And yet when the freshman Congresswoman Rashida Talib said "we'll impeach the motherfucker" everyone lost their shit and MSNBC/CNN and any other left leaning news network dropped their shit to jump on the bandwagon of harassing her.

I think there's a difference between swearing at inanimate things for emphasis, and swearing as in calling someone a name, which is personal abuse and shouldn't ever be tolerated no matter who it's targeted at.

Positive coverage in The Guardian: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/jan/04/democrats-co...

Positive coverage in Vox: https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/1/4/18168157/ra...

> and MSNBC/CNN and any other left leaning news network dropped their shit to jump on the bandwagon of harassing her.

How was the the coverage of the right leaning news sites?

Really really negative coverage, but that's obvious.

The same coverage they gave Donald Trump's.

Twitter? That is what it is, and anything goes.

As for the rest, I find it refreshing that the NYT and Guardian are "bleeping" fewer quotes. I don't think the paper itself should start working blue, but if someone swears in an interview, you should print what they said.

EDIT: Oh, I hadn't read that particular article. It doesn't bother me much, but profanity is a crutch. I'm fine with it in day-to-day conversation and blog posts, but a professional writer using it in an opinion piece is lazy.

I wasn't talking about them "bleeping" quotes, but about the journalists themselves swearing in opinion pieces.

> Is there, I wonder, a more appropriate phrase than “fuck off”? I don’t want to swear unnecessarily but, historically, people have found the expression useful. It’s certainly earned its place in common usage. And I have to ask myself, if we don’t tell Theresa May to fuck off, what on earth are we saving it for?

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/apr/07/theres...

I guess it depends on your definition of "journalist", but the author of the piece you linked definitely wouldn't call himself one. He's a comedian, actor, TV writer, etc. and for the Guardian he writes humorous columns.

I suggest they're just trying to increase their signal to noise ratio, part of an arms race made de-facto I think by the new President.

The New Yorkification of Twitter.

At the same time, they demand less swearing for everyone but themselves. They have "civility" rules for their comments and also use their bully pulpit to demand social media also censor "uncivil" speech everywhere. They attack Trump for being crude while they themselves are crude. They demand "hate speech" be banned while they themselves partake in "hate speech". They accuse others of being anti-science, while they themselves reject science. Twitter has really pulled the veil from the ivory tower that was media. It just shows that these people can be just as hypocritical, biased and vicious as everyone else. But they demand special treatment, which is also what everyone wants. Journalists are human beings after all.

>They have "civility" rules for their comments and also use their bully pulpit to demand social media also censor "uncivil" speech everywhere. They attack Trump for being crude while they themselves are crude. They demand "hate speech" be banned while they themselves partake in "hate speech". They accuse others of being anti-science, while they themselves reject science.

Well, as they say, that escalated quickly. Can you give an example of what you mean?

I don't want to get into specifics because I don't think criticizing individual journalists is allowed here. Especially journalists from establishment media.

So how about a nytimes opinion on the matter?

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/23/opinion/covington-twitter...

If you've followed the news to any degree or any of the controversies in the past few years, you'd realize there is incredible bias and agenda. Whether it is jussie smollet, covington, trump, campus rape crisis, etc. And hate can be doled out if to the right enemy. You can mock climate science denial while rejecting biology and gender. I don't see any objectivity or fairness or decency in media organizations today - left or right. Just politics and agenda. But that's just me and maybe my bias is clouding my judgment. Though I'm not sure who or what I am biased towards...