Do as we say, not as we do
There is, apparently, a double standard in place at the News & Observer’s online edition. There are the things the N&O’s staff writers can say, and then there are the things its readers can say — or more precisely, the things they can’t say.
The N&O on Monday published an article on the upcoming visit to Raleigh by writer Celia Rivenbark, who is the author of five books of humor including “Stop Dressing Your Six-Year-Old Like a Skank.” The N&O not only made note of that title, but also started its article this way:
Author Celia Rivenbark describes MySpace as the “slightly skankier cousin” to Facebook.
The problem? The newspaper seems to have a prohibition against the word “skank,” but only when used by others. In a comment following the story on Rivenbark, a reader explained that he’d once used that word in a previous comment, and had his comment deleted.
The N&O specifically indicated to me via an online message that the word s-ank was objectionable and offensive when they removed my comment. Now this lady can use it in a title for her book and the N&O prints it.
In fact, after trying to post a comment in response to the Rivenbark article, the reader got snagged again:
… Amazingly enough, when I tried to submit this, I received the message that I must “edit or remove the following word(s): s-kank.”
Well, that’s what happens when a newspaper cuts its staff in half. Computer programs do the copy editing.
September 8th, 2009 at 1:13 pm
In trying times like these, I amuse myself with oddball spellings intended to get around the programmatic nannies. For instance, in the aforementioned case, perhaps “sk@nk” would work for the kind poster?
September 8th, 2009 at 2:42 pm
Hey this Riverbank lady is funny. Cute too. Kinda reminds me of what you’d get if Lewis Grizzard and Irma Bombeck had a kid - who sprang from the womb as a 18 year old. That’s the only way she could be the fruit of their loins.
My math sucks, but if she’s 52 now, then you gotta work backwards to pin point the intersection of Irma’s peak child bearing years with Grizzard’s highest virility quotient - I won’t tell you how I calculated that, but I estimate it at some time around early spring, 1975.
I read the dissed reader’s comment too. He more than just deployed the word in general conversation; he referred to a public figure as a sk@nk.
Heck, with all their travails as chronicled in your blog, why would the News & Observer invite more trouble?
September 8th, 2009 at 9:50 pm
There’s a long list of words that aren’t allowed. I once tried using “cock of the walk”. Nope.
I once tried to quote a cop who had used bad language which the N&O had glossed over in the article. Turns out “f##k” wasn’t allowed but “fword” was.
September 9th, 2009 at 9:03 am
Well, if they are using a computer program as copy editor it ain’t a very good one. The amount of bad grammer and number of misspelled words is astounding.
Wonder what will happen when they realize how expensive it is to employ the IT guys needed to keep the computers going. Maybe they’ll farm out the copy editing to some third world country. That should result in some interesting headlines.
September 9th, 2009 at 5:03 pm
Actually, my bet is that there is a program designed to automatically screen the comments, and that it’s not a bad option — neither lazy nor imprudent.
The volume of comments is enormous and uneditable (comments do not represent any economic value to the N&O). So they’ve set up an automated system to screen comments with potentially offensive content — that way, the N&O site continues to accept comments, but does a somewhat crude but simple job of screening out material that would be offensive on its face.
Not perfect. But some newspapers and online journals have simply bailed out on the comments. This isn’t a perfect system, but better.
Meanwhile, real copy editors handle the actual content — leading to this kind of occasional example of Catch-22-ism. Which gives people something to comment about.
September 9th, 2009 at 5:27 pm
I wonder who got the job of compiling the list of offending words and phrases. That must have been an interesting undertaking.
September 10th, 2009 at 10:26 am
Fuck.
September 11th, 2009 at 2:20 pm
Well Jim, that has to be the most succinct comment ever posted at WAW. You wanna check the record John? However, It does pretty much say it all. Well put.
September 11th, 2009 at 2:43 pm
I thought Jim’s comment was self-indulgently long. He could have dropped the “k” and gotten the same message across.
September 11th, 2009 at 2:51 pm
Not really NTI, but since I appointed myself the WAW statistician, what choice do I have?
Now I gotta come up with a whole new metric too: Words per Post. Jeezus.
Hey Jim, were you using the word as a verb or or an interjection? If I’m gonna do this statistics stuff, I might as well do it right.
September 15th, 2009 at 11:39 am
Fuc U
September 15th, 2009 at 12:41 pm
If Jim’s first comment was the most succinct post in WAW history, then the one above is simply resting on its laurels. Or maybe he sent it as a text message.
The “F” word happens to be a gift to the English language when used with passion, creativity and restraint.
I give you R. Lee Ermey’s solilloquy from FULL METAL JACKET as an example. When he’s pacing around that barracks of Marine recruits, his “Welcome to My Beloved Corps” orientation speech has a grace and eloquence that’s quite moving. It’s f-ing beautiful.
September 16th, 2009 at 4:57 pm
As with Jim’s first post, the genius of his latest offering lies in the brevity. A complete communication with nary a wasted byte. Clearly, the second post was made to illustrate the fallacy of G.D.s argument. Omitting the k just doesn’t measure up — lacking the forceful visual conclusion. It’s like sex without climax. And the period of the first post shows polish, professionalism, clearly denoting the completion of thought — worthy of inclusion in the WAW record book. The second offering leaves one hanging. The assemblage is reminiscent of off-topic amateur ramblings. However, once again, he scores his point in want of unnecessary filler. Bravo!
September 16th, 2009 at 8:03 pm
Awright, awright, I’ll concede the point: Jim is one of the giants of modern American literature. I bow before the master.
September 17th, 2009 at 12:15 pm
In defense of Jim’s second message, he was texting - while driving actually - so he was otherwise occupied - or he should have been.
That’s the deal. Jim’s lapse in his normally good judgement will cost him dearly as he rear-ended a Subaru full of nuns who now suffer from severe whiplash, one and all.
Jim describes this crappy turn of events as only Jim can:
“Fuc me”
September 17th, 2009 at 12:24 pm
You ever get the feeling we’re like a bunch of snooty Parisians on our four-hour lunch break sittin’ around some bistro table praising the comic genius of Jerry Lewis?