Pissed Away
One more reason why the L.A. Times is hemorrhaging readers -- their dirty words policy. They won't even allow "pissed off" in the paper.
And here are a few bits from their dirty words regulations:
Guidelines on Obscenity and Taste IssuesObscenities, profanity, vulgarities and coarse language, even in their milder forms, should not be used in The Times - in print or online - unless they are germane to the essence of a story.
The Times will adhere to a conservative standard on the use of such terms; attempts to be merely colorful, vivid, clever or conversational, or to reflect common practices of other media, do not meet that standard.
Oh, you mean to be fun and interesting? No...perish forbid! Wouldn't want that.
Here's why first-person pieces they run are often super-boring:
Communicating effectively across our varied audiences often means differences in content, voice and style on the website, but not lower standards. For Web content, the practices of the printed paper generally apply in straight news stories. This is also true of most feature material, but here a less formal voice may sometimes be appropriate. In columns and blogs, conversational style is encouraged, and more slang and informal language is acceptable; it should not, however, be offensive to a typical reader. User-generated content is moderated but not edited, and is granted wide leeway in style and expression. However, submissions containing vulgar, offensive or illegal comments will be rejected. Similarly, we will not link to external websites that include nudity, excessive obscenity or other objectionable content.
Oh, and that end bit is why they aren't likely to link to my website! Or, for example, highly trafficked sites like Gawker, where I found the link to this silly policy. Gawker's Ryan Tate writes:
And yet newsroom "leaders" just spent 18 months in a fucking (ahem) committee debating what swears LATimes.com bloggers should be allowed to use, and when. The byzantine machinations involved some sort of appeal to a "ruling" of a special committee about some formal guidelines, and of course resulted in a tedious and useless memo that should make anyone who ever cared about the once-great newspaper want to slit his wrists. Its insufferable, self-indulgent stupidity lies after the jump. Oh, and it basically says no one can use "pissed off" because it's crude and might tarnish the LA Times's sterling image in the remaining months before the paper's now-all-but-inevitable collapse.
A bit more of what they came to at the LA Times after their 18-months dirty words summit:
We acknowledge that a wide range of vulgarities are commonplace on the Internet and elsewhere, but we intend to maintain a much higher standard. We may describe and report on people whose speech is obscene, profane, crude or crass, but we should avoid doing so at their level. When in doubt, think conservatively. The overall goal is to maintain a clean, dignified and civil tone in all writing, in the paper and on the website.
You go, girl! (Queen Victoria, girl!)
Meanwhile, a friend e-mailed me last night to point out, here the LAT is firing reporters by the gross, and they've got TWO readers' reps? Right.
Standards and practices, baby, standards and practices.
Gotta have a full staff to explain why they can't talk pussy in the paper -- except, of course, when writers inexplicably, and in a way that's not the least bit funny, sneak cunning linguist past the pussy police.
Well, on the other hand - you have more fingers. (Sorry.)
I'm a fan for the care with which you write as much as for content, and I've never thought that being crude was desirable. That's just part of using the right word to describe a problem.
I have a terrible time on blogs and forums with people who think I'm an authoritarian of some kind just for using English carefully. Even in discussions about science, some seem to think that just any babble will do. NO.
And if you think that instant usage of the common gamut of four-letter words and their relatives is effective - for all the satisfaction you might get, do they really get the idea across, or are they passé?
A Polynesian curse, uncovered by my research into the Easter Island environmental disaster, amounts to "bits of your mother are stuck in my teeth". That ought to work.
Having heard Carlin, I'm rarely impressed by vulgarities. That's "rarely", not "never", if you get my drift.
Radwaste at September 4, 2008 3:22 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2008/09/04/pissed_away.html#comment-1587348">comment from RadwasteActually, Rad, I've read research that shows that people pay more attention to people who use curse words.
I'm not talking about throwing them out for no reason whatsoever, but I doubt that you can even write "butt" in the LA Times. This is ridiculous. And sometimes, as in the "Fuck The Draft" case that went all the way to the Supreme Court, the "wrong" words are the right words to get one's message across.
Amy Alkon
at September 4, 2008 5:26 PM
I'm dying here. "Pussy police." I can only imagine the physical standards required to make their T.W.A.T team.
I've noticed that papers in the UK tend to use a less formal, more personal, style of writing. Even their hard news stories lack the American jounalistic pretense.
Do UK papers have "Pussy Police?" Are they armed?
Jeff at September 4, 2008 9:02 PM
It was a big deal, some years ago, when The Times (the L.A. one, not the real one) started using the rock band Butthole Surfers' name in print.
Previously, they'd been written about -- quite frequently, considering their minor role in the music scene -- as the B.H. Surfers.
Led to the impression that they were from Beverly Hills, rather than (as was the case) Arizona.
TE at September 5, 2008 9:43 PM
Leave a comment