• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

When the NY Times Decides to Spell Out Profanity

You (pretend to?) have missed the point entirely: those words are used by many people thus to disguise those words (edit them out?) them when the NYT likes the speaker but to include those same words when the NYT does not like the speaker is a prime example of media bias.

Right, it's their fault for quoting him accurately.
 
Of course, nothing to say about the person who said those words, just that the Times is bad for printing them.

Lol, right? Just another day in the demented, twisted world of Trump-supporters...
 
In contrast to its policy of not repeating "barnyard epithets," said policy existing only days ago when the Times refused to spell out what Senator Reed said about Farenthold in his hot-mic conversation with Susan Collins, now comes Scaramucci, and what do you know? It's time to abandon any pretense of editorial standards.

From NRO:

Two days later, though, the paper’s policy on reporting vulgarities seemed to have undergone a distinct change when it reported on White House communications director Anthony Scaramucci’s “colorful language” in an exchange with a New Yorker writer. The Times fully, even a bit gleefully, reported Scaramucci’s profane remarks. There is little precedent for a swear word used by Scaramucci ever to appear in the New York Times. Nor is there much, if any, precedent for directly quoting the kind of language Scaramucci used when he described an anatomically improbable act.

...Let’s not pretend there isn’t another reason the Times cast off its usual standards in quoting Scaramucci without using dashes or euphemisms or the catchall term “vulgarity.” Quoting Scaramucci accurately is a way to make the Trump administration look bad, and making the Trump administration look bad is the Times’ primary purpose these days. This has been its primary purpose since long before its executive editor, Dean Baquet, admitted he thought his columnist Jim Rutenberg “nailed it” when Rutenberg, in a column Baquet placed on the front page last August, begged America’s Fourth Estate to abandon (its usual pretense of) objectivity and be boldly oppositional to Trump.

New York Times & Anthony Scaramucci -- It Prints His Profanity, Not Others? | National Review

I've been saying since 2004 that the old grey lady became a two-bit doxy in its shamelessly partisan support for John Kerry, but still, it's good to know that the NY Times has now abandoned any pretense at all at journalistic consistency, much less integrity.
His approach to Trump, he said, wouldn’t be fundamentally different. “It falls in that category,” Biden told me. “It’s one thing to say: ‘I think the proposal on the following is a serious mistake. I think it’s gonna do the following damage.’ It’s another thing to say, ‘The guy’s a ****ing idiot, and he is an egomaniac who’s a whatever.’ ”
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/17/...id-just-kept-saying-the-exact-same-thing.html

Oh look, the Times didn't censor Joe Biden when he dropped an F-bomb, thus rendering this thread irrelevant. And here they printed it again:

Ilie Nastase, former tennis star and current Fed Cup captain for Romania, might face a ban from professional tennis after he called two female tennis players (Great Britain captain Anne Keothavong and Johanna Konta) “****ing bitches.”
Former tennis star faces ban for calling female players ?bitches? – Women in the World in Association with The New York Times – WITW

And how about when reporting on Hillary Clinton's e-mail server?

About three weeks later, however, the unnamed specialist “had an ‘oh ****’ moment” and realized that he had not destroyed an archive of emails that was supposed to have been deleted a year earlier, according to the F.B.I. report.
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/03/us/politics/hillary-clinton-fbi.html




This is why you shouldn't read nakedly biased sources and should try to think for yourself and do research for yourself. Now that you see your wrong nota bene, I fully expect you to retract your position and apologize for pushing "fake news". Right?
Close, it is media bias for only quoting him accurately.
Yeah, but that's not really true.
 
Last edited:
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/17/...id-just-kept-saying-the-exact-same-thing.html

Oh look, the Times didn't censor Joe Biden when he dropped an F-bomb, thus rendering this thread irrelevant. And here they printed it again:


Former tennis star faces ban for calling female players ?bitches? – Women in the World in Association with The New York Times – WITW

And how about when reporting on Hillary Clinton's e-mail server?


https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/03/us/politics/hillary-clinton-fbi.html




This is why you shouldn't read nakedly biased sources and should try to think for yourself and do research for yourself. Now that you see your wrong nota bene, I fully expect you to retract your position and apologize for pushing "fake news". Right?
Yeah, but that's not really true.

