We're grownups, ESPN. Just tell us the words.

http://espn.go.com/espn/otl/story/_/id/9125796/practice-video-shows-rutgers-basketball-coach-mike-rice-berated-pushed-used-slurs-players

I think the third one might be paninis.

 

suburbs: We may be, but not everyone who visits espn.com is.

 

Not defending Rice on any level, but if the public was allowed to hear the language used by a very high percentage of the top coaches, they'd be pretty stunned.

 

Update: Note that I included a bad word in the title of this message, and the moderator took it out. (I suppose he's trying to say that in the next post, without saying that.)

Well within his rights, but is there anyone here, or reading espn.com, who is unfamiliar with that word?

More to the point: When a story is about a thing, you spell the thing out. If the story is about a public official calling someone "nigger," then the story includes the word. If the story is about a basketball coach calling players -- well, something, we're not being told what -- then you put the words in the story. The words are the story.

 

Thanks, Mod.

Yes, if the story was about the use of a word -- any word, whatever is the worst word on your list -- then, yes, we would use the word in a story. We don't put in casual uses, don't generally quote people using curse words or profanity.

But we're not going to be willfully blind to the news, either. Just as in any other case, if the story is about a thing, we wouldn't make the readers play Scrabble to figure out what that thing is.

(P.S. My employer isn't a paper. Many full-time journalists these days don't work for newspapers. I realize you knew that. The presumption that all journalists work for newspapers is probably one it's about time to let go of. Like the presumption that you should not use bad words because someone might complain, even when the bad word is the subject of the story.)

 

For all of ESPN's misdeeds and missteps, real and overstated, I think this one falls pretty low - it al all - on the scale. Sure we're all familiar with those words, but I think that ESPN showed some restraint and some real journalism judgment before throwing it all out there for shock value, and that's a good thing. I think it's pretty clear what those words are he used based on the clues given.

If it's a familiarity argument - I'm sure we're all (or almost all of us) are familiar with a lot of things that we don't want to read about or see online - at least when we're checking for sports news.

 

And I don't mean for my post to come across as "if only adults will see it then you should just let fly with the expletives." That's not the point.

If your employer would use the word "nigger" instead of "racial slur" if someone were fired for using one, then it is one of the few employers out there that would. Repeating the word doesn't further the story.

 

Imjustagirl, you're saying you won't use that word, when The New York Times does? How quaint. Here's a link to a search at the Times site for uses of "nigger." It lists more than 6,000, including more than thirty occasions in just the past year. It appears that most are articles where the use of the word is the issue being discussed.

http://query.nytimes.com/search/sitesearch/#/nigger/since1851/allresults/1/allauthors/newest/

If there are words you can't say, how do discuss the use of the word?

 

"How quaint?"

Don't be a patronizing asshole. If you want to discuss the actual issue, let me know. But I'm not going to participate in your little spit-and-whistle game.