When the NY Times Decides to Spell Out Profanity

[Brochacholomigo]

Trump lowering the standards everywhere. Maybe everyone will now finally quit censoring ****. Hint.

I see what you did there.

 

[MTAtech]

That argument does not work when so many do it now......now had the elite taken the tack "this is not up to our standards of decency so we will not follow" things would be different, buch with as much profanity as I see from the opinion molders "OMG, Team Trump sucks so bad for doing this" does not hunt.

Ah, so you're not outraged that the President's Comm Dir uses such crude and profane language, you are outraged that the media reports it.

The reason that they report it so much is that the Trump Admin gives them abundant material.

 

[Hawkeye10]

Ah, so you're not outraged that the President's Comm Dir uses such crude and profane language, you are outraged that the media reports it.

The reason that they report it so much is that the Trump Admin gives them abundant material.

Clearly you are not following along.

Maybe if you read what I said twice you will catch me.





GOOD LUCK!

:2wave:

 

[JasperL]

That argument does not work when so many do it now......now had the elite taken the tack "this is not up to our standards of decency so we will not follow" things would be different, but with as much profanity and cheap hostility as I see from the opinion molders "OMG, Team Trump sucks so bad for doing this" does not hunt.

Yes, of course, it's someone else's fault that the WH Comms Director was accurately quoted in a vulgarity laced rant against key WH insiders. Whatever it takes to divert any blame or responsibility away from Trump et al.

And just FWIW, it's not really 'news' that a guy like Mooch uses profanity. What's stunning is the words he used to describe Priebus and Bannon, two of the very top WH officials, and that the Comms Director did this in an on the record interview within days of assuming his post.

 

[Hawkeye10]

Yes, of course, it's someone else's fault that the WH Comms Director was accurately quoted in a vulgarity laced rant against key WH insiders. Whatever it takes to divert any blame or responsibility away from Trump et al.

And just FWIW, it's not really 'news' that a guy like Mooch uses profanity. What's stunning is the words he used to describe Priebus and Bannon, two of the very top WH officials, and that the Comms Director did this in an on the record interview within days of assuming his post.

I have blamed no one for what the WH does, I have simply said that the outrage does not work, because the Elite Class once again has turned in bad work.

 

[JasperL]

I have blamed no one for what the WH does, I have simply said that the outrage does not work, because the Elite Class once again has turned in bad work.

OK, you didn't blame the media, you just use the media as your excuse - a variant of "He did it first, Ma!"

 

[Hawkeye10]

OK, you didn't blame the media, you just use the media as your excuse - a variant of "He did it first, Ma!"

First has nothing to do with my argument so we still find you wrong. The argument is "He who does the same has no grounds to complain that the other is doing it, regardless of who did it first".

If it is a standard then treat it as a standard, if you dont treat it as a standard then dont claim to me that it is a standard if you expect me to take you seriously.

 

[JasperL]

First has nothing to do with my argument so we still find you wrong. The argument is "He who does the same has no grounds to complain that the other is doing it, regardless of who did it first".

If it is a standard then treat it as a standard, if you dont treat it as a standard then dont claim to me that it is a standard if you expect me to take you seriously.

But 'using profanity' isn't the story or what's noteworthy or the standard. Most of us do that from time to time. What I've never done and I imagine most haven't done is take a job then within days of assuming the post, publicly and on the record trash some of the highest ranking of my coworkers using very vulgar terms.

The "standard" at issue here is treating coworkers with the bare minimum of respect. Another standard is the communications director for the White House conduct himself as a professional in his dealings with...the media. The Mooch failed both miserably, and pointing to the media for excuses is pretty lame, IMO.

 

[rocket88]

If this thread were about Scaramucci and what he said, perhaps you would be right. But it's not.

No it is. It's just not going the way you want it to go where everyone on the left says they'll only believe words from Scaramucchi's mouth....which is exactly what this is. He was quoted accurately. Not our fault the guy's an ass.

 

[rocket88]

The right is hilarious. You want actual news to quite them accurately, then when they do you get butthurt because reality made your hero look bad.

 

[chuckiechan]

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.

It seems to be their way of tip toeing into the profanity that is commonplace. There seems to be little refuge from it anymore.

 

[Slyfox696]

Oh, just stop it. I wasn't "pushing a position" or "fake news"; I posted an article on the Times not quoting Senator Reed verbatim vs quoting Scaramucci verbatim.

