By Kathy English, public editor of the Toronto Star

Though the Star did not spell out the swear word Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau dropped in the boxing ring last week, I can’t imagine any reader could have had any doubt about what that bad word actually was.

By Kathy English, public editor of the Toronto Star

Though the Star did not spell out the swear word Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau dropped in the boxing ring last week, I can’t imagine any reader could have had any doubt about what that bad word actually was.

As the Star reported Tuesday, Trudeau “dropped the f-bomb” at a charity boxing event: “I’m going to tell you, there is no experience like stepping into this ring and measuring yourself . . . Your name, your fortune, your intelligence, your beauty — none of that f—ing matters.”

Would your understanding of what Trudeau said in the ring have been any clearer if the Star had spelled out the f-word in full? I am curious to know if you believe there is now a case to be made for profanity in print, spelled out clearly without those dashes, as required by long-standing Star policy.

Related content on J-Source:

Are the Star’s dashes in swear words a coy and quaint standard of the past or an ongoing mark of respect for readers?

While I believe our readers would find full-on swear words in the Star disrespectful and offensive — largely because of the significant reader outcry I heard following those rare instances when the entire f-word mistakenly made it into print — I understand this is an ongoing question within journalism overall.

Last month, a freelance writer for the American Journalism Review wanted to talk with me about the Star’s profanity policy. He was investigating whether “it’s necessary for traditional newspapers to shift their standards to reflect the online media culture” in which some newer websites are more willing to publish profanity and controversial language. And last weekend, the New York Times opinion pages published a thought-provoking piece by lexicographer Jesse Sheidlower, arguing “the case for profanity in print.”

As Sheidlower, author of The F-Word, wrote in the Times: “Our society’s comfort level with offensive language and content has drastically shifted over the past few decades, but the stance of our news media has barely changed at all.

“Even when certain words are necessary to the understanding of a story, the media frequently resort to euphemisms or coy acrobatics that make stories read as if they were time capsules written decades ago, forcing us all into wink-wink-nudge-nudge territory.”

Sheidlower pointed out that some news organizations continue to obscure profane words entirely, even when they are central to the news, choosing instead to use vague words and phrases such as “an obscenity” or “a vulgarity.” I’m with him in believing that readers are not served if they have to guess at the meaning of any word or story. Journalists must communicate clearly, not obfuscate.

To continue reading this column, please go thestar.com where it was originally published.

Related content on J-Source: