Re:A Hit Song on YouTube, Unnameable on the Radio
by MatthewCampbell on Monday August 30, 2010 @10:57AM
(#1646357)
They should have printed the word. It's critical to understanding the story.
This is the same mistake they made when Cheney said "Fuck yourself." They danced around the word, calling it, "An obscene phrase to describe what he thought Mr. Leahy should do." Readers can only clearly judge the offensiveness of the phrases by seeing them written.
The Washington Post decided to print the word in the Cheney case. I bet they'd seriously consider printing the song title, if they don't decide that pop culture and radio freedom are less newsworthy than vice presidential asides.
Re:A Hit Song on YouTube, Unnameable on the Radio
by paol on Monday August 30, 2010 @10:28AM
(#1646255)
To the point where the article becomes semi-uninteligible.
And the writer seems oblivious to the irony.
Re:A Hit Song on YouTube, Unnameable on the Radio
by iron_ball on Monday August 30, 2010 @11:29AM
(#1646456)
I took it as extremely dry wit. The writer can't not see it.
Re:A Hit Song on YouTube, Unnameable on the Radio
by gojomo on Monday August 30, 2010 @12:27PM
(#1646650)
You can also look over the NYTimes archives for an inconsistent treatment of the word that has replaced 'fuck' as the ultimate obscenity -- the 'n-word'. Sometimes when it's part of the story, they quote it; other times (and increasingly in recent years), they use indirect euphemisms, as I have here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Profanity