By JOHN RIOUX<\/p>\n
A recent phone conversation was leaked involving United States Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland saying \u201cF*** the EU\u201d.<\/p>\n
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.<\/p>\n
I am not concerned on Nuland\u2019s views, but why it is still necessary to replace profane language in journalism?<\/p>\n
The barriers of using offensive language have broadened in society, yet journalism lags behind with no intention of change.<\/p>\n
Yes, there are some situations in which explicit language is unnecessary. However, it is often essential in understanding the context of the message.<\/p>\n
The actual visibility of an obscene word allows us to understand the message better than filling the space with asterisks.<\/p>\n
Euphemisms and other similar tactics do not provide justice to the reader in seeing the honest story.<\/p>\n
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.<\/p>\n
When New York Congressman Michael Grimm threated to throw a reporter of a balcony, much of his language had to be bleeped out.<\/p>\n
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.<\/p>\n
So please mainstream publications, start writing what you actually mean and put an end to patronizing your audiences.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
By JOHN RIOUX A recent phone conversation was leaked involving United States Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland saying \u201cF*** the EU\u201d. Nuland was referring to the European Union and her belief that in order for a solution to occur … Continue reading