Would you allow the f-word in this case?

[Jim Thomsen]

On Monday, the News Tribune of Tacoma published this Page One story:


If Jenn Weldy needs any motivation, she can think back to that day in the hospital two years ago, when her doctor said she likely would never walk again.

An 80-mph motorcycle crash crushed the right side of her body and put Weldy, now 24, in a two-week coma. Her right leg was amputated below the knee during her two-and-a-half-month stay in the hospital.

Walking, maybe, but distance running? Please. Weldy was lucky to be alive.

“The doctor told me I’d never run,” she said. “So I said, ‘(Forget) you, I’ll run a marathon.’”

She’s getting close.

Weldy was one of 1,786 entrants in one of three events of the first Tacoma City Marathon on Sunday. She completed her third half-marathon in a year, covering the 13.1-mile, 192.5-yard course in 3 hours, 44 minutes and 5 seconds.

She turned to running after the accident.

“I said, ‘What else are you gonna do?’” said Weldy, a Tacoma Community College student. “You can sit around and whine and complain and get fat, or you can get active.”

There's more, but you get the idea.

My first thought was: If there was ever a case when using the word "fuck" was appropriate, this is it. (And can we all agree that "fuck" was the word that was subbed out for the flaccid 'forget"?)

This is an inspiring story about an inspiring person. The word "fuck" in this quoted case is, to me, a wonderful distillation of her determination to rise above her circumstances. It lends rare power and clarity to her fine story, and in my opinion outweighs the risk of alienating readers who can't or won't see the word in context.

Are we all so afraid of this word in ANY context that we'll just automatically strike it regardless of the circumstances? Are we so divorced and distanced from the people we serve? (Yes, I know, I know ... we're "family newspapers." I say, "Fuck that. Families use the word, too.")

And even if you are afraid of offending too many readers, I say run it anyway — and use it as a launching pad for a public dialogue with readers about what they want and don't want, what they can handle and what they can't.

What say you?

[kduhe]

We can say "fuck" in this forum? Cool. I may have to start posting here more often.

But seriously, we don't say such words in my family, and I'd have a problem with anyone who said it in front of my wife, mother or children -- including, I suppose, my newspaper.

If the pope said it, I'd consider that newsworthy. But I still wouldn't see the need to run the exact quote.

[Jim Thomsen]

Okay, then, that's fair.

Then I ask this: Is there any point to using the neutered quote?

[Chris Wienandt]

I can't imagine my paper ever running the word. We'd use "[expletive]" and trust to the reader's experience to supply the right word.

Of course, we also use courtesy titles.

[kduhe]

I guess different papers have different solutions, including the [expletive] solution. Here, we'd probably paraphrase: "She told him defiantly that she'd run a marathon."

I realize that loses the emotion of the quote.

[csmount]

I can't imagine my paper ever running the word. We'd use "[expletive]" and trust to the reader's experience to supply the right word.

That gets my vote. After all, she isn't the vice president.....

[Jim Thomsen]

But why call attention to a defanged quote by using the brackets? Since you're ruined the speaker's intent and impact, I'd say lose the quote altogether. In a sense, you're misrepresenting what the speaker said; quotes should be inviolate territory. Either use them exactly as they were said or don't use them at all.

[Jim Thomsen]

After all, she isn't the vice president.....

No, she's more important than that. She's a real person.

[Gerri Berendzen]

First, and I've said this before, I don't see any reason to use profanity in a case like this.

Second, I agree with you Jim about the quote. If she didn't say forget, who are we to suggest she did. They've changed what she said, so skip the quote completely and paraphrase it. I can think of several ways to write this without the quote where it still has plenty of impact.

[Gerri Berendzen]

Right after I posted, I read this on the Editor's Desk blog
http://editdesk.blogspot.com/2007/05/his-nearly-exact-words.html

I couldn't agree more with Andy Bechtel, who writes: "The insertions defeat the purpose of the quote — to allow the reader to see the exact words of sources."

I think that's the same thing you're getting at Jim, right?

[Deirdre Edgar]

I'm with those of you in the paraphrase camp. I don't like the inserted (Forget), because that's not what she said to herself. But you can convey her conviction to walk again without using the expletive.

[editer]

I couldn't agree more with Andy Bechtel, who writes: "The insertions defeat the purpose of the quote — to allow the reader to see the exact words of sources."

I could scarcely agree less.

The purpose of any quote is to get across what the person said and how he or she said it. Paraphrasing has its place when the quote is long-winded or muddled, and the information is more important than the expression, but when the original quote is forceful and direct and evocative, paraphrasing can kill it, and I think that's the case here.

Bechtel's example is a long pull quote with several bracketed insertions for clarity. He's right that it's too much. But in the sentence at hand here, bracketing in "Forget" concisely gets across both what was said and its effect.

Dierdre said, "I don't like the inserted (Forget), because that's not what she said to herself." Well, a paraphrase isn't what she said to herself either. "Forget" is as close to "Fuck" in this context as we're going to get. I say, leave it that way.

