Identifying the victims of sexual assualt and their parents?

There is more than one word used as a demeaning slang toward every race, religion, anything. When someone calls a person a jerk, you don't write "... you big [insulting term directed toward argumentative people often blurted by frustrated individuals]" or "j---" because it's not a nice thing to say. The same thing, in my mind, goes with "nigger." It's a word, simple as that. I think it gives proper context and shows these people at their core. I don't think it was printed for shock value.

I don't have a problem with seeing the word in print. I think there is some value in it. It adds to this particular article for me.

 

Ask your black friends (if you have any) about how offensive that word is and then report back to us. There is no need for it. Period.

If I can't write Quarterback Omar Franklin said his team's play sucked in the paper ... "Our play (stinked) today," Franklin said ... why is the N-word passed off as nonoffensive in your book? ... Why is a kid saying his team sucked more offensive than using one of the most demeaning words in the history of civilization?

Next thing you know you will be using Jap or Jew Boy in your story ... it was established in the lead that she was black and the incident was a hate crime. We don't need the N-word spelled out in the next graph. This is a news story, not a shock-value story.

Call Jesse Jackson and see if the N-word is now less demeaning than ass (butt) or shit (stuff) or sucks (stinks). Are you down in South Carolina waving the Confederate flag?

 

Oh. C'mon, Mike.
You can't compare "jerk" and "nigger" in copy.
You're comparing apples and a derogatory, opprobrious concept with historical significance.
Our medium is words. Words have meaning. Specific meaning. It is the very essence of our craft. To say or think words are just words is a bit naive, a bit unstudied.

 

Now Fishwrapper is someone who has nailed it. Fishwrapper is the Man ... er Fish.

 

I'm not going to delve much deeper into this argument, and it appears that me voicing my opinion on the effect "nigger" written in the story had on me -- the reader -- has already warranted me the racist label. No where in my argument did I say that "nigger" is not offensive; in fact, in my first post, I called it an "offensive" term. When it comes to whether you use an offensive term in a newspaper, generally it's based on how conservative the town and/or the paper is. It's not for everyone or every publication. My paper, being a large metro, wouldn't edit "nigger" out of its copy. I think there's a big difference between reporting what someone said and having your columnist call a group of Italians "dirty wops." (And before you jump all over me for that, I'm Italian.)

Not being able to write "sucked" is a bit conservative. And obviously if you can't write that word, why would you waste time debating the merits of "nigger" at the copy desk? You wouldn't. There's no way it would ever fly, no matter how poignant its reference might be.

I believe a word like nigger is just a word. The person who uses it gives it context. Obviously "jerk" and "nigger" aren't on the same level, but my argument wasn't is "jerk" more offensive to "nigger"? It was that it's not a clear-cut insinuation that people know when you say "racial epithet ..." those individuals said, "nigger."

I see that I struck a nerve, but please look at this argument with an open mind. I know I am.

And, PinSuperfly, when I start using "Jap" or "Jew Boy" in my stories, you'll be the first person I tell.

 

Shoulda used "spearchucker" [/old thread here] [/blue dontjumpdownmythroat font] ... Pin, why would you use a terrible quote like that anyway? ... I can respect Fish's argument but I'm with mike here: reading that word in that story hit me a lot harder than it would have if it had read "n-----." I don't think glossing over words or acts of hate is the right thing to do. I'm not a fan of euphemisms when it comes to this stuff. Better to get it out in the open.

 

Well, it's a valid argument and position. I didn't say the word should never be used. Or any word for that matter. I have a problem with using it. Those are two very distinct differences.

If it is deemed necessary for the precise telling of a story -- which may be the case here -- then you use it. You use it with caution. You use it with explanation.

But, I have an issue when writers or editors say words are words. It's an oversimplification of our profession and medium -- and ultimately, our language.

 

I'd say a story about an alleged horrific hate crime would be an appropriate case to use the word, if you're ever going to use it in the newspaper.

 

This is an in-your-face story. It gives you the feeling that this is real. The names of the victim and her mother contribute to that. So does the word nigger.

I think it's time to reassess our skittishness about printing the names of people who report they have been raped. All we are doing is keeping the crime in the closet. Would that make women less willing to report they had been raped? Perhaps in the beginning, but I suspect it would not be a deterrent very long. Might even serve to be an encouragement.

Also, newspapers tend to automatically use the word victim to label people who report they have been raped. In cases where the fact of rape is in dispute, calling the reporting party a victim loads the story.

BTW, there is no law in any state prohibiting printing the names of crime victims or criminals. There may be laws to prevent the release of names by police, but that's a different issue.

 

Mr Hack,

When you're raped I'll be sure to play your name prominently. Can't wait.

YHS, etc

 

But then he'd just go back in the closet. ... and he probably asked for it, anyway.

 

Most rape victims seek anonymity because they are ashamed. And anonymity perpetuates the shame. Not too long ago cancer was the unmentionable disease. The code in obits was "died after a long illness." Relatives would not discuss it. In the 70s, newspapers, starting with the Washington Post, broke that down by saying, "If you want dad's or mom's obit in the paper, gotta tell us the cause of death." AIDS was another taboo. Issues can't be dealt with if people don't talk (or read) about them.

The Charleston story puts it out there: Somebody did something terrible to me, and I want justice. Read the story without the names and the word nigger and see if it carries the same impact.