also turn their amps up to full Spinal Tap 11. Cartoons to be chuckled at over sherry, they say, are not funny and are too dangerous. (What they don't say is that when everything is dangerous, nothing is funny.) Ugly times call for ugly tactics. Noise calls for noise.

The premise underlying the response Kamiya takes on here is that The New Yorker (and Jon Stewart, etc) should not do anything to undermine Obama, even if they know and we know it's only a joke. That's pretty pernicious. Since when is it the job of the media or comedians to support a presidential candidate?

Meanwhile the New York Times reports that while the late night laffers are having trouble landing their Obama jokes, black comedians are doing better -- except that due to more ridiculous self-censorship, the paper won't tell you how.

“I tell jokes on stage about him,” Mr. Grier said, reciting a few that would not ever get onto a network late-night show (nor into this newspaper).

Why won't those jokes get into the paper? Do they use profanity, the dreaded N-word or both? In his column last week, Public Editor Clark Hoyt got permission to use the forbidden obscenity "nuts" because it was "central to this discussion." But as I've said again and again, when a story is about a word or a quote, that word or quote is always central to the discussion and should always be used. Hoyt's justification for saying "nuts" could certainly be applied to Sally Field, to take just one egregious example. (Also, it was my understanding that the Public Editor has completely free rein to write what he wants. Why would he need the permission of the editors he's criticizing to criticize them as he sees fit?)

Related: Slate's Christopher Beam finally acknowledges that he started the terrorist fist-jab meme (or rather, the meta-meme) in a column that largely exonerates Fox's E.D. Hill.

10:38 AM :: Comments (20)

Inane media self-censorship goes multicultural.

9:03 PM :: Comments (5)

My continuing quest to become known as "that Jew who likes Christian rock" takes me today to the New York Times' Paper Cuts blog where I offer my list of 10 great Christian rock songs. Really.

Skeptics can listen to the songs here. Some will be old news to readers of this site, but there are a couple of new ones on there too. If you're at all moved to post a comment on the NYT site, please do so, since that's what keeps posts in the public eye. Sample comment topics could include your ability to be the first person to make a comment, comparisons of Christians (or Jews) to Nazis, and recommendations for web sites that offer discount pharmaceuticals.

Oh, in case you're wondering: no, I'm not allowed to say "sucks" on the Times site and, yes, I am the world's biggest hypocrite. I wanted to say "sucks," of course, in order to make the argument that Christian rock doesn't, which you'll recall was my position in a public debate a few weeks ago. If you have an hour to kill and an excessive amount of interest in the topic, you can now watch the entire debate -- well, until the tape runs out, but enough to get to the part where my opponent starts backpedalling -- on Vimeo (if anyone knows how to get around YouTube's length restriction, please tell me).

Debate: Does Christian Rock Suck? from Daniel Radosh on Vimeo.

In other RR! news Timothy Beal, the author of Roadside Religion, has a very nice review of the book on SoMA. And Radar has an excerpt from the chapter on Christian comedy. Yes, another excerpt. Pretty soon the entire book will be free on the Internets. (And of course, while you're there, click the little "recommend it" link). Radar pulled from my site this awesome clip from Prank 3:16, the Christian Punk'd, in which the jokers trick a young woman into believing she's missed the Rapture. It is horribly cruel and funny.

Also on YouTube now: the video of Bibleman vs. Jewy Jewstein, posted last week on Gawker, is ready to go viral.

Update: RR! finds its niche

12:44 PM :: Comments (8)

Somebody at Time magazine fucked up big time and named Radosh.net one of the 25 best blogs. Find out why and vote for me here. Or against me.

Update: I suppose I should link some greatest hits for any newcomers, huh? Try these.

The Huckapoo saga (nothing silly about it).

What was wrong with that sex slave story.

The media self-censorship meme. Warning: contains language that the media thinks you need to be protected from. (Come to think of it, hats off to Time.com for not censoring my use of the word douchebag.)

The quest for Kosher bacon.

Regular readers can suggest their own Radosh.net faves in the comments. And, oh yeah, buy my new book.