[dangermike]

I'd love to allow the quote. Of course I wouldn't because I'd get in trouble. But that's a shame because it's ridiculous that we're so afraid of profanity. The (forget) treatment fails. Paraphrasing fails. I'm not buying that "oh, I don't want my children to see profanity" garbage, either. I'd rather have my children read "fuck" in a newspaper than have them see virtually anything on television. And really, are a lot of children reading the newspaper? Checking out the Biz section on the school bus to see how their stocks are doing? So they see "fuck" in it. They'll live. They've probably already heard it at school anyway. Just what are we protecting our readers from?

And I couldn't agree more about the vice president/real person thing. So the vice president cusses. So what? Why is that somehow more significant? Newspapers sure are dumb sometimes.

[Jim Thomsen]

"Forget" concisely gets across both what was said and its effect.

Now I'm the one who could scarcely agree less.

One, "forget" DOESN'T get across what was said, because it's NOT what she said.

And two, "forget" has nowhere near the same effect as "fuck."

[Paul Ybarrondo]

I too have been wrestling with the thorny dilemma of when to explete and when to delete. Here, presented in absolute sincerity, is my solution:

Use code words, with the key printed in a box at the bottom of Page 2. Parents can tear out the box before letting their children read the paper. And adults who don't want to risk being offended could tear it out and crumple it without reading it. This would require that the reverse of the box (on Page 1) be labeled as such: TEAR HERE TO DELETE EXPLETIVES.

Then you simply use any code words of your publication's choosing. Ideally they should vary each day, and include at least one capital letter and one numeral.

So, just as an example, a story might contain the following quote:

“So I said, ‘(forGet1) you, I’ll run a marathon.’ ”

And readers who want to know the actual word can look at the little square of paper cribbed in their partially open hand to see that "forGet1" means "screw."

[kduhe]

If bad-ass copy editors everywhere would say "(Forget) getting in trouble" and just run the word, imagine what a better world this would be.

[Jim Thomsen]

No argument here.

[editer]

If bad-ass copy editors everywhere would say "(Forget) getting in trouble" and just run the word, imagine what a better world this would be.

One with a lot of unemployed copy editors?

[editer]

"Forget" concisely gets across both what was said and its effect.

Now I'm the one who could scarcely agree less.

One, "forget" DOESN'T get across what was said, because it's NOT what she said.

And two, "forget" has nowhere near the same effect as "fuck."

One, by that reasoning, paraphrasing gets across still less -- into negative territory here, I'm sure -- because it's NOT what she said either; it's even farther from what she said.

Two, see one. You can't get any closer and keep your job.

[csmount]

And I couldn't agree more about the vice president/real person thing. So the vice president cusses. So what? Why is that somehow more significant? Newspapers sure are dumb sometimes.

Why was it significant? With this administration and its many stances based on pious faith? Seems to me, hypocrisy revealed is newsworthy. You may recall, his language became a story when he used the word in a verbal assault on a senator on the floor of the Senate.....

Here's a link to what happened:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/ar ... Jun24.html

Do note that it happened on the day the Senate approved something called the "Defense of Decency Act." Not sure whether that was the original Communications Decency Act, which was aimed at broadcast and Internet communication. But here's the official White House version of the remarks Cheney's boss made when he signed the Broadcast Decency Enforcement Act in 2005:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases ... 615-1.html

So, I'll fight for Mr. Cheney's right to say it whenever he pleases. And I'll fight for the right to use the word if we as editors (and the TV folks, too) believe it's necessary. But yes, it is newsworthy when the foul language comes from the mouths of those who would censor others.

But I will usually choose — the operative word — to avoid it in print. While I admit the word is in my vocabulary and doesn't bother me when I hear it from others, I also choose not use it around my mother or anyone else I know it would offend — including a significant number of readers.

[Jim Thomsen]

Sometimes the best thing we can do is offend readers. If we do nothing but feed them comfort food, we're not doing our jobs.

[kduhe]

Sometimes the best thing we can do is offend readers. If we do nothing but feed them comfort food, we're not doing our jobs.

Offend them?
I'd be in favor of surprising them with something they didn't expect, or challenging them to see something in a different way. That might offend some people, which is OK. A feature we did in the past about teeth grillz certainly works as an example.

I'm guessing you don't favor purposely offending readers as a goal in itself.

[Jim Thomsen]

No, I don't. But I don't favor knee-jerk taboos. I favor community dialogue. It's not that I disrespect how folks feel about certain words; it's that I want to know WHY they feel the way they do. And I think a conversation aired in public could be to everybody's benefit.

[editer]

No, I don't. But I don't favor knee-jerk taboos. I favor community dialogue. It's not that I disrespect how folks feel about certain words; it's that I want to know WHY they feel the way they do. And I think a conversation aired in public could be to everybody's benefit.

