Profanity in quotes

That's a common-sense way of looking at it, Shark.

 

I was once editing a roughly 30-inch story. About 20 inches in, well past the jump, there was a profanity. I took it to my supervisor. She told me to leave it in. "If a kid reads that far, it's their reward," she said.

 

Now that supervisor had ... what's the phrase I'm looking for? .... Hmmm.

 

Lax editing standards?

 

No ... another job lined up.

 

Enough. You know exactly what is allowed and not allowed in your publication. To run a profanity-laced quote, knowing full well that it is something frowned upon by both management and the community you serve is stupid. You deserve what comes next if you decide to run the quote.

 

I'm among those who prefers accuracy to the quoted version of a dumb-down, almost no matter what is said, as long as the source is an adult and he or she knew what they were saying and doing.

Most newsrooms, however, do not have this preference.

So, the thing to remember about curses is that those parts are usually the color in a quote, not the real substance, and can be gone without if need be.

Consider there to be a need. Don't use profanity in print, even in an accurate, great, taped quote. I did it once, and was called on the carpet about it (even though it was caught and deleted by the desk and never actually made it into the paper, anyway), and I probably could have lost my job over it. I still think that would have been overkill, but the point is, this is the kind of thing that can cost someone dearly.

And, it's not usually the ranting, raving source who pays.

 

Drip, you're turning into a public scold. Here's a quote: "Fuck that shit."

 

My paper's policy is case-by-case basis approved by a managing editor. We're all over the map on this, but I think the intent is to decide whether it's worth it.

When Jimmy Carter said if Ted Kennedy runs, "I'll whip his ass," it's news. When a coach says "we kicked ass," it's not news.

I worked on a mid-major in the early 1980s that ran "fuck" and variations of it repeatedly in looooong story about life in a state prison. They wanted authenticity and they got it. Complaints, too, but the paper is the survivor in what once was a two-paper city.

My personal opinion on the "who is served?" question is that it serves us. Some of us would rather not look like a bunch of fucking slobs just so some writer can giggle over getting "shit" or s--- into the paper after putting forth that this is some type of ethical issue. I'd rather we take the high road and be grownups.

 

Yeah, darn silly journalists trying to quote people accurately. Why would we want to do that?

 

This subject is not that fucking interesting. And you can quote me on that.

 

All this accomplishes is making readers think he said "asses."