On horseshit, and the New York Times
I’m quoted in an article in today’s New York Times about how the strike has affected relationships between writers and executives. More accurately, the blog is quoted; I didn’t speak to the writer.
“In November, John August, the writer of movies like “Charlie’s Angelesâ€? [sic] and “Corpse Bride,â€? spied Peter Roth, president of Warner Brothers Television, at Osteria Mozza, a Los Angeles restaurant. “When you see someone you kind of know at a restaurant, it’s always a process to figure out whether or not to say hi,â€? Mr. August wrote on his blog. “But the strike makes that decision process much more complicated.â€?
Instead of confronting the studio executive, Mr. August returned home and wrote a vulgar blog entry about what he would have liked to say. One part of it that is printable here said: “Everyone knows the C.E.O.’s are talking out of two sides of their mouths.�
Really? What vulgar thing did I write about Peter Roth? I only remembered an insider reference to how Peter Roth tends to hug people. (He does.)
Let’s look back at the original post from November 15th, and my imagined conversation:
- ME
- Hey Peter. John August.
- PETER ROTH
- John. John August! How are you? This strike, huh? Crazy. I can’t wait for this to be over.
- ME
- Then tell your side to come back to the table with an internet residual plan that isn’t horseshit, and you could be shooting pilots by February. Because I’ve been on the picket line for seven days, and every writer wants to come back to work. But not a single one of them would take that shitty deal. Because everyone knows what’s at stake, and everyone knows the CEO’s are talking out of two sides of their mouths.
Obviously, the word in question is “horseshit.” I immediately did a web search of the New York Times website to find all the other instances in which they used “horseshit” in a quote, and found exactly zero results. They really don’t print the word.1
Honestly, I find it charming that they deem certain common words too coarse for their readers. They also insist on using polite forms such as “Mr. Smith,” even when it creates more confusion. It’s their newspaper, and they’re entitled to their quirks.2
So it seems that the writer of the article was following Times policy in not printing the full, horseshit-inclusive quote. I can’t object to that.
But what I can object to is labeling my original statement vulgar. That’s a pretty condemnatory remark to slip into a light news piece, considering the word in question is barely PG-13. “Horseshit” may not be an approved word for the New York Times, but it’s a stretch to claim that the mythical New York Times reader would consider it vulgar. It’s basic cable at this point.
Worse, by omitting what I actually said, the article creates the implication I said something much worse. Something — gulp! — unprintably awful. Which I didn’t. I said that the AMPTP’s offer on the table was horseshit. Which it was.
- They will use “shit” on occasion, such as when the president was quoted as saying, “What they need to do is get Syria to get Hezbollah to stop doing this shit, and it’s over.” ↩
- I’m also a fan of Technology Review’s predilection for the diaeresis, such as coöperate. ↩
Articles
December 31st, 2007 at 1:54 pm
Their version makes you sound vulgar and backstabbing. The New York Times pulls this sh-…stuff, all the time.
December 31st, 2007 at 1:54 pm
Hey. That NYTimes writer sounds like a real fan of yours. He even copied your approached to answering only questions he approves of, maybe you can sue him for plagiarism.
December 31st, 2007 at 2:24 pm
Not even PG-13, it’s one of the most famous (if garbled in delivery) lines in BUTCH CASSIDY. Ever feel like jumping off a cliff?
December 31st, 2007 at 2:56 pm
Oh look, “Bob from Burbank” commented here! Dearest Bob from Burbank, I left a comment for you in Lisa Klink’s blog the other day. And judging from your silence, I guess you too only answer questions you approve of. So what’s fueling your tireless patrol of writer’s blogs? Is this a personal vendetta against writers or are you on someone’s payroll?
On topic: Re the NYT’s blatant misrepresentation of John August’s character and words: Horseshit, indeed.
December 31st, 2007 at 3:06 pm
Oh, and the guy who wrote that article is the same winner who wrote, “In Hollywood, a Sacred Cow Lands on the Contract Table,” an ignorant and highly biased attack on the residuals system published in the NYT last August. Craig Mazin took him to school in a most satisfying way: http://artfulwriter.com/?p=232
Maybe he’s bitter?
December 31st, 2007 at 3:19 pm
Brookes Barnes strikes again!
He may be smarting over Craig Mazin’s smackdown a while back and taking it out on screenwriters with blogs in general.
Lacking any real drama he spins some of his own, includes quotes so that it looks like he actually interviewed when he did nothing of the sort, then deliberately misleads.
