Is it time to quit saying nigger/nigga?

[tomndebb]

@Common Tater

But the media self-polices itself quite thoroughly and broadly, esp. with politically correct terminology (though it should be said that censorship is by definition a government thing), the tortured syntax and studied ambiguity indicate to the reader that no expense is spared at avoiding certain words or key elements in a story. It takes hard work, and presumably numerous revision, to write that badly.

I think you’re confusing the efforts of news outlets and some other forms of publication and broadcast with the much larger environment of the media. There are a lot of words that are prohibitied on white-bread-make-no-offense news shows that are, indeed, permitted (if done under carefully controlled conditions of attempting humor or allowing “real life” scenes to be displayed) in movies, videos, songs, and, certainly, books. There is a stricter attempt to avoid a lot of words on TV and radio in the last couple of years since the FCC decided to go whole hog into the business of enforcing prudery, but I suspect that that is not what you were addressing.

I’m not exactly sure what point you are making. If you are arguing that (some portion of) the media already imposes a certain level of censorship*, I would agree. However, it does so based on a generalized recognition of words or expressions that will cause them to lose audience. “Nigga” does not show up in detective shows on TV because it will offend sufficient people to cause the show to lose audience, thus advertising. “Nigga” still appears on videos where the audience is expected to accept its use and where people who are offended are presumed to be only the tiniest portion of the potential market. A declaration by the industry that they would ban the word would be immediately followed by the word showing up in all live performances, substituted for some more innocuous word on the CD, and lots and lots of underground CDs with the word prominently featured in its “restored” position.

*(I am not sure why it has become a truism among some posters that censorship can only emante from the government. Censorship is the result of any authoritative person or body and is not limited to government action. No history of the Hays Code would identify it as anything other than censorship, yet it was purely an internal development of the movie industry. Even if it was undertaken to preclude government action, it remains true that the government did not actually impose the rules or compel the following of the code by the MPPDA (later MPAA). Censorship is the control of language by any authority, regardless whether it is government, internal to industry, religious, or even parental.)

[Frank]

@tomndebb

*(I am not sure why it has become a truism among some posters that censorship can only emante from the government. …)

I would suspect that it is due to the constant (and inapplicable) screaming of “First Amendment!” when any non-governmental censorship is performed.

[Common_Tater]

@Frank

I would suspect that it is due to the constant (and inapplicable) screaming of “First Amendment!” when any non-governmental censorship is performed.

Yes, the government censors free speech in a myriad of ways, and guarantees free speech in others. I think the distinction is a good one, albeit Webster isn’t perfect. “Free speech” doesn’t mean I have to listen, nor allow it on my property, my website, etc.