:lol:

No you didn't. You tried to claim the Times "abandoned any pretense of editorial standards" by "changing its editorial policy out of nowhere" because "Quoting Scaramucci accurately is a way to make the Trump administration look bad" (from your source). I showed you that was false. You pushed fake news. You took fake news and posted it to the forum and co-opted the position as your own.

You pushed fake news. The Times didn't change its editorial policy out of nowhere to make the Trump administration look bad, they've published other vulgarity in the past as well. You were wrong. And you posted an article which was wrong. And anyone with 5 minutes and Google could know it was wrong.

But I also think there was intent rather than a new goal of "accuracy,"

The intent is that what Scaramucci said was so crazy and abnormal it had to be posted in its full context to be fully understood. Just like when they did it with Biden or the guy who got suspended.

This idea of "intent" is nothing more than typical persecution complex so often exhibited by those who support members of the Republican party. Even when you've had the evidence of its falsehood shoved directly in your face, you still won't acknowledge how wrong you were.

and the reason I said what I did about abandoning any pretense of integrity or fairness is the NY Times's decline since 2004, of which this is simply the most recent example.

It's not an example though. Have you not been paying attention?

Your presumptuous guess is wrong.

How so? Did you not post an article which was false? Did you not use that article to make a baseless assertion I've since proven wrong? Why won't you just admit your mistake and go on looking for a more legitimate example to feel persecuted?

You've accused me of telling a falsehood.

Because you did. You posted the fake news article and co-opted the position as your own. That's a falsehood you told. Do you really not remember your own words here?

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 really not remember your own words and positions? Those are your own words you are now, presumably, trying to ignore because they've been proven false.

Oh, thank you

You're welcome. Always willing to help.

and may I suggest that you take your own advice and also that you read more carefully? The NRO article was about the difference between how the Times reported on what Senator Reed said and then how it quoted Scaramucci.

No it wasn't, that's another falsehood. The NRO article was about one thing and one thing only. And it was this:

"...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."
​

That was the primary purpose, a purpose you obviously pushed in your opening post. To insinuate the Times is biased because they did something (or as you claimed, changed their policy) to Scaramucci they wouldn't do to a Democrat (or at least someone who wasn't Trump). You bought into the fake news when you posted, "The topic is the change in the Times's editorial policy." But then I proved that false, that there was no change in the Times editorial policy, and now you're desperately trying to backtrack, rather than just admit you were wrong.

I stand by what I said: In publishing the above (and in brackets) and then quoting Scaramucci’s filthy comments, the New York Times has now abandoned any pretense of fairness or journalistic integrity.

Based on what? Because they printed Joe Biden and others also using vulgarity. How is that abandoning journalistic integrity? That's just ridiculous.

Now, are you going to admit that you didn’t really read or grasp the NRO article’s point

No, I got the point just fine. It was just a lie. :shrug:

Fake news is fake and you fell for it. This is why you shouldn't read nakedly biased news sources. Many people I know would simply admit they were fooled but you have apparently decided on a different tactic, which is to double down on the falsehood. Interesting strategy, but not one which will work out well for you in the eyes of any objective person.

 

[iguanaman]

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.

Sometimes the magnitude of profanities precludes the niceties and would hide the true impact of the rant. Trump obviously did not mind one bit, so who are you to be a "snowflake"? I thought you liked Trump? This is the "new Presidential", 4 letter words and ***** grabbing are all in play. You should keep up with your leader, he's leading you.

 

[Oborosen]

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

No I'm pretty fine with bias in my news, but not when its so blatantly biased, and not when it glosses over actual problems with their brand of issues.

Bias in anything is to be expected, at almost any level of society.

 

[Redress]

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

Did you notice that actual facts got ignored in favor of narrative?

 

[Parrish]

If this thread were about Scaramucci and what he said, perhaps you would be right. But it's not.

But it is. He said it. Blame him and 45 who hasn't condemned him. The Times certainly didn't print fake news or alternative facts.

 

[Winston]

Lots of people swear and use bad language.

I, for one am glad that Trump is causing the 4th estate to push the envelope which is breaking all the prudes out of their shells in the process.. Pretty hard to tell me, I can't say go **** yourself you ****ing ****sucker. When the man in the White House, that many wholesome conservatives voted for, says the same ****.

 

[Cardinal]

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.

Because we're past the point of pretending that this isn't how Trump and his administration choose to behave and speak.