Seems to me you're talking about two different things here. First, Community dialogue works best if everyone is comfortable with the medium of interaction, including the choice of words used. Use the word "fuck", for instance, and you'll lose a lot of the people you're trying to have the dialogue with; they'll stop listening or at least lose trust. To compensate, you'll need to get a lot of benefit out of using the word.

Discussing community reactions to various sorts of language is a different topic. It's important to do.

I can't tell whether "a conversation aired in public" refers to dialogue using the controversial language or dialogue about using it. Can you clarify?

[editer]

And with perfect timing, ThinkProgress brings another case into the light:

Tonight, Fox News correspondent Major Garrett reported that “anger burst forth memorably and loudly” when Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) accused McCain of being “too busy running for president.” McCain responded by using “the f-word toward Cornyn,” though it’s not clear “if the f-word was a verb or a gerund.”

There's more. Read the whole thing, as they say.

[Jim Thomsen]

I see I've underestimated the ability of the readers to handle ... well, pretty much anything.

From the Houston Chronicle:

Words in the newspaper, some of them force us to have those uneasy conversations with our children that we were hoping to avoid until later. But the facts of life are not always in harmony with facts we are obliged to report.

That disconnect sometimes can be vexing — at least for readers — and cause us to carefully consider their sensibilities to words that might offend. That's why presentation is everything, because it's hard to predict when the words "oral sex" might upset one reader, but inform another.

As a matter of fact, some readers were offended 10 days ago when we used the words "oral sex" in the subhead of a Page One story reporting a study that found that the human papillomavirus, or HPV, "sharply increases the risk of throat cancer for both men and women engaging in oral sex." The finding was important news because of the discussion about HPV in Austin. As well, researchers previously thought the cancer to be "caused only by alcohol or tobacco."

The story's headline "HPV found to cause cancer of the throat," was innocuous. The subhead read: "Study: Oral sex transmits virus in men, women." Yes, the subhead probably could have been written without using "oral sex," but I don't know if there was a way to sugar-coat the facts of this story, which involved a critical public-health issue.

I suspect, however, that readers were not as upset about the facts of the story as much as they were irritated about having to explain the facts of life to their underage kids.

" ... Was it really necessary to put oral sex on the front page ... ?" a caller said. " ... Does someone want to come to my house and explain to my bright 7-year-old what that means? ... Why can't the Chronicle be mature like The New York Times ... ?"

Ouch.

"Is this a family newspaper?" another reader wrote. "If so, how can you justify using the words 'oral sex' on the front page ... ? It totally was unnecessary to include ... Was it just used to get people's attention so that they would pick up your paper, or do the writers just have a very small vocabulary? What should we say to our children who read the newspaper?"

[csmount]

Didn't see the original story, but I also saw this columnist's take today and thought of this thread....

Yes, the headline would have been a bit out of my "comfort zone," but there is a difference. Oral sex apparently is a key element of the study, and the news value of the story. (Well, it was news to me.....)

It's not there to show emphasis, as the discussion that began this thread seemed to suggest was enough of a reason to use a word we normally avoid in public discourse.

Here's the rest of the guy's column, a reasoned defense that does appreciate reader sensibilities but rather subtly seems to put responsibility where it belongs when it comes to the kids and such subjects: with their parents. (And I'd guess that a whole lot of those references came from those days when we had stories about Monica Lewinsky that I couldn't believe I was putting on my front page....)

From the Houston Chronicle:

But, there's also the other side.

"As a mother of four and grandmother of 10, I thank you for your story linking HPV with throat cancer," a reader wrote. "Every family, every church and every school should wake up and discuss this with our students. Times have certainly changed since I was a teenager. If this doesn't cause people to think twice about their behavior, nothing will. I applaud the Chronicle for putting this on the front page. I thank you for your research and report. Please, please follow up on this and keep us informed ... ."

In an archive search, librarian Sherry Adams found that since 1989, we've used the words nine times in headlines or subheads, including seven times in the main headline. Moreover, since 1985, we've published the words 862 times in stories.

I can appreciate the readers' concern. The content of the newspaper should be a concern for parents. It's not our grandparents' Chronicle, or even our parents'. It has changed with the times. Therefore, we must police what our children watch and read. Each morning while driving my son to school, I have him read stories from the Chronicle. I select the stories.

As an editorial staff, we must be ever mindful that kids also are reading our newspaper. We have to appreciate the concern of a parent who asks: "What should we say to our children who read the newspaper?"

Sometimes there will be unsavory realities of stories, like the HPV story, that will require parents to talk to their kids — if they happen to read a provocative headline or story.

But no, we're not trying to intentionally offend our readers, and we certainly want kids to read the newspaper without the fear of reading a story or seeing a graphic photo that is beyond their young minds.

[/quote]

[Mike O'Connell]

HPV found to cause cancer of the throat
Study: Godless depravity transmits virus in men, women.

I think I'll stick with "oral sex."