As Brad DeLong recently wrote after hearing of the NY Times hiring William Kristol: “The death spiral of the New York Times begins:”
December 31st, 2007 at 3:23 pm
Quick thought experiment:
Whenever you read a mainstream news article about a topic you know a lot about - either because it’s your area of expertise or because it’s about an event you witnessed or were involved in - how often do you find things that don’t make sense, contain incorrect implications, or are flat-out false?
Now why would you assume things are any different in articles about topics outside your expertise?
Here’s the saddest part. We hear about these sorts of things a lot more now because we have blogs and the internet so ordinary people can fact-check for themselves. But there’s no reason to assume mistakes and intentional misrepresentations are any less common now than they were in the past.
I suspect the reporter is biased because, even without Internet residuals, a successful screenwriter like John August is paid way more than a reporter. Of course, this is a function of supply and demand. Very few people can write a professional-caliber script. But every high school contains journalism students capable of writing articles that, judging by this example, are just as accurate as the New York Times.
December 31st, 2007 at 4:37 pm
Hopefully, this won’t become a new fight between you and the NY Times… don’t latch on to it, even if we know they’re wrong.
December 31st, 2007 at 5:08 pm
Sarah (#8):
I’m not picking a fight, really. I don’t like how the writer to chose to characterize a statement lifted from this blog. I didn’t single out the writer by name because he’s already had a lot of criticism about the way he’s covered the strike, and didn’t want it to be another pile-on. Whether we like it or not, he’s apparently the reporter assigned to the strike coverage. We’d hope he and the Times continue to cover it thoroughly.
For the record, I don’t think it was a deliberate misrepresentation. To me, it just felt remiss and unprofessional in the context of a straight news story.
December 31st, 2007 at 6:55 pm
I looked up the term horseshit and the American Heritage Dictionary defines horseshit as vulgar. So according to them, empirically, the word is vulgar.
Regardless, the infallible paper [cough: Jayson Blair] certainly mis-represented your blog. It characterized the entire post as vulgar.
Funny ironic to read your post today. Earlier I was considering the demographics of the paper’s readership, specifically how intelligent they believe themselves to be. My guess is they’re all smart enough to know what you intended if they’re that interested to ferret out the details.
December 31st, 2007 at 7:23 pm
that’s horseshit!
December 31st, 2007 at 7:37 pm
Re FN2 and Tech Review. Tech Review used to be a plain old MIT alum mag and a lot of fun. Then it got gussied up and glossied up and boring.
Not a fan of the d-word affectation either (too Hahvahd for the ‘Tute). Here, though, do relish its unintended association with the other d-word…:)
The NYT article is assinine, mis-spelling intended. Hold your ground, John.
December 31st, 2007 at 8:51 pm
I read the NYT piece. They’re trying to portray WGA writers “who make $1mil” per flick as fat cats, partying in Hawaii and sending their kids to private school, just like the execs. Problem is, they have a point. IATSE seems to feel this way.
But, although this particular NYT writer probably earns bubkis (he’s not very good, is he?) the Times is itself an elite institution where the writers make more than the pressmen, who make more than the newspaper delivery drivers who make more than the janitors.
We’ve got the typical capitalist cluster f**k with the holier-than-thou intellectuals at the top of the food chain trying to cover their moral asses, simultaneously cringing at “the System” and pointing the wagging finger of censure at the WGA. I find this hilarious! The human comedy and all…
My opinion is that we should get paid according to our creativity… the creative geniuses should rule the world… fat chance!
December 31st, 2007 at 8:58 pm
Well, at least in the online version of the article they provided a link to your blo…
Er… no.
Oh! I see. They provide a link to the movies.nytimes.com page about you and THERE they have link to your…
What? No? Oh.
They do provide a helpful link to the ‘related’ review of “August Rush” (2007) though. That’s something, right?
Right?
Nevermind.
January 1st, 2008 at 12:12 am
Wow, that’s a stupid article. It’s not particularly informative, either, from what I read.
But more than that, I have to agree with Anonymous (7)– what other spin do we read as fact?
This is why I only watch The Daily Show. (Except I can’t now. Because the writers are striking. So I can’t get Stewart’s take on the strike. Because their on strike. Vicious cycle!)
