5 ms·
In a wonderful illustration of the article's thesis, the song is also unnameable in the New York Times -- even as a matter of record. Fortunately Wikipedia has
by jcl 16y ago
In a wonderful illustration of the article's thesis, the song is also unnameable in the New York Times -- even as a matter of record. Fortunately Wikipedia has no such inhibition, so historians won't need to guess at the song title. :)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Profanity http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Profanity
- paol 16y agoTo the point where the article becomes semi-uninteligible. And the writer seems oblivious to the irony.
- iron_ball 16y agoI took it as extremely dry wit. The writer can't not see it.
- MatthewCampbell 16y agoThey should have printed the word. It's critical to understanding the story. This is the same mistake they made when Cheney said "Fuck yourself." They danced around the word, calling it, "An obscene phrase to describe what he thought Mr. Leahy should do." Readers can only clearly judge the offensiveness of the phrases by seeing them written. The Washington Post decided to print the word in the Cheney case. I bet they'd seriously consider printing the song title, if they don't decide that pop culture and radio freedom are less newsworthy than vice presidential asides.
- gojomo 16y agoYou can also look over the NYTimes archives for an inconsistent treatment of the word that has replaced 'fuck' as the ultimate obscenity -- the 'n-word'. Sometimes when it's part of the story, they quote it; other times (and increasingly in recent years), they use indirect euphemisms, as I have here.