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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

One example… http://www.nytimes.com/books/first/q/queenan-lobster.html