January 1st, 2008 at 4:34 am
The New York Times is being especially fussy and precious- but stab with a fairly lethal sucker punch themselves. John is showing extraordinary restraint in not calling this a-hole on the carpet for being petty and off topic. (and the NY Times can quote this vulgarian once they revive themselves from that inevitable fainting spell after reading ‘a-hole’)
January 1st, 2008 at 11:47 am
not really a comment on the NYtimes article reference (which is slanderous) but just an observation that has depressed me no end recently, BBC America has started to bleep out really innocent swear words to come into line with Mainstream US TV. I love watching the Graham Norton show but now all you hear is constant stream of bleeps because someone has deemed that my ears are not tough enough to hear a few swear words. Sometimes I wonder about the “land of the free” comment I hear so often here, when will we be adult enough to be free?
January 1st, 2008 at 1:47 pm
You can’t trust the liberal media. Everybody who has a subscription or buys the NY Times should stop.
January 1st, 2008 at 2:45 pm
Mr. Barnes again shows his ignorance on the issue. In addition, what a weak article. Banal fluff, cut and paste article which misrepresents the participants.
I think your response was appropriate and needed to clarify the issue and your POV. Thanks for your continued commitment to the blog.
January 1st, 2008 at 3:12 pm
Ah, the stupid NYTimes along with most of the MSM (Main Stream Media) have it firmly fixed in their minds that all bloggers are vulgar. As usual, they’re clueless.
January 1st, 2008 at 3:17 pm
The NY Times would probably consider the sight of a lady’s ankle vulgar. On the upside, I’d never heard of you until I read that article, and if your blog entry hadn’t been described as vulgar I never would’ve googled you. So, thanks to the NY Times, you have another reader.
January 1st, 2008 at 4:50 pm
Just because your filthy, reprobate mind doesn’t consider a vulgar word to be vulgar doesn’t mean it’s not vulgar. It just means you’re desensitized.
January 1st, 2008 at 5:17 pm
The word in question is, indeed, vulgar — in my opinion, and according to a number of lexicographers. Plus, it was not the only vulgar word in the blog entry.
It’s mildly amusing to see the NYT folks complaining about “horseshit” when they publish such vast quantities of it themselves.
January 1st, 2008 at 5:21 pm
I have no dog (horse?) in this fight, but it seems to me that your whole gripe comes down to the single word “vulgar”. Take that out of the NY Times piece and I can’t see any objection to how they characterized what you wrote. So on what basis might your imaginary conversation be so described? Let’s see… Its critical section consists of four sentences. Two of them contain variants of the vulgarity “shit,” which, as you point out, the Times avoids as a matter of policy. Of the other two sentences, they quoted the main part of one. Seems fair enough for a short summary.
But I am curious: you clearly chose your words for effect, so why complain when the effect is noticed? Do you actually talk that way in restaurants and other public places? Would you tell your mother that dinner was horseshit if you visited and she prepared a dish that was not one of your favorites? Is anyone ever offended when you speak this way? And if so, do you take issue with their offense?
January 1st, 2008 at 5:41 pm
I don’t have a problem with them thinking the word horseshit is vulgar, because it certainly is not a word used in most polite conversation. The problem I have with the NYT report is that it gives the impression that you said vulgar things about Roth himself, or at least does not make clear that the only “vulgar” aspect of your blog entry was criticism of the proposal itself.
There’s a huge difference between the implication or ambiguity left by the report and what you actually said, and it has nothing to do with the propriety of the actual word or the NYT editorial policy on quoting swears.
January 1st, 2008 at 5:48 pm
As I recall, Tom Hanks said “horseshit” is his favorite swear word during his appearance on “Inside the Actor’s Studio.” America loves Tom Hanks, so does that mean the New York Times hates America?
January 1st, 2008 at 6:20 pm
Tempest, teapot. Cheap shot. Many people consider the world vulgar.
You want to write for the New York Times? Go to Harvard. Want to write for Hollywood? Write some third grade level nonsense that appeals to the lowest common denominator and you’ll make it big.
See, it’s all a matter of opinion. Just because you don’t like it doesn’t make it inaccurate. Stick with what you know. The Times sometimes does end up with writers who don’t belong there. Sad fact of writers who care about the copyright of their own materials not wishing to work for the Times any more.
January 1st, 2008 at 6:34 pm
While the alleged intelligentsia of America may spew expletives to their children and each other as if they mean something, most of America does NOT curse on a regular basis. There was a time when, had the scripted conversation taken place in public, the gentlemen in the room would have thrown the speaker into the street, where all foul-mouthed scum should be.
Oh, and I hope the strike fails and you all lose ALL residuals.
January 1st, 2008 at 6:58 pm
http://www.niquette.com/books/101words/horsesht.htm
On point. You may find this amusing.