Clapping-GIF-2015.gif


Slow your roll though, you gonna hurt yourself with them savage arguments.
 
Last edited:
Clapping-GIF-2015.gif


Slow your roll though, you gonna hurt yourself with them savage arguments.

You do not think facts are really going to sway anyone do you?
 
In contrast to its policy of not repeating "barnyard epithets," said policy existing only days ago when the Times refused to spell out what Senator Reed said about Farenthold in his hot-mic conversation with Susan Collins, now comes Scaramucci, and what do you know? It's time to abandon any pretense of editorial standards.

From NRO:

Two days later, though, the paper’s policy on reporting vulgarities seemed to have undergone a distinct change when it reported on White House communications director Anthony Scaramucci’s “colorful language” in an exchange with a New Yorker writer. The Times fully, even a bit gleefully, reported Scaramucci’s profane remarks. There is little precedent for a swear word used by Scaramucci ever to appear in the New York Times. Nor is there much, if any, precedent for directly quoting the kind of language Scaramucci used when he described an anatomically improbable act.

...Let’s not pretend there isn’t another reason the Times cast off its usual standards in quoting Scaramucci without using dashes or euphemisms or the catchall term “vulgarity.” Quoting Scaramucci accurately is a way to make the Trump administration look bad, and making the Trump administration look bad is the Times’ primary purpose these days. This has been its primary purpose since long before its executive editor, Dean Baquet, admitted he thought his columnist Jim Rutenberg “nailed it” when Rutenberg, in a column Baquet placed on the front page last August, begged America’s Fourth Estate to abandon (its usual pretense of) objectivity and be boldly oppositional to Trump.

New York Times & Anthony Scaramucci -- It Prints His Profanity, Not Others? | National Review

I've been saying since 2004 that the old grey lady became a two-bit doxy in its shamelessly partisan support for John Kerry, but still, it's good to know that the NY Times has now abandoned any pretense at all at journalistic consistency, much less integrity.

(laughs)

Funny..
Seeing NYT & and journalistic integrity in the same post, when I am pretty sure one killed the other a long time ago.
 
Of course, nothing to say about the person who said those words, just that the Times is bad for printing them.

That's right, Rocket. I'm sticking to the topic, and this forum is Bias in the Media. This thread isn't about Scaramucci; it's about the NY Times abandoning its editorial policy.
 
That kinda totally misses the point. There is exactly no substantive difference between spelling the word out, or using ****ing stars. It is a seriously petty thing to whine about.

I'm not whining. I don't think Kyle Smith is whining. I don't know what your journo background is (I have one), but claiming that there is no substantive difference in spelling out a swear word or using asterisks instead astonishes me. Maybe you've never thought about why the NY Times and other newspapers of record have as editorial policy not spelling out some "dirty" words? Why there is a word censor at DP?
 
All those words and no indignation for the man who used the words. There is little precedent for the words Scaramucci used to be associated with the White House. It is a strange new world!

Although I haven't done so myself because anybody who knows anything about me can guess what I think about someone who is (1) profane in public and (2) too dumb to say, "This is off the record" and because the topic is the Times changing its editorial policy out of nowhere.
 
Trump lowering the standards everywhere. Maybe everyone will now finally quit censoring ****. Hint.

Do you think not censoring will elevate standards? ;)
 
That the New York Times accurately quotes people is certainly more concerning and egregious than the fact that people in the Trump administration (himself included, of course) talk like this.

Yep, gotta keep our priorities in order here.

I certainly haven't said that Scaramucci's words aren't appalling. They aren't the thread topic. If I'd wanted to discuss which is worse, I would've begun a poll asking people to compare apples and pencil shavings.

