I’m guessing the first letter is ‘c’ and it ends in ‘hickenshit’

So. Your Humble Blogger had been wanting to write about what happens when there is a news story about people saying things that the news can’t report. I’m not talking about defense secrets, here, I’m talking about cursing, racist epithets and dirty talk.

The obvious instance that got me started musing on the topic was Don Imus getting sacked over a conversation that the newspapers couldn’t manage to really explain. In case y’all didn’t get the actual news, Mr. Imus and his sidekicks were having a conversation about the two teams in the NCAA women’s basketball championships, and saying that the team with one team had attractive light-skinned women who played elegant, skilled, graceful basketball, while the other team were thugs and goons and, in the phrase that became famous, “nappy-headed hos”. I didn’t see any newspaper article that articulated how tremendously racist the entire conversation was, and how the one word that Mr. Imus introduced into the conversation—nappy-headed—symbolized rather perfectly the way in which Mr. Imus, and white society generally, expects African-American women to conform to European straight-haired slender beauty standards, and sees any deviance from those standards to indicate deficiency in other areas, particularly criminality. In other words, clearly Mr. Imus expected one team to play rough because they looked black, and the other team to play skillfully because they looked white. That’s why people think he’s a racist. Because he exhibits actual racist thinking.

Now, in theory, a newspaper could have written about that. It would have been tricky, and the reporter would have needed to explain a lot of the bigger social context in quotes from academics, and it would have been controversial anyway, but it would have been a tremendous service. Television news, obviously, would have had a much more difficult time with it, given time constraints, and even radio would have had some difficulty. And, of course, to explain the thing properly, the newspaper or station would have had to include several examples of offensively expressed racist thinking. I can understand why, for the most part, they didn’t even bother to try.

Now, there has been another shock-jock (a team, actually) suspended, this time for airing a violent rape fantasy involving the Secretary of State. In this case, although some useful context could have been provided explaining the way that powerful women become sex objects, in ways that both add to and detract from their power, the real problem is that newspapers and broadcasters can’t publish the actual quotes because they are too disgusting. I more or less agree with this. The New York Times (for instance) is a family newspaper, and although their rather goofy techniques of taboo avoidance may be misguided, I think most of their subscribers do not actual want to read the words “fuck her to death” in the subway on the way to work.

I was wondering, though, whether at this point the Times or any other family newspaper should, when writing about a news item like that one, place the transcript on-line, and indicate that in the story. That way, the paper could actually inform the people who wanted to be actually informed, and the people who would just as soon not know won’t feel all violated and whatnot. I believe that some newspapers followed a similar strategy with the infamous Earl Butz scandal, refusing to print it in the paper but mailing out the quote in response to enquiries.

This morning, though, I discover (through the Talking Points Memo) that the Washington Post’s website, in their Capitol Briefing blog by Paul Kane, was reporting that John McCain “used a curse word associated with chickens” in addressing Sen. John Cornyn and furthermore said “[Expletive] you!” Now, come on.

In this case it probably doesn’t matter what the exact words were, nor is it all that difficult to tell what they were (which of course defeats the purpose of taboo avoidance, except that it is the purpose of taboo avoidance), but can the Washington Post find no way to actually inform us? What if he called the Senataor from Texas a pussy or a faggot? Would they have been able to write about the revealed misogyny or homophobia, or would they have had to hint around?

It was not a huge surprise to discover that both Our Only President and his Vice-President are, in conversation, very profane. I do think that a lot of our reporters knew that they were profane, knew that their profanity was at odds with their public image, and had no good way to reveal that discrepancy. When they tried, it wound up being about the press—and I think any way they tried, it would have been about the press, because they are not set up to handle that sort of thing. And they should probably at least think about setting themselves up to handle it, because it will come up again.

Is it really news that Sen. McCain curses? No. Or, at least, it’s news that he’s cursing at other Republican Senators, but not that he curses, because his cranky maverick persona lines up very well with occasionally calling somebody a curse word associated with barnyard fowl. Would it be news if Willard “Mitt” Romney curses a lot? Yes, it would, because his persona is of a family man, clean-cut and whatnot. Would it be news if Senator Clinton curses a lot? Sadly, yes, simply because she is a lady, vaddevah dat means. Would it be news if Governor Richardson curses a lot? I think no, but I’m not sure; he is a diplomat, but a bit of a rough-hewn one. Would it be news if Fred Dobson curses a lot? Yes. Would it be news if Tim Russert curses a lot, when he’s off camera? I think so, yes, but I could be persuaded otherwise. Would it be news if Elizabeth Edwards has a sailor’s vocabulary and Redd Foxx sense of humor? Would it be news if Barack Obama told Earl Butz’ses’s joke? How would they tell that news?

Tolerabimus quod tolerare debemus,
-Vardibidian.