Our local paper quoted Trump as having said he was f**ked. Not the Times. They used the fulbtw.l word in an editorial today and also in a news story. I wonder whether that was a special exception or will now be considered acceptable. The New Yorker crossed that line at least a decade ago. This was the print edition
I’m presuming you’re referring to the article about the Mueller probe. Therefore, it was a quote that 46-1 made; not their ‘own’ language.
It is news. Trump and the report crossed the line, not the Times.
This isn’t the first time that “fuck” has appeared in print in the Times. They did it in 2016, as well, once again while quoting the president.
I was wondering something similar about last nights Twitter dump. Since RealDonaldTrump has been ruled an official venue of government communication, is this the first time the word “Bullshit” has been used by a President in an official capacity?
I’m pretty sure that it is. And IMHO the impact is substantial and speaks volumes about this presidency. On one hand language like that demeans the presidency and the gravitas of the office from which it gleans its moral authority, which is why no other president ever talked like that. On the other hand, for someone who couldn’t care less about such things, it’s an effective device for creating a kind of bond with the common man, a “just like me” persona long used by crooks and con-men to persuade their marks that they’re just like them and have their interests in mind. It really works, because instead of coming across as a remote statesmanlike figure, he comes across as a working-class drinking buddy. Unfortunately, that’s also how he comes across to world leaders who tend to be somewhat more astute.
Truman, Johnson, Nixon and others certainly talked like that. The difference is that they didn’t put it in writing.
CNN did not censor the word “shithole” after Da Dumpster used that word in reference to some countries.
I don’t think the “in writing” part is significant; what’s unprecedented here is talking like that in the context of official public statements. Johnson and Nixon certainly had foul mouths in private. It should surprise no one that presidents are just people and many may talk that way in private. Talking that way in official public statements, however, changes the fundamental norms of national discourse. Trump’s followers love it, of course, and it’s another example of Trump putting self before country, which is pretty much his modus operandi.
The Times doesn’t use asterisks to censor expletives. They have a high bar, but once they decide the word is newsworthy, they print the whole thing:
Crossed the line into ‘Reality’?
Wow…you’re horrified at the idea that the paper didn’t censor the word “fucked”? Seriously?
Of all the crap that’s going on in the world, of all the things I read in the paper, that’s the LEAST thing I find offensive. (And like putting two astericks makes a difference?)
Seriously, no wonder other nations point and laugh at us.
You all seem to be forgetting that Obama once wore a tan suit.
i haven’t seen a word of criticism for the Times here – where are you getting “horrified”?
Out of curiosity, did the Times report on Obama calling Kanye West a “jackass”?
Does the Times’s rule on profanity extend to racial slurs? If/when we get Trump dropping an N bomb on tape, I wonder if the Times will print it.
I’m not the OP, but it’s certainly possible to be surprised without being horrified. I can remember when certain words were “unprintable,” and a highly-respected mainstream newspaper would not have printed them—even if they were newsworthy quotes, they would be rendered as “f***” or “expletive deleted.” And it’s reasonable to wonder when that changed—when the line was crossed.
:mad: #NeverForget :mad:
To be fair, it was kind of an ugly suit and tie combo. And I think the jacket was a little big on him. I have a suit about that same color. I like it with a tie with more burgundy in it. He looked pretty awesome here though: https://pixel.nymag.com/imgs/daily/intelligencer/2017/01/19/19-barack-obama-tan-suit.w700.h700.jpg
Surely he was misquoted. After all, a good Christian man, chosen by God to be President couldn’t possibly have such a potty mouth.
For the humor impaired - yes, that was sarcasm.
What thread are you reading? No one has said that at all.
Some people have expressed objections to the President’s use of language in an official capacity. As far as I can see, no one has objected to the Times printing the word, just remarked that it is notable for a newspaper of record.