January 1st, 2008 at 8:30 pm
How on earth is Brooks Barnes still writing for the New York TImes? Didn’t he get enough crap hoisted his way after the article Craig mentioned in his blog? You’d think he would at least have the decency to contact you before quoting your blog. And I did find it extremely troubling that he did not even provide a link to your blog post, so the reader would be able to see what you wrote themselves. That’s extremely bad journalism. Fitting, though, because Brooks Barnes is an extremely bad journalist.
January 1st, 2008 at 9:46 pm
I fucking hate it when people swear in public. It marks them as the dumbshit assholes they really are.
January 2nd, 2008 at 2:31 am
I thought people made stuff up to get mentioned in newspapers, but now Brooks Barnes is making stuff up to get mentioned in blogs?!
January 2nd, 2008 at 3:19 am
Hey, John!
Will you please correct the font size in the comments! It’s driving me insane! Thanks!
January 2nd, 2008 at 4:00 am
Poppycock.
January 2nd, 2008 at 4:40 am
Well, the NY Times has the double-word policy. What does that mean? You can use ONE “vulgar” word. Either an animal OR an excrement. Let me give you an example: You may say: “dork”, “dog” or “horse and you may say: “shit”, “piss” or “spit”. BUT you may not combine them like “dorkpiss”, “dogspit” or(in your case)”horseshit”.
And why is that? Because, my dear John, “horseshit” doubles the effect of one single word. As a result(and in order to protect all Americans from being disturbed from your words) they had to say that you use a vulgar word(s).
You see there were no ill-feelings just sticking to simple rules
January 2nd, 2008 at 6:23 am
Steaming horse flops
January 2nd, 2008 at 9:05 am
John…don’t worry about it; no one reads the NYT anymore. Frankly, I use the NYT to pick up dogshit–don’t have a horse.
Besides, this so-called journalist is probably just a frustrated screenwriter–he dreams of your success. Don’t waste any energy on this loser–we’ve got bigger battles to fight.
HAPPY NEW YEAR!
January 2nd, 2008 at 10:30 am
Besides labeling your post as vulgar, he’s made it look like you’re a spineless coward, like you wanted to confront Roth but were too chicken to, so you went home to rant about it on your blog. That’s what’s really offensive here. The post was about how the strike has complicated everyday interactions with people on the other side of the line. You even said, “I’ve had nothing but good experiences with him.”
January 2nd, 2008 at 1:07 pm
John, I was going to reply to your post with a quote from the Quijote de la Mancha — “Ladran, Sancho, señal que cabalgamos” ([the dogs] bark, Sancho, it means we’re riding ahead). You can tell you’re marching forward in any controversial issue by how much the “dogs” bark
However, ironically, I googled up that quote and it’s not from the Quijote!!! It’s incorrectly attributed to it. How heartbreaking! It’s a very popular phrase here in Argentina. But, being a writer, I have permission for a little make believe, right? So let’s pretend it’s real. And I’ll leave you with one of Oscar Wilde’s — “There is only one thing in life worse than being talked about, and that is not being talked about.”
January 2nd, 2008 at 1:09 pm
I’m with the NY Times on this - your proposed dialog includes the expletives “horseshit” and “shitty” in the same paragraph, making it a “a vulgar blog entry about what he [you] would have liked to say”. So what’s wrong with that?
Note that I’m really pissed that you have me defending the New York Times here, since I usually disagree with their points and am offended by their outright liberal bias and anti-american stances. That was really shitty of you…
January 2nd, 2008 at 4:25 pm
i made the front page of my town paper in Coppell, TX about 15 years ago cause i was riding my go-cart in the school parking lot while on summer break….. very news worthy indeed.
It sounds like the guy was having a slow day and decided to use you to create a bit of spark.
January 2nd, 2008 at 4:55 pm
@Adam:
They* say that vulgar language signifies a lack of wit and a vocabulary that is wanting. (* They being the usual broomstick-up-the-ass, horseshit eating, motherfucking elitists fuckwads.)
Speaking of vulgarities, what’s this I hear about IA not supporting the writers? Is this true? (I say this as a local 80 reject, which is surely the status of one who is beneath vulgar.) (Are the set dressers worried they’ll run out of furniture to sell on craig’s list?) Craft brothers and sisters! Remain steadfast! Support the fucking writers! Don’t be full of horseshit!
