I re-read Kane Webb’s column from Sunday. The Buy/Sell stuff is always great. He puts a buy on newspapers, naturally. And, of course, I agree. But he makes an interesting side note about the advantages of the newspaper: “. . . and nary a naughty word-not even in the Letters section. As the father of an 8-year-old, that last counts for plenty. I’ve visited too many websites supposedly dedicated to news and opinion that read like graffiti on the bathroom stall. Especially the Comments. If that is the future of journalism, leave me in the past.”
Our favorite gadfly, The Arkansas Project, seems to believe this is directed at The Think Tank. Yeah, because I’m the one that used a not-good-out-loud-word that begins with a p and ends with a y. Wrong. That was all you, David Kinkade.
For what it’s worth, in the last several months I’ve noticed that naughty words that begin with a B, F, A and S have appeared in The New Republic, Slate.com, The New Yorker and Salon.com.
And because I was up early, here’s an interesting piece from Slate about The Washington Post’s decision to reprint, verbatim, former Vice President Dick Cheney’s use of the f-bomb to Sen. Patrick Leahy. At the time, Michael Getler of the Post stated the paper’s policy on the use of profanity: “The paper doesn’t do it unless it’s exceptionally newsworthy and necessary for readers to understand and make a judgment” on the story.
The New York Times and The Los Angeles Times have all printed the F-word. A search of that word on the Village Voice Web site yields more than 1000 returns. Search practically any bad word and you’ll find that it has appeared in at least one commonly read magazine or newspaper, and in many cases consistently.
I’m not trying to incite a decency debate, trust me. The fact that a naughty word has appeared doesn’t mean you have to like it or continue to read the publication, in print or online. But let’s be careful at pointing the finger solely at the Internet.
There, I’m done. And honestly, I’m just trying to get that annoying Arkansas Project off my gluteus maximus.
UPDATE: Classic response from Mr. Kinkade. Reverting to naughty words that will offend your sensibilities. Some bloggers are so unsophisticated. You can sense Mr. Kinkade, in his best Napoleon Dynamite, saying, “I can do whatever I wanna do. Gosh!”
Below, Mr. Kinkade trying to score readers for his blog. Note his support for milk. Follow Mr. Kinkade on Twitter.
[...] on Blake, Day 3: God, sometimes Blake Rutherford is such a whiny little pussy. (Blake’s Think Tank) No TweetBacks yet. (Be the first to Tweet this post) Related [...]
No, no, let’s have a decency debate! Our self-amused sparring aside, I reject out of hand the contention that publications, print or online, are under some sort of “good taste” obligation to “think of the children.” If there is language to be found on Blake’s Think Tank or The Arkansas Project or The Arkansas Times blog or elsewhere that is inappropriate for children, that’s because these publications are written by and for adult readers — not for 8-year-olds. Just because they’re in the public sphere where children might possibly access them does not place us under any editorial obligation to write for an audience of children.
On top of all that, Blake’s Think Tank and the Arkansas Project and most other blogs that come to mind in the Arkansas sphere adhere to a pretty conservative editorial code on these matters, even if some of us occasionally push the boundaries — it’s relatively rare that this site or mine goes beyond the PG-13 rating.
Or, to put it more concisely: To hell with that nonsense.
D.
DK, of course I agree with you. Not only is it too general, it’s factually inaccurate to claim that newspapers are more responsible content providers because they don’t publish naughty words. Maybe the Democrat-Gazette has a policy against it, but the “stock” characterization was “newspapers,” and as I noted in my post many of the world’s most reputable papers have done so.
Regarding the issue of age: if Blake’s Think Tank was aimed at an 8-year-old it would be pbskids.org. But it isn’t, and there’s nothing on this site that would encourage an 8-year-old to visit, much less accidentally stumble on it, stay, read and understand the content, encounter a bad word, be offended, tell mom and dad, and do harm as a result. That’s just plain silly.
And speaking of silly, did you see this from Jay Grelen in Sunday’s paper: “The Internet, like 21st century terrorists, doesn’t have a single country of operations or a single nation of origin or a single race of warriors.” 21st century terrorists? Really? How did this idiocy escape commentary on our radio program?
I did see that, which is shocking, because it’s rare that I should read the hard copy of the paper anymore, and even rarer that I should read a Grelen column. It was a stab at satire, right? Right? Surely.
D.
One has to hope, but you never know. One thing is for certain: It was bad writing.
[...] “despite what bloggers want us to think.” Man, that’s the second generalization in as many days (Thumbs Up: Kane Webb). What’s the [...]
[...] UPDATE: And then there’s this documentary about what happens when laid-off newspaper staff go to work for an up-and-coming blog operation (H/T Lannie Byrd). But watch out! It has a dirty word in it, so don’t let Kane Webb watch it or he might have a coronary: [...]
[...] Webb of the Arkansas Democrat Gazette lambasts the “Internet” (by which he means blogs) for pushing bad words. Then Jeff Hankins of Arkansas Business writes in his is 2034 prediction column, “The demand [...]
[...] Kane Webb: Another Democrat-Gazette columnist, savvy political writer. His lively voice and breadth of coverage demands a life beyond the printed page. Plus, Webb could set a good example to which the rest of us potty-mouths could aspire. [...]
[...] Kane Webb: Another Democrat-Gazette columnist, savvy political writer. His lively voice and breadth of coverage demands a life beyond the printed page. Plus, Webb could set a good example to which the rest of us potty-mouths could aspire. [...]
[...] Kane Webb of the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette. Actually, he was on Lance’s list, too, but the thing is I once suggested Kane consider being part of The Arkansas Project’s stable of contributors and he just looked at me like that was the stupidest idea anyone had ever suggested, that a big shot like him would write for “some piss-ant blog.” So screw him. Plus he went and turned into a big sissy about dirty words. [...]