Newspapers always claim that the reason they gloss over inconvenient details in stories is because they are for families.
Newspapers won’t print obscenities even if the obscenities are the story and they hardly print the gory — real — details of war. Newspapers argue that these details — however real and newsworthy they are — offend the senses of the families that read newspapers. Apparently, families don’t like reality.
But, honestly, what families read newspapers? Lots of grandparents and parents read newspapers. Not many kids do.
We all know the average newspaper reader is like five million years old. So, why are we still censoring content as if eight-year olds are the primary readers of newspapers?
Perhaps the funniest example of this comes from The Los Angeles Times about Tribune overlord Sam Zell saying two distinct words to an Orlando Sentinel photographer (awesome video awaits) during a testy exchange last week. The Times, however, only told Times readers that Zell uttered a “two-word obscenity.”
What distinct, not-so-family-friendly words were those? Why “fuck you” of course. I know families don’t read my blog, so I’m not going to censor myself when trying to discuss a story.
The LA Times refused to mention what words Zell said that were causing a stir, even though Zell is the owner of the LA Times and clearly doesn’t care about offending anyone. Perhaps the best skewering of the Times coverage of Zell comes from Gustavo Arellano’s commentary in the Feb. 10 issue of the Times.
The Times’ coverage of its loose-lipped boss is even more hilariously dowdy. Seriously, Spring Street: a “two-word obscenity?” What on Earth did Zell say? “Darn tootin’? ” “God dammit?” (Or is that one word?) “Mitt Romney?” If the story deserves to be written, don’t we deserve to know what it’s really about? The Chicago Tribune did a slightly better job describing Zell’s snafu, describing his jab as a “four-letter” word — and as weak as that description is (was the offending term “poop?” “Hell?” “Hola?”), it’s still much better than what The Times allowed.
Honestly, if the Times is uncomfortable printing “fuck you” then they shouldn’t bother covering the story in the first place. Without full details, it’s an extremely shallow story that does not properly convey what happened. Now, there is a difference between printing obscenities because they are integral to a story and printing obscenities because a writer just likes to swear when he writes.
We owe it to our readers to provide an accurate portrait of events. If we can’t do that, we should really reconsider what we’re doing in the news business.
Think of it this way: we’re in the business of telling stories. If you told the Zell story to a friend, would you have said “two-word obscenity” or “fuck you?”
