11.12.06
The New York Times’ bullshit
The New York Times may be the best newspaper in the United States, but it also can be one of the fustiest Nancy Nices of journalism.
In today’s Times Book Review, Alison McCulloch, an editor there, reviews philosopher Harry G. Frankfurt’s “On Truth.” (In case you’ve forgotten, Frankfurt’s previous book, published by Princeton University Press, was “On Bullshit,” all about political and corporate deceit and misrepresentation.)
“Bull Session,” the TBR headline on the review of “On Truth” reads. “Harry G. Frankfurt wades back into the manure,” the subhead says. The review itself refers to “steaming piles” and “heaps of scat.”
This all certainly is lively and appropriate to the subject matter, but why, oh why, does the Good Gray Lady have to tiptoe around the title “On Bullshit?” The Times renders it “On Bull - - - - .”
Exactly what is The Times protecting its readers from by sanitizing this barnyard term while otherwise wallowing in the metaphorical muck?
Ours is an age when three-year-olds say “fuck” and their mommies think it’s cute. “Shit” long, long ago lost its power to shock. It’s no longer a vulgar expletive used primarily by longshoremen and hod carriers. Today priests and professors alike drop it into casual speech. And why not? There is no better word than “shit” to denote “indifference to the truth.”
Most metropolitan “family newspapers” (what an outdated concept!) today will allow “shit” or “bullshit” in their columns provided the context reasonably calls for it — such as quoting a politician in an unguarded moment. A timid few still pussyfoot around the word with dashes and hyphens.
When I retired from the Chicago Sun-Times in June, it was beginning to take a more liberal view, relying sensibly on context and not getting its knickers in a twist about every quotation. Just a year and a half before, when Frankfurt’s “On Bullshit” was published, I couldn’t put “coarse” words in my book pages without consulting a superior. The superior had to consult her own supervisor. And so on, all the way up to the editor-in-chief. Sometimes I never got an answer.
Rather than get lost in the endless thicket of permissions, I decided to render the word as “bulls - - t” in our notice of the book — and finesse the matter by running an uncensored thumbnail photograph of the book jacket, as we did for all our reviews. The paper then had (and probably still has) a rule that photographs are never to be altered. And that was going to be my defense if a brass hat yelled at me.
And so one Sunday the little photo of “On Bullshit” appeared in all its eight-letter splendor right next to the review.
One — exactly one — reader called to complain.
And one — exactly one — brass hat at the Sun-Times mentioned it. When I passed him in the hall the following Monday, he grinned, mouthed “bullshit” at me, and winked.
The times have changed, and The Times ought to change with them.
The Ringer said,
November 12, 2006 at 5:13 pm
What a crock.
Henry said,
November 12, 2006 at 6:23 pm
Of what, pray tell?
Billabong said,
November 12, 2006 at 6:28 pm
How about the Christian Science Monitor? In an article about book blogs earlier this year, the paper described Jessa Crispin “as the Chicago-based creator of a high-profile blog with a risqué name (’book’ plus a vulgar term for a woman of loose morals)” — without ever mentioning the blog’s name, Bookslut. Now that’s pusillanimous.
insider said,
November 13, 2006 at 11:23 am
The Times style book and those attitudes are leftovers from a prissy asst managing editor who never wrote anything but a memo in his life but has now thank god retired. Let’s hope they grow up.
Tim Race said,
November 13, 2006 at 12:48 pm
Let’s see … The times have changed significantly since the Sun-Times declined to spell out “bullshit” in the written reference to the book.
And supporting evidence for these changing times is mommies who think it’s cute when they’re 3-year-olds say “fuck”?
Chicago mommies, maybe.
I don’t care much one way or the other whether my employer will yet allow us to print “shit.” I might note, though, that our film reviewer A.O. Scott made witty use of a similar taboo last week in writing about something evidently titled “Fuck.”
But if you’re going to take us to task, Henry, I’d rather see you work a tad harder on your argument.
pete said,
November 13, 2006 at 1:21 pm
But wait! There’s more…
–This summer the book review wrote of “a Dutch magazine “whose title cannot be printed in these pages.” (Turned out to be “Butt.”)
–When I chided the writer, he told of once having to come up with an alternative to “plumber’s crack” … which became “dorsal cleavage” in print.
–Then there was: “But do not, under any circumstances, skip the classic
nicois version of gnocchi (its name, even in French, cannot be printed
here) … ” I have no idea what that might be!
–Michael Pollan talking about a frog’s gonads in an article about organic
food.
–And my summer favorite: Ginia Bellafante, writing in Arts & Leisure took 31 words to avoid writing MILF, which, to be honest, I wouldn’t have used either — but the detailed write-around included this definition: “an honorific.”
