RRbanner.jpg

January 4, 2009

Coincidentally, most of Safire's Op-Eds could have been replaced with "[expletive deleted]"

In addition to the previously established (and established and established) problems with media self-censorship, William Safire's language column today points out that the words newspapers use interchangeably to substitute for the words they don't want to print are not actually interchangeable at all.

Personally I'd like to do away with the deceptively passive "unprintable." Just because a publication chooses not to print a word doesn't mean the press is going to break down if it tries.

Posted by Daniel Radosh

Comments

Thanks for busting the archaic fuddy duddy "unprintable."

YouTube is now censoring for coarse language and sexually suggestive content. Always fun when real words are quoted in courtroom footage.

"Unprintable" seems to hark to Victorian (and after) times when many subjects were "unspeakable!" or "unmentionable!"

Inconceivable!

Unfuckable!

Unfuckable!

Who, Safire?

In “show me a good loser and I’ll show you a loser,” sometimes used in the locker room...

I've never heard that in a locker room.

Seriously, though, if people actually knew the difference between these words, then some of the confusion about what words newspapers aren't printing could be avoided. But since that's not ever going to happen, Safire just seems like an intellectual masturbator. (Epithet, right?)

UnBEEPable? No.

The exact phrase "mona charon is useless turd of a human being" turns up one more hit than "international condemnations of Hamas."

Oops! wrong post.

Post a comment

Powered by
Movable Type 3.2