Monday, June 14, 2010

NYT Taste Police Edit The Shit Out Of Rahm Emanuel's Quote In Matt Bai's NYT Magazine Cover Story.

While the civilized world continues to reel from the NYT's decision to ban the use of the word "tweet," the newspaper still maintains its antiquated ban on the word "shit" -- even when used by a high-ranking government official to describe a previous President.

In yesterday's magazine cover story, "Democrat in Chief?" by Matt Bai, White House chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel used the expletive "shit sandwich" in describing the Bush administration's inheritance gift to the incoming Democrats. But Bai took it out, and replaced it with this convoluted joke:

As Rahm Emanuel told me when we sat down in April, “The American people know overwhelmingly that he inherited a” — and here Emanuel used a word I can’t repeat — “sandwich.” (Suffice it to say the sandwich wasn’t pastrami.) “They know that. They don’t need to be educated. I believe it’s worth reminding them of the scale, size and scope of the” — that word again — “sandwich we got."

It's worth noting that the NYT has used the word "shit" four times since 1981, presumably with the prior approval of the good-taste police. In 2007 it turned up in a quote from a Michael Lewis story on field-goal kickers; the year before, Tom Friedman slipped it into a column as a quote from the sandwich-maker-in-chief himelf, George W. Bush:

George Bush and Condi Rice need to realize that Syria on its own is not going to press Hezbollah — in Mr. Bush’s immortal words — to just “stop doing this shit.’’

How does Bush get permission to say "shit" in reference to Hezbollah, but Emanuel can't use it to describe Bush? Maybe it's time for NYT editors to lighten up on curse words, and let them through when no other word will do. Unlike tweet, shit's here to stay. These ludicrous efforts to keeep cursing out of the NYT only call attention to the words -- and to the fact of the NYT's prudish attitude toward language most of us use every day.

11 comments:

Anonymous said...

newspapers have been unnecessarily cautious in printing swear words. so puritanical. grow up!

Anonymous said...

I agree. The family newspaper idea is no longer an excuse. In my house, it's the kids who do the most cursing. Let them read those words in the paper.

Anonymous said...

Argh. No. Do not embrace bad words just because a bunch of parents are too gutless to teach their children how to speak with precision and respect. Curse words aren't just jarring to the ears, they're also the indication that the speaker was too lazy to look for an accurate word.

The trisomic morons use the same word for dozens of different meanings and then pat themselves on the back for "keeping it real" and "speaking truthfully". The words inefficient, confusing, and coarsening. Dear NYT: do not give in.

Anonymous said...

From the paper that reported on fisting on the front page.

lesdmd said...

When a writer has to jump through hoops to avoid a word, or if his explanation is so transparent as to be obvious, then why pretend to adhere to outmoded social conventions...especially when applying a direct quote? Expletives do an excellent job of description and of ascribing emotion. I thought George Carlin largely buried the notion of "bad words".

Roberto said...

McNulty and Bunk said it best:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KQbsnSVM1zM&feature=player_embedded

Anonymous said...

@8:40 While you have a point about Timesmen avoiding the word in their copy, you also have one in favor of including it in Rahm's quote. If "[t]he word[']s inefficient, confusing, and coarsening," characteristics Bai appears to be assigning to Emanual, then shouldn't the quote be left intact?

Ultimately, because these words are so commonplace these days, if anything, I think Bai was being cutesy—as Timesmen often are when writing about and around such words, say, as in the case of a profile of the band Fucked Up—not for fear of offending us but in order to draw extra attention to Emanuel's inefficient, confusing, and coarse language.

Anonymous said...

i don't think we want reporters using curse words casually but allowing them to be quoted is acceptable right? We don't want to to see headlines with "Another Shitty Day for the Obama White House as Oil Spill Continues." However, if someone, especially as high profile as Rahm Emmanuel, uses a a certain word to describe a political situation printing the full quote would be good.

Anonymous said...

Right. And beyond common words like that, they're even still sniffing at non-rude common English words that they quaintly refer to as "colloquialisms," whatever that means.

Anonymous said...

The Bush Administration's 'Eat Shit' attitude, and Mr. Emmanuel's graceful success at riding its wake, thrive given the widely conceited "I can't."

But for such voices as MB, assumptions on presidential immunity from historical re-examination might shift.

Anonymous said...

oh crap