The F*cking New York Times
A piece in McSweeney’s by Sarah Rosenshine, ”The New York Times Announces An Editorial Policy Change,” is hilarious, stylistically on-point, and mentions tumblr (holla!)—and it also has some things to say about cultural sensitivity. Observe:
We cover homicides, bombings, earthquakes, and the rest of the staggering list of terrors perpetrated on humans by one another and by God. Surely the public finds these concepts more upsetting than a simple word. No more fecklessness by fuck-less-ness. We are the fucking New York Times. We print “fuck” now.
What does it mean that newspapers will print graphic photos of destruction perpetrated by and toward human beings, headlines detailing massacres, and the intimate details of violent crimes, but not any profanity?
Rosenshine’s clever postscript reads “P.S. The monosyllabic vulgarity for a woman’s genitals is still completely off limits.” Nobody expects the Times to start printing the c-word, but our society has a hard time talking about bodies and sexuality, too, especially in relation to women.
Are our priorities in the right order? Where else in the world do these tensions arise? Amanda is reminded of the documentary This Film Is Not Yet Rated, which deals in part with the very different effects violence and sexuality have on a movie’s MPAA rating. We’d welcome your thoughts.