10:21 AM :: Comments (20)

Normally I wouldn't bother posting about yet another example of media self-censorship, even one as lame as the New York Times refusing to say the name of the blog Go Fug Yourself ("We only take fug from Norman Mailer," Abe Rosenthal might have said). But this article happens to be a kind of radosh.net perfect storm, seeing as how it's also a Sunday Styles trend story about books by bloggers. Here's the key graf:

One of the first literary agents to troll the Web for talent was Kate Lee, who in 2003 was an assistant at International Creative Management, the sprawling talent agency, looking for a way to make her name.

When she started contacting bloggers and talking to them about book deals, many were stunned that a real literary agent was interested in their midnight typings. Her roster was so rich with bloggers, including Matt Welch from Hit & Run and Glenn Reynolds from Instapundit, that the New Yorker profiled her in 2004. Two years from now, the magazine noted, “Books by bloggers will be a trend, a cultural phenomenon.”

Some of you (hi, mom) will recognize that New Yorker story as one of mine. And some of you (hi, um, me) will even recall that the tongue-in-cheek "cultural phenomenon" line was a set-up for this punchline: "You will probably read about it in the Sunday Times."

So, I was off by two years. And, yeah, the Times already ran this exact story three and a half years ago — but that was on a Wednesday.

[h/t: Susannah]

10:08 AM :: Comments (2)

I was all set to retire my award-winning series on media self-censorship (scroll to third item), but two recent occurrences are too interesting to pass up.

First, Ernest points out that the New York Times completely and perhaps defamatorily misrepresented the words of screenwriter John August when it attempted to sanitize his language. This is a perfect example of the serious point that's always been behind these self-censorship posts: prudishness isn't just silly, it's bad journalism.

Second, today's New York Post features what is perhaps the funniest bit of censored dialogue in any newspaper ever. The story concerns a court appearance of a Broadway actor who had a sexual encounter with a 15-year-old girl.

"I placed my hand - I mean her hand," Barbour continued, flubbing his line, "on my p- - -s and my hand on her v- - - -a."

"On her what?" asked the court stenographer, leaning in to hear him.

"On her v- - - -a," he repeated helpfully, projecting more clearly.

"I'm sorry, I don't speak dash," replied the stenographer.

To understand the arbitrariness of this practice, consider that according to Nexis, the New York Post has printed the word penis 532 times and vagina 256 times since 1997, including in stories about teenage victims. Just last week it quoted actress Jenna Fisher saying, "That's right, ladies, we have penis." And a month ago, Cindy fucking Adams had no problem quoting Gene Simmons saying "Her vagina is so large that the Verizon man couldn't get reception in certain parts." (Cindy drew the line, however, at revealing the name of the lady in question.)

So why the sudden skittishness? It's like the Vajapocalypse never even happened.

10:25 AM :: Comments (6)

The Reverse Cowgirl names my coverage of media self-censorship one of the top five sex stories of the year. It's an honor just to be nominated alongside robot-sex guy.

5:19 PM :: Comments (1)

Ernest, who also provided the title for this post, noticed a really swell concrete example of how media self-censorship muddles otherwise straightforward news stories.

The Denver Post article on Internet blog postings by church-shooter Matthew Murray reads,

"You christians brought this on yourselves," Murray writes in his 452-word harangue. "I'm coming for EVERYONE soon and I WILL be armed to the @#%$ teeth and I WILL shoot to kill.

It goes on to compare this to writings by Columbine killer Eric Harris:

In his notebooks, Harris proclaimed: "I'm coming for EVERYONE soon, and I WILL be armed to the (expletive) teeth, and I will shoot to kill."

The only substantive change Murray made to the Harris writing is replacing the name of Harris' target, classmate and neighbor Brooks Brown, with "Christians who are to blame for most of the problems in the world."

Why "@#%$" in one example and "(expletive)" in the other? Well we know that Harris actually wrote "fucking" so the only way to make sense of this is to assume that "(expletive)" is Post style for censored words, which means that Murray really did write "@#%$," and not "fucking" or some other swear word.

