Last Updated: May 20, 1999
Printer-friendly version
On language
If foul words are what people want, they’ll have no
trouble finding them on the radio, TV or in movies
A recent letter to my local newspaper demanded that Tiger Woods apologize
for saying on television that he became "p——d off" during a golf tournament.
Much as I like the idea, I believe the writer is whistling into the wind.
More’s the pity.
People can say almost any nasty words they like on television these
days, and what they can’t say on television can be said on radio and in
movies. If this has improved the American Way of Life, I wish someone would
tell me how.
There was a time when a station could lose its license for letting nasty
words go out on the air. In 1978 the Federal Communications Commission,
which has oversight for such matters, decreed that seven really nasty words,
including the one used by Tiger Woods, could not be broadcast.
I have special reason for remembering those words, for at the time I
served on the Board for Student Publications at the University of Michigan,
where the student newspaper boasts of its independence. Most newspapers
around the country identified the words by use of blank spaces, but the
Michigan Daily spelled them out on the front page and made this its top
story.
Red-faced board members found no other newspaper, even among college
papers, that published the words. So much for our oversight!
Sadly, oversight now seems to be lacking in many other places. Disc
jockeys in New York use words that make Tiger Woods seem a shy and polite
young man. It’s hard to find a movie without profanity, and teen-age starlets
use language that once would have shocked a Navy boatswain’s mate.
Movies such as "Get Shorty" would be no longer than previews if the
"f-word" were deleted.
Why do they do it? Do the seven nasty words, and several hundred more,
improve the quality of movies? Do they prove we have achieved a more intelligent
and sophisticated society? Do they convey meaning that cannot otherwise
be conveyed? Or is it simply that market research shown this is what the
public likes?
The fact is that we may all swear because the Constitution guarantees
freedom of speech, and anyone who tries to keep barnyard words out of living
rooms may be accused of censorship. Efforts by the Federal Communications
Commission to restrict broadcast language have been found to violate the
First Amendment, and the right of some people to swear may leave others
with no choice but to listen, read and hear.
One of the few bulwarks against this trashy tide is that most newspapers
refuse to publish profanity. Broadcast stations, however well meaning,
are unable to prevent profanity in live interviews, but getting words into
print involves editing, where offensive words may be eliminated or represented
by blank spaces or other devices.
This may be one reason why newspapers are declining in influence, and
if profanity is what the public wants, newspapers, too, may some day join
the parade. That might send profits up, but politeness would surely come
down, and perhaps even more people will demand apologies. The time to speak
up is before we all drown in the nasty tide.
Sims, a retired member, is Scholar in Communications at The George
H. Gallup International Institute. He lives in Asheville, N.C.