Debbie Bruno said,
November 13, 2006 at 1:37 pm
Hey Henry,
I’m thinking the S-T might still have a ways to go (from a recent review):
Marie Antoinette might have begun her tenure in France as an innocent pawn in the game of royal allegiances, but she became a kind of monster of excess. In the same way that teens today wear T-shirts that say things like “Your boyfriend is a good kisser,” Marie Antoinette used clothing and image to make a statement. Lots of times, that statement was a bejeweled “f— you” to the rest of France. Imagine a world where the queen could require three complete changes of outfits a day, outfits that she would never wear again. Imagine a winter sledding party in which everyone is adorned with white fur and diamonds. Weber writes, “Louis XVI himself found the outing distasteful, declaring pointedly that he preferred to chop up some of his own old sledges as firewood for the poor.”
Henry said,
November 13, 2006 at 4:10 pm
Seems to me that Pete’s comment trumps that of Race (whom I had to Google to find out that he’s a Times business staffer. Pinked ya, did I, Tim?).
As for yours, Debbie, I guess the war of usage is won one word at a time.
Clay Banes said,
November 13, 2006 at 7:58 pm
The “steaming piles” and “heaps of scat” put me off worse than anything else I read today. I want a refund.
Duayne said,
November 13, 2006 at 11:53 pm
Henry, no, you didn’t out Tim Race as a Timesman.
He said as much himself in his comments about “my employer” and “our film reviewer.”
More importantly than where he works though is the validity of his point, which I thought was very well made. Your pointing to Pete’s examples (which at first I wasn’t sure were even taken from The Times) merely showed the weakness of your own.
And that, after all, was Tim’s main point.
By the way, I do tend to agree more with you on this, Henry.
P.S.
I’ll save you some more Google-time: I *used* to work at The Times and know Race, though we haven’t spoken for years.
Henry said,
November 14, 2006 at 6:18 am
Clay: You want a refund from The Times (if you read the review there) or from me, for quoting it? If me, I’ll be happy to send you a check for $00.00 posthaste.
Duayne: I’ll grant that the argument against bowdlerizing “bullshit” could have been carried further — any argument can be — but it seems to me that overwhelmingly universal (or near-universal) usage of the word, as I pointed out in the original item, is adequately strong evidence that The Times is pussyfooting around it.
From the context of Tim’s comment I knew he is a Timesman but didn’t know what he does there — his spirited defense of his workplace piqued my curiosity, hence I Googled him.
By the way, I think the Times Book Review is still the best book review in the country. No shit.
The Green Hermit said,
November 14, 2006 at 10:33 am
Hey Henry,
I’ve been peering out of this metaphorical deer blind in the “wilds of the Upper Peninsula” for a few days now. Even though opening day isn’t until tomorrow, I guess it’s about time to put down my korppu and thermos of coffee and step out into your blog. I do this pretty reluctantly, too, because it’s clear that the topic at hand is kind of deep, and those already standing in it are way out of this Yooper Finlander’s league.
But, I just couldn’t help dropping a couple more names and cow pasties into the pile. To wit: neither Harold S. Riter or anyone else on the editorial staff of the foremost newspaper here abouts (The Ontonagon Herald) has to resort to the repugnant use of bulls–t terms in their rag in order to spread all the news fit to print up here. So what’s the big deal then with the New York Times following that sort of lead? And how about his book reviews, hey?
Well, now I suppose I gotta scrape off the bottoms of these f—ing Sorrel’s before climbing back into the blind. As those of us in the U.P. would say: PASKA!
Henry said,
November 14, 2006 at 10:39 am
Green Hermit:
Not gonna argue with a Yooper Finlander about That Word. I’ll lose.
But “cow pasties”? Surely you meant “cow patties”? Or are U.P. cooks baking pasties with, uh, That Stuff now?
And what’s “Paska!” mean?
Green Hermit said,
November 14, 2006 at 12:12 pm
Ya, I’m sure some of the pasties I’ve had from the fringes of the U.P. were indeed made with That Stuff. But, no typo or temporary loss of faculties here - “cow pasties” in the Copper Country equate to “cow patties” in the rest of the world.
And, as for “paska”, it’s proper Finnish for the vernacular “pulsit”.
Back to da blind.
John V. said,
November 14, 2006 at 4:33 pm
Uh, I’m a kid living on the Barbary Coast (to you outlanders, that’s San Francisco) and we know pasties as those rhinestone thingies the strippers wear to make us believe they don’t have nipples. Is the Green H. suggesting ever so surreptitiously that cows in the UP subscribe to the Times sense of being genteel?
Henry said,
November 14, 2006 at 4:57 pm
John V.:
The best answer to your question will be found at www.pasty.com. God, do I ever want one.
David J. Montgomery said,
November 15, 2006 at 1:27 pm
In my latest review for the Sun-Times, I quote a piece of dialogue from the book that includes the word “shit.”
I’m assuming it won’t make it through, but we’ll see.
Edward Champion’s Return of the Reluctant » Roundup said,
January 2, 2007 at 4:27 pm
[…] Ship lit? Okay, I get it. We’re going to see twelve trend pieces in the Gray Lady on “____ lit” before the end of winter. But given certain realities, that promising essay on “tit lit” ain’t happening anytime soon. (via Brockman) […]
Alex said,
April 25, 2007 at 9:58 am
Thank You