Culture News Blog

THE Rev. Jesse Jackson last week made some unguarded comments about Senator Barack Obama that were picked up by a Fox News microphone he apparently thought was turned off. They included a reference to separating Obama from parts of his body he would just as soon keep.

The Times on Thursday devoted a column of type to the ensuing controversy and Jackson's apology for what the newspaper called his "critical and crude" remarks, which included the bitter charge that Obama was "talking down to black people." But it left readers completely in the dark about the crude part. The Washington Post was slightly less squeamish. It said Jackson suggested "that he wanted to castrate the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee."

For those curious about Jackson's exact words - "I want to cut his nuts off" - The Post's Web site provided a video link. The Times did not. (The Times agreed to an exception to its decision for this column because what he said is central to this discussion.) The New York Post, an in-your-face tabloid, put the single presumably offending word on its front page as a huge headline. The Chicago Tribune and The Los Angeles Times printed what Jackson said in full.

Steve Sanger, a reader from Bellingham, Wash., said he sometimes wonders if The Times is edited by "prudish kindergarten teachers." He said: "It is not good when a NY Times reader is forced to wonder what actually the fuss is about and then must start looking at other newspapers to find out."

Paul Winfield, news editor at The Times, said he and Chuck Strum, an associate managing editor, made the call to, effectively, bleep Jackson's comments. Winfield said the remark about talking down to black people was what seemed newsworthy to him, while the vulgarity did not seem important enough to make an exception to stringent Times standards. Neither Bill Keller, the executive editor, nor Jill Abramson, the managing editor for news, was consulted, and Abramson said they might have found an alternative way to deal with Jackson's quote.

I would have just used it. Jackson is a major figure on the public stage. His comment, accompanied by a vigorous slashing motion, spoke to a deep anger toward Obama and a fascinating generational schism among black leaders. By failing to report what Jackson said, or even find a way to describe it more delicately, The Times left readers to wonder and speculate. Better to quote Jackson and move on.

But I'm sympathetic to Winfield and Strum, editors trying to maintain a civil New York Times in uncivil times.

As potty-mouth language spews from the president of the United States, the vice president of the United States, from rappers, rock bands, Hollywood movies, the Broadway stage, modern literature, cable television, the Internet and people on the sidewalk talking into their cellphones, The Times and other news media face a tough choice - just where to draw the line on words once thought unfit for what used to be called polite company.

The Times wants neither to be a holdout against modern culture nor at the forefront of defining new standards of what is acceptable. "We don't want to cheapen ourselves," said Craig Whitney, the standards editor of The Times. "But we don't want to be so prissy we're out of touch."

Earlier last week, Burton Caine, a law professor at Temple University, wrote to protest what he saw as hypocrisy in the newspaper's coverage of the death of George Carlin, the comedian who railed against censorship in such routines as "Seven Words You Can Never Say on Television." William Safire, for example, said last Sunday in his On Language column in the newspaper's magazine that Carlin had performed "a perverse kind of linguistic service" by reducing the shock value of the seven words. Safire went nowhere near naming or describing those words. Caine said, "It is wrong to praise expression and refuse to print the words."

This is cache, read story here