By JOHN RIOUX

A recent phone conversation was leaked involving United States Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland saying “F*** the EU”.

Nuland was referring to the European Union and her belief that in order for a solution to occur in Ukraine, they will need to be of assistance.

I am not concerned on Nuland’s views, but why it is still necessary to replace profane language in journalism?

The barriers of using offensive language have broadened in society, yet journalism lags behind with no intention of change.

Yes, there are some situations in which explicit language is unnecessary. However, it is often essential in understanding the context of the message.

The actual visibility of an obscene word allows us to understand the message better than filling the space with asterisks.

Euphemisms and other similar tactics do not provide justice to the reader in seeing the honest story.

Many blogs and more progressive outlets allow their writers to publish content with obscenities. If we want mainstream journalism to continue it must keep up with the changing of society.

When New York Congressman Michael Grimm threated to throw a reporter of a balcony, much of his language had to be bleeped out.

Although we were able to understand what was said, the videos and recordings do not do justice to the fearfulness the reporter must have felt.

So please mainstream publications, start writing what you actually mean and put an end to patronizing your audiences.