Remember comedian George Carlin’s controversial 1970s monologue about seven dirty words that you could never say on television?
The words were …
Come on, you didn’t really think I was going to repeat them, did you? But you’re likely to hear them nowadays on television, in movies and on CDs, even encounter them in some Internet Web postings or blogs. Time and the courts have brought about a relaxation (some might argue a collapse) of moral/ethical standards of communication.
Newspapers have been a holdout. Partly, I think, as a bottom-line consideration: a desire not to offend readers, thereby harming circulation. More importantly, there are deeply held ethical considerations, coupled with the realization that newspapers are viewed differently and face different user expectations than the broadcast media. Also, different parts of the country hold different standards about what’s acceptable.
“Spoken language can shock and offend, and be gone just as quickly,” said Pilot managing editor Maria Carrillo, who believes “the written word carries greater weight. It stays with us, literally forever.”
Carrillo offered her personal take on why newspapers have generally erected a “STOP” sign on profanity in print, in response to a question from me in the wake of the newsroom’s review and update of its “Profanity Policy.”
The policy is among several newsroom guidelines under review “to make sure they are contemporary,” says Pilot editor Denis Finley. “My goal with the profanity policy,” he explained, “is not to put more profanity in the paper and lower our standards; rather, it is to see where we need to accept that certain words have become part of our vernacular and have lost their meaning as profanities.”
These words or expressions include “that sucks,” most often uttered by teenagers – or seen on T-shirts – to express their disdain about something. Or “pissed,” as in “pissed off,” or upset, about something.
I asked Carrillo and military reporter Kate Wiltrout, who chaired the newsroom review committee on profanity, about words that have “lost some of their sting over time,” as Carrillo puts it.
” ‘Sucks’ and ‘pissed off’ are more likely to make it into print under this policy,” says Wiltrout.
Indeed, use of the word “pissed,” for instance, doesn’t have to be approved by a senior editor. “It can be approved by a reporter’s assigning editor because it was deemed to have become so ordinary as to not be as offensive as it once was,” Carrillo says.
Still, as Wiltrout so wisely notes: “If one man’s trash can be another man’s treasure, then one woman’s curse could be another woman’s prayer.” Hence, the need to be ever mindful of the potential to offend. Hence, the desire, expressed by Wiltrout, “to get everyone on the same page and at least asking the same questions about when it’s appropriate to publish certain words.”
Generally speaking, here’s what constitutes an obscenity or offensive language, according to our policy: “Obscenities concern sex acts or body parts; profanities concern religious irreverence and racial or ethnic epithets, and vulgarities concern coarseness or bad taste.”
The Pilot’s revised profanity policy attempts to make decision-making easier and more uniform by breaking offensive words into three categories, from the “least objectionable” (“crap,” “damn,” and “pissed,” for example) to category two (which also covers any references to a deity “when used in a coarsely profane manner”) to category three, the “most objectionable.”
Words in categories two and three “would rarely, if ever, appear in the paper” and require the approval of a deputy managing editor, the managing editor or the editor, the policy says.
In all instances: “Editors are expected to be sparing, yet consistent, in giving approval,” according to the policy. And they are cautioned to apply the newspaper’s standards rather than their personal ones.
Reporters and editors are advised to ask themselves certain questions when considering whether to quote profanity, among them: Can I write around the word and still convey the impact? Is the quote crucial to the story, and the profanity itself crucial to the quote? Does the profanity provide necessary color and insight to the subject of the story?
“We will use profanity occasionally, when we feel it’s necessary,” Carrillo said. “There will be stories about life and death and people caught in extraordinary circumstances, and the curse word someone uses at a dramatic moment may be important to conveying what’s happening. There is profanity used in the titles of books or in catch phrases from movies. There is profanity sometimes uttered in public meetings by public officials.”
The Pilot policy says that reporters can give sources, especially those not accustomed to dealing with the media, a chance to restate their views minus the use of profanity, or they can write around offensive language. “He answered with an obscenity,” is offered as an example of the latter.
“These rules are essentially guidelines,” says Carrillo, adding: “We’re still relying on our editors and reporters to think about and handle each situation in the best fashion possible as it comes up.”
But rest assured, “we will maintain our high standards in taste and language,” said Finley.
“Our readers can expect to pick up The Pilot on most days,” Carrillo added, “and find nothing offensive in the language we use.”