The topic is the change in the Times's editorial policy. Apparently, some people posting in this thread think that an organization's editorial policy and the filthy words of an individual spoken to a reporter are the same. Keep thinking.
 
Do you think not censoring will elevate standards? ;)

I was never a fan of censoring words, be it in print, on websites or on TV. So, I guess I don't care about "high standards" when it comes to banning words we all say every day anyway.
 
Well, we all "use grammar," but if you mean that Times writers use good grammar/write well, they do.

If you'd like to talk about the hypocrisy of delicately avoiding repeating what Senator Reed said and then, when it suited its ignoble purposes, printing profanity two days later which was unprecedented, that would be great.

Missing the point and moving the goal post is easier. :)

Does anyone remember what
editorial standards
are? Integrity and reporting facts seems to have been replaced by strategic quarterbacking.
 
This is why you shouldn't read nakedly biased sources and should try to think for yourself and do research for yourself. Now that you see your wrong nota bene, I fully expect you to retract your position and apologize for pushing "fake news". Right?

Accusing me of trying to push fake news is preposterous.

If you'd like to discuss the NY Times's shift in editorial policy to allow the f-bomb, that's fine. If you can point to an instance of this news outlet's permitting the other comment about sucking, that would be even better.

My guess is that you have no interest at all in this and that your sole intent here was to "engage" me. Thank you for the advice to think for myself; I'm sure it was offered as a helpful hint.;)
 
Sly ended this thread on the last page.

There was no editorial change, and nothing was 'moved'. NYT's has done this before.

Cons love to blame the media for EVERYTHING. 1 of their's swears like a sailor, TO THE MEDIA, but Cons blame the media for reporting it, not the guy swearing. What a bunch of whiners.
 
I was never a fan of censoring words, be it in print, on websites or on TV. So, I guess I don't care about "high standards" when it comes to banning words we all say every day anyway.

For some of us, there is a time and a place for everything, and some don't say these words every day. I don't think most people casually talk about somebody trying to suck himself off. Perhaps you do, but that's not my frame of reference.

And there is a difference between the spoken word, particularly in private/among friends, and the public written word. This is why I'm so amused by those who can't make a post here at DP without gratuitous swearing. I mean, if you can't control yourself when you're writing, you have major self-control issues. :lol:

But perhaps you're right. Why have any standards at all?
 
For some of us, there is a time and a place for everything, and some don't say these words every day. I don't think most people casually talk about somebody trying to suck himself off. Perhaps you do, but that's not my frame of reference.

And there is a difference between the spoken word, particularly in private/among friends, and the public written word. This is why I'm so amused by those who can't make a post here at DP without gratuitous swearing. I mean, if you can't control yourself when you're writing, you have major self-control issues. :lol:

But perhaps you're right. Why have any standards at all?

It was your boi who made the comment. So, why are you whining that the Times printed his words in full? I have no issue with quoting someone's exact words, sans censor. Why do you?

Maybe you should go complain to Trump. He's the one who hired someone who cannot speak without throwing out a dozen words that you now want to be censored.
 
It was your boi who made the comment.
We all know about the boy who should wash his mouth with soap. The question de jour is why aren't other boys reported on for needing a good oral cleaning? The example of Reid was given. Do you really think he is the only one? Or may be he is the only one daring enough to spew it out in the open.
So please don't distract for the issue of media bias by pointing to that one boy.
 
We all know about the boy who should wash his mouth with soap. The question de jour is why aren't other boys reported on for needing a good oral cleaning? The example of Reid was given. Do you really think he is the only one? Or may be he is the only one daring enough to spew it out in the open.
So please don't distract for the issue of media bias by pointing to that one boy.

They didn't do anything different. **** is not censored anywhere. See?
 
(laughs)

Funny..
Seeing NYT & and journalistic integrity in the same post, when I am pretty sure one killed the other a long time ago.

Do you long for the time when there was no media bias? Which never happened?
 
Back
Top Bottom