January 2nd, 2008 at 5:06 pm
@John Corbin says: “While the alleged intelligentsia of America may spew expletives to their children and each other as if they mean something, most of America does NOT curse on a regular basis. There was a time when, had the scripted conversation taken place in public, the gentlemen in the room would have thrown the speaker into the street, where all foul-mouthed scum should be.”
He then added, “Get off my lawn you hooligans! Ow, my hip!”
Idiots who yearn for the Good Ol’ Days when everyone was polite and there was no crime or sadness make me smile. What this simpleton is basically saying is, he’s less offended by the segregation and chauvinism of 50 years ago than the dirty words of today.
And, by the way, most American adults DO fucking curse on a regular basis.
“Oh, and I hope the strike fails and you all lose ALL residuals.”
Typical response from a sour-grapes loser who hates the fact that he didn’t have the balls to achieve anything meaningful in his life. The people you know must hate you. I feel so bad for your wife — I can only imagine how much you must bore her.
I apologize to everyone else for feeding the troll. And I apologize to John Corbin for the dirty words.
January 2nd, 2008 at 5:08 pm
You say, “Obviously, the word in question is horseshit.”
For what it’s worth, I feel the word shitty is more vulgar than horseshit. Probably because animal excrement is less of a taboo thing than human excrement. And horseshit has an endearing rural quality, it makes me think of a crusty old rancher. “What in tarnation is this horseshit?”
Shitty doesn’t have that. Shitty makes me think of a heroin junkie who can’t control his bowels. I find it a more unpleasant word.
January 2nd, 2008 at 6:27 pm
Typical journalist sensationalism, just because you use one expletive this guy hyperbolically declares the whole post to be “Vuglar”.
What really irks me about this article is its so trivial, I mean of course during a strike it’s awkward for people on both sides of the picket line! What magical insight does this article provide? None! Surely there are more worthy issues in need of reporting, even in the entertainment industry.
January 2nd, 2008 at 7:58 pm
You’re dead right to be upset. I’ve been a copy editor on a major newspaper long enough to know that when reporters try paraphrasing people, it often leads to problems. The implication certainly is that you said something much worse than ‘horseshit’. This goes beyong just paraphrasing, in adding an element of comment - an absolute no-no for reporters in a straight news piece. It’s not for a news reporter to decide what is and what is not vulgar. All they’re supposed to do is report the facts. The copy editor who checked this story should have collared the reporter over it. This is what cutbacks do to a quality newspaper.
By the way, the Australian newspaper I most recently worked on allowed ’shit’ and its variations if it was in a direct quote. You could not use the word in a headline or anything other than the normal body text of the story, though (no breakout quotes, no bold captions). The only words banned in the paper were two well-known, four-letter words beginning with ‘f’ and ‘c’. But even these could be included in quotes, so long as they were blanked out, as in ‘The accused called the police officer a f—ing c—’.
January 2nd, 2008 at 9:51 pm
@Marcos -
Exactly, amigo….exactly. Cheers to you!
January 3rd, 2008 at 8:41 am
Two points of clarification from someone who actually writes for the New York Times and is friendly with several staffers. First, as a union shop, the Times pays its pressmen more than its writers — and I suspect more than many of its editors as well (Carlos, #13). This causes no small amount of bitterness and dick-wagging, and I wouldn’t be surprised if the Times’ apparent WGA enmity stems from a similar salary envy. Not to excuse Barnes’ shitty writing, but he’s young and probably sits in a tiny cubicle all day, and has yet to land an agent for his wickedly smart newsroom-based screenplay. Second, John’s blog entry absolutely was, by NYTimes style-book definition, vulgar (Dominic, #45) — and it was absolutely Barnes’ right to identify it as such. (Though, that may have been a copy editor’s decision.) The writer did a piss-poor job of representing Mr August, but we should really be mocking that “Charlie’s Angeles” thing. I mean, really.
January 3rd, 2008 at 11:30 am
Not to distract from how crumby this article is…or at least the misrepresentation of your blog…but the NY Times DOES use the word horseshit from time to time in it’s books section and maybe some other areas…I was able to find it pretty quickly using Google Site Search– which is almost always better than whatever site search is available on these media sites. I think the search you probably used was designed to pick up key-words that probably appear in the abstract about the article…
One example… http://www.nytimes.com/books/first/q/queenan-lobster.html
January 3rd, 2008 at 1:36 pm
Dominic, what Australian newspaper did you work on? Please dont tell me it was the Daily Telegraph, because they would really lower your credibility.
January 3rd, 2008 at 4:20 pm
Scott - The Sydney Morning Herald. That ought to do, right?