That could be an interesting comment on his psyche and his upbringing, perhaps indicating that his Christian education was far more successful at inculcating him with the commandment "thou shalt not say 'fucking'" than "thou shalt not kill." (Much as newspapers are far more easygoing about graphically describing violent crime than about using naughty language). And indeed CNN helpfully explains that the non-substantive change was "the exception of symbols used to replace an expletive."

But wait. Other sources say Murray wrote that he would be "armed to the (expletive) teeth," while yet others say he wrote "the -- teeth" (are there really any two-letter obscenities?). AP apparently originally put out "[expletive]" then corrected it to "@#%$." If the censorship habit makes things this confusing to professional editors, who have been known to curse themselves from time to time, you'd think their impulse would be to make them less confusing to readers.

But here's something even more confusing. Murray's original messages to the ex-Pentecostal forum have been removed, but he cross-posted to alt.suicide.holiday which preserves his comment as,

I'm coming for EVERYONE soon and I WILL be armed to the fucking teeth and I WILL shoot to kill. ….God, I can't wait till I can kill you people. Feel no remorse, no sense of shame, I don't care if I live or die in the shoot-out. All I want to do is kill and injure as many of you … as I can especially Christians who are to blame for most of the problems in the world. [ellipses in original]

So apparently Murray had no problem cursing sometimes. Which may mean he altered his language for his audience. Perhaps he knew his postings would be taken down from the Pentecostal board if he cursed... though, again, not if he threatened to gun down Christians! That actually says something newsworthy: he was in a rational frame of mind not long before the killings.

And just to muddy the waters one more time, this article quotes the teeth post (using the symbols) as well as a second post rendered, bafflingly, "You guys were awesome. It's time for me to head out and teach these (expletive) a lesson." So did Murray write "bastards" or "assholes" or "cocksuckers" the second time? Or did he write "(expletive)" or "@#%$?"

Don't expect an answer from the chicken@#%$ media.

12:52 PM :: Comments (9)

JohnnyB calls my attention to a particularly amusing bit of media self-censorship. The Philadelphia Inquirer Cincinnati Enquirer reports that an area high school canceled a performance of Agatha Christie's Ten Little Indians under pressure from an NAACP official who objected to the original title of the book it was based on. Or as the Inky put it:

Hines said the book's original title and cover illustration used for its initial publishing that year [1939] in England was a racial slur toward blacks and included a cover illustration of a black person and a hangman's noose.

"The original title was 'Ten Little (N - - - - - -),' and it is important to say that because that was the actual title," Hines said Monday.

Important for him to say it, maybe, but not for the newspaper which is merely charged, after all, with explaining the story to its readers. I particularly like how the newspaper's substitution of letters with dashes isn't quite enough to avoid giving offense, so they've cordoned off the former word with parantheses. Whew!

While we're at it, can I just say: What a d-----b--. He shuts down a high school play because it's based on a book whose title — used 70 years ago in another country and never in this one — was offensive? Who exactly was going to be offended if they didn't even know that? Sure, high school students should be taught the history of the book as a lesson in evolving racial attitudes, but they shouldn't be prohibited from performing the play, which in and of itself has zero racial content. (OK, Indians might not like the rhyme that drives the plot, though it's not really about Indians).

For the record, the novel is based on the 1860s funny death ditty Ten Little Indians, which the (racist!) Brits changed to Ten Little Niggers. Contrary to Hines and the Inky Enquirer, the original cover does not show a hangman's noose. He may be thinking of a 1960s British reprint. (Both seen here). In any event, it's not a "hangman's noose," but a suicide's, so any lynching overtones are a product of the reader's recontextualization. (Nor is it a "person" but a Golliwogg, not that that makes it better).

From the beginning American editions of the book were titled either And Then There Were None or Ten Little Indians. In recent editions, the rhyme has been changed from Indians to soldiers or sailors (because it's still OK to insult the troops). The stubborn (and racist!) Brits continued to use the original title through the 1980s.

12:27 PM :: Comments (14)