Mel O'Drama
Admin
LV
12
- Messages
- 13,389
- Solutions
- 1
- Reaction score
- 27,206
- Awards
- 29
- Member Since
- 28th September 2008
What a fuss some news outlets seem to be making over his little slip while talking about a terrifying mock execution he endured in Beirut.
Most articles I've seen don't even hint at which word he dropped, other than to use phrases like "very NSFW". What profoundly offensive obscenity could he have uttered that's left the world so shaken? It turned out to be:
What an anti-climax. To me, it's just a silly, terribly British brush off that makes me smile when it's said with panache and crisp enunciation (both of which John has). Even Victoria Wood used it in her act, for God's sake.
Yes, it's not ideal for breakfast telly but it was a news programme discussing an adult subject matter impressionable young children shouldn't be watching anyway. And if that's what he said at the time, that's what he said. What a curious line to draw considering the detail he'd just given.
To me John's word was far less offensive than Kate Garraway's flippant comeback, which made light of the traumatic experience about which he'd been speaking.
But it's not the word itself, nor Richard Madeley's flustered response that interests me most. Rather it's the fact that so many news outlets are apparently self-censoring. Rather than simply factually telling us what was said they wrap what's already a non-story in veiled innuendo that renders it confusing and even more pointless.
Are we now so hypersensitive that a mild expletive midstream on a news programme fills up a whole bunch of news streams too panicked to even mention the word around which the article centres,
Is this kind of prissy censorship appropriate for journalism, I wonder? Do news outlets need to protect us from simple facts if they're not pretty enough? And is that word so very offensive after all? I am genuinely curious to know how others feel about this.
In the meantime I daren't put it in writing. But, as Victoria sang in relation to the word being banned (how prescient), it's "a term I'm rather fond of, and to use it I do hanker. It's not heard in Casablanca..."
Most articles I've seen don't even hint at which word he dropped, other than to use phrases like "very NSFW". What profoundly offensive obscenity could he have uttered that's left the world so shaken? It turned out to be:
What an anti-climax. To me, it's just a silly, terribly British brush off that makes me smile when it's said with panache and crisp enunciation (both of which John has). Even Victoria Wood used it in her act, for God's sake.
Yes, it's not ideal for breakfast telly but it was a news programme discussing an adult subject matter impressionable young children shouldn't be watching anyway. And if that's what he said at the time, that's what he said. What a curious line to draw considering the detail he'd just given.
To me John's word was far less offensive than Kate Garraway's flippant comeback, which made light of the traumatic experience about which he'd been speaking.
But it's not the word itself, nor Richard Madeley's flustered response that interests me most. Rather it's the fact that so many news outlets are apparently self-censoring. Rather than simply factually telling us what was said they wrap what's already a non-story in veiled innuendo that renders it confusing and even more pointless.
Are we now so hypersensitive that a mild expletive midstream on a news programme fills up a whole bunch of news streams too panicked to even mention the word around which the article centres,
Is this kind of prissy censorship appropriate for journalism, I wonder? Do news outlets need to protect us from simple facts if they're not pretty enough? And is that word so very offensive after all? I am genuinely curious to know how others feel about this.
In the meantime I daren't put it in writing. But, as Victoria sang in relation to the word being banned (how prescient), it's "a term I'm rather fond of, and to use it I do hanker. It's not heard in Casablanca..."