Mr K: I’m sure such words are regarded as vulgarisms by the NYT stylebook. But to take that definition and apply it universally is comment, and has no place in a news report. Well, not in a good newspaper anyhow.
Interestingly the SMH stylebook also regarded such words as vulgar and to be avoided by reporters. It said nothing, however, about reporters applying the SMH standard to all other writers/readers/the universe. The NYT would have been right to report the blog post in full and let readers decide whether it was vulgar or not. To report it as vulgar - simply because it fit the NYT stylebook definition of vulgar - is comment, plain and simple. And comment should never enter a news report.
January 5th, 2008 at 6:19 am
How to eat How to eat humans How to eat for humans How to eat forty humans How to eat for forty humans
The Simpsons has a quote for everything.
Sorry to hear about the out of context quote man. Normally I love the Times. They are one of the better American newspapers. You should try and find out how it got through.
January 5th, 2008 at 12:34 pm
Screw ‘em. Like all MSM, they are in it for the money. Truth? Accuracy? Well, that’s nice, but in the end, it’s the money. On another note, I have been copying and pasting something around on the net that I want you to read. It is a reply to scabbing.
Dearest Kat,
I think you may be missing S&F’s point. I will use myself as an example. I am an amateur screenwriter. I have been sending out query letters for years with no success. Nevertheless, I keep trying. That is, until recently. I have not sent out anything since this strike began, because I understand what they are doing. More to the point, alot of this is happening to protect me! If I stay true and keep trying, the day will come when I get my first-first look option, or flat out deal. When that happens, I will need the protection of the WGA, and all that it represents. I will not be crossing a picket line even if it means the big break. If I do, (and this is S&F’s point) and I get the gig, then what? This strike will eventually end, and when it does, the people striking are going to remember who crossed that line. When the strikers think of me, I want them to remember that the guy they are fighting for understands what they are doing, really appreciates it, and would like to say thank you.
nudginawink Scott123
January 5th, 2008 at 2:16 pm
Josef, Isn’t it “cook” and not “eat?” Minor quibble, obviously, but this whole argument was about sloppy reporting.
January 6th, 2008 at 1:54 pm
Horseshit horseshit horseshit. I’m three times more vulgar than you John, naa naa.
January 7th, 2008 at 8:09 am
Yeah, I’ve been interviewed several times and not once have I been quoted correctly, and that’s the times that I’ve actually sat down with the writer. It gets much worse when they don’t even interview you, but just grab something off the net or something someone else wrote about you. I have to say though that even at the worst, they never made it sound like I said something too vile to print.
Outside of that, I fully support the strike and hope that this all clears up soon with you writers getting what you actually deserve. I also hope that people like the one in comment #28 can get a brain and know that they should just stay quiet, since 90some percent of writers definitely aren’t getting paid what they deserve and probably won’t be able to keep writing if something doesn’t improve for them.
January 7th, 2008 at 10:46 pm
Flog me for getting that wrong. It is actually cook instead of eat. Sorry, I was trying to recite a Simpsons quote from memory regarding an episode I haven’t seen in two years.
January 9th, 2008 at 12:28 pm
Dominic says: “This is what cutbacks do to a quality newspaper.” And we haven’t seen the worst of it, I’m sure. The educational book publisher I most recently worked for cut our entire proofreading staff (keeping the whole process assigned only to freelancers, and only one pass on each ms. versus the three it used to have). The publisher’s argument was that “costs and meeting the deadline are more important than accuracy.” Quote. For educational books. Now available in your kid’s school library!
And everyone, please take a minute to understand what Anonymous #7 says. I had this experience when articles were written about a lawsuit my office was involved with. Was amazed at how skewed the reportage was vis-a-vis the facts. They offered lots of quotes from the defendant and his opposing counsel, but neglected to check court records, documents, and other fact-supporting items that could have proved whatever they said to be lies. So disappointing.
January 10th, 2008 at 5:04 pm
JA,
Long time fan and not at all a poster but i felt I had to comment on this issue. While your words were unfairly minced for a quote that really doesn’t address what you had said, the whole idea of the vulgarity has existed with the NYT since almost it’s beginning. The Language log (see: http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/005111.html) has covered the topic of the NYT and it’s strange idiotic love affair with what it deems obscenity there. I just wanted to point out that while it is stupid, they have had this weird policy of self-censorship from the beginning.
Of course, I also find it strange that you apply MPAA ratings on what is printed especially when the MPAA ratings themselves are often haphazard in what they censor/rate and how they do this.