Berating the NYTimes for some perceived double standard ignores the newsworthy fact that our nation's leadership is by its nature vulgar.

 

[nota bene]

You started a post suggesting/arguing that the NYT prints right winger's bad words to make them look bad, but uses asterix for left wingers' bad words (The thread was based on National Review, a far-right media outlet, not based on a systemtic review of all the times the NYT did and did not print curses out). Slyfox showed that to be false. It's really that simple.

Here is what the Times said about Reed’s remark:

[Mr. Reed used vulgar language in describing how Ms. Collins would win.]

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/25/u...p-session.html

And you know how the Times reported Scaramucci's filthy comments. So to recap, on the one hand, in a bracketed remark, it says, "Mr. Reed used vulgar language...." while on the other it printed that language verbatim.

 

[nota bene]

Careful, with your nose so high, it's likely to rain in there. If the NYT wasn't treating the current Administration fairly, according to your slant, I don't think you ever would have posted. The "failing" NYT has been under assault since before DJT touched the Bible.
Since you wrote the "old girl" off in 2004, you ought to know what to expect, being a "journo" and all.

Your personal comments and use of quote marks around the term I used disappoint me. You're suggesting that I've invented having been a working journalist. As for knowing what to expect, I always hope for the best, particularly from a source "of record." The arts sections of the Times are generally terrific, and yes, I'm disappointed once again by what I think is this newspaper's partisan slant. That's why I began this thread in Bias in the Media. :roll:

 

[Heyzoos]

Lots of people swear and use bad language.

I, for one am glad that Trump is causing the 4th estate to push the envelope which is breaking all the prudes out of their shells in the process.. Pretty hard to tell me, I can't say go **** yourself you ****ing ****sucker. When the man in the White House, that many wholesome conservatives voted for, says the same ****.

Society needs to grow up. These words are more commonly used than please and thank you. They are only words, it is your mind-set which makes them "dirty",

 

[nota bene]

Society needs to grow up. These words are more commonly used than please and thank you. They are only words, it is your mind-set which makes them "dirty",

Don't confuse having standards with a lack of maturity. Such sophistry in "They are only words"! There is a time and place for x-rated language, and that time and place isn't all the time and everyplace.

 

[Hatuey]

You do not think facts are really going to sway anyone do you?

If nota bene's position is anything to go by, facts don't sway many right wing leaning journalists.

Just look at the Birther Review's absurd fail.

 

[Rexedgar]

Your personal comments and use of quote marks around the term I used disappoint me. You're suggesting that I've invented having been a working journalist. As for knowing what to expect, I always hope for the best, particularly from a source "of record." The arts sections of the Times are generally terrific, and yes, I'm disappointed once again by what I think is this newspaper's partisan slant. That's why I began this thread in Bias in the Media. :roll:

My personal comments were in reference to your sly insult, "perhaps too subtle for some." My use of quote marks around journo do not indicate any doubt about your employment history. I have been around a while, albeit not in journalism, and have not run across that term. I suspect it is insider slang. This is not the first time you have attempted to slip in some question as to the gray matter quality of those who post differing opinions than yours and then deflect when it is pointed out.

 

[Mr Person]

You started a post suggesting/arguing that the NYT prints right winger's bad words to make them look bad, but uses asterix for left wingers' bad words (The thread was based on National Review, a far-right media outlet, not based on a systemtic review of all the times the NYT did and did not print curses out). Slyfox showed that to be false. It's really that simple.

Here is what the Times said about Reed’s remark:

[Mr. Reed used vulgar language in describing how Ms. Collins would win.]

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/25/u...p-session.html

And you know how the Times reported Scaramucci's filthy comments. So to recap, on the one hand, in a bracketed remark, it says, "Mr. Reed used vulgar language...." while on the other it printed that language verbatim.

So if we focus on just one article in which profanity was or was not censored, rather than the bulk of articles in which profanity was or was not censored, this may lead to a particular viewpoint about the authors' bias? I get that. My point was that you need to look at the bulk of articles in which profanity was or was not censored if you intend to make an allegation of bias across the spectrum of that source's bias.

Your response seems to assume that we should look at and only at the one article you identify. Why? If the thesis is that NYT prints right-winger's bad words but not left winger's bad words, then surely articles printing left winger's bad words knocks that thesis into the trash. If you just wanted to criticize a specific author.....well...

:shrug:





Also note: as of right now I cannot follow the link.