Flopping into the fecal frontier

[Jim Thomsen]

When would you allow the word "shit" into a newspaper story? Does your paper have a written policy, or does it get judged situationally?

Here's a recent example from the Seattle Post-Intelligencer of what I see as a pretty pointless and gratuitous use of thise seldom-exercised privilege (note: registration is required to view this link):

Dale Chihuly is the most inventive glass sculptor in the history of the medium, but a massive career and many honors have not insulated him from personal and professional troubles that trail him lately like a bad smell.

A few weeks ago, the bad smell metaphor took material form.

Standing in an ornate garden surrounding a mansion in Medina, this son of a Tacoma meatpacker and union organizer frowned and checked his shoes.

"Did I step in something?" he asked. The garden was lovely, but the stink of fertilizer was overwhelming.

"Pig shit," he said. "Sometimes you can't get away from it."

You wouldn't know it to look at his work. Full of play and dazzling in its high theatrics, his sculptures give voluptuous shape to excess, making it shine.

But at age 64, he's where he never wanted to be, in court. He's suing two glass blowers for copyright infringement, contending they're imitating his work. They're threatening to sue him back, questioning whether Chihuly is the creative intelligence behind the art bearing his signature. And a former dealer is attacking him with a gusto rare in the art world.

If that's not enough, his feet hurt.


What do you think?

[dangermike]

I have such mixed feelings about it, because on the one hand, profanity doesn't bother me at all. In fact, I think the world could use a little more harsh language. But I'm not editing the paper for me, and our readers, many of them anyway, are very offended by profanity. Reporters and city editors will usually say it's needed to "paint a picture" or to show the speaker's character. I'm not usually swayed by those arguments.

We usually don't use vulgarities. We wouldn't have used "pig shit."

[Jenny]

That is one weird story even without the porcine excrement, Jim. I think I would not have used "pig shit." That said, I'd like to throw out for comment our magazine's policy, which is to write "sh*t," "f*ck" ... you get the picture. That strikes me as coy, but it doesn't bother editors with more say than I have. Comments, anyone?

[Jim Thomsen]

No reflection on you, Jenny, but your magazine's policy is ridiculous. The distinction at that point just isn't helpful or meaningful, and just makes your bosses look silly and hair-splitting.

How do they explain that policy?

[Jenny]

Well, nobody has ever explained it in detail, but the feeling seems to be that while we draw the line at the full word, readers won't understand what the person said unless we draw them a picture. It's frustrating. But we're also not editing a family publication, so my feeling is that in some cases we should just let it go when someone says in a story, "That's just bullshit."