Some calls are bleepin' tough to make, some not

The late George Carlin liked to say that "there are no bad words," only bad uses of words. I'm inclined to agree, though I would add there are certainly bad times to use certain words.

For a newspaper and for certain words - especially the seven Carlin is famous for - those "bad times" are nearly always. It's not that newspaper people necessarily take offense - though it may surprise you to learn that some do. But more to the point, many in our audience do. Even more important than that, many in our print and online audience simply have a higher regard for the standards of civilized discourse than would allow the routine, or even occasional, employment of expletives.

As a result, we do a more-than-passing job of keeping language in the Daily Herald free of profanity, even mild profanity, in an era when what once was known as "polite company" has grown both more tolerant and more inclined toward what once was known as "rough language." It may be, as some readers occasionally chide us on the subject, that we cling to outdated restrictions, but I prefer to think we simply have an abiding respect for what once was known as - and often still is widely respected as - class.

Not that I am above using it - quite the contrary - but I regard gutter talk as language's "easy way out" - evidence of undisciplined and imprecise speech, and, all the pressures of time and deadlines notwithstanding, news writers ought to be able to do better.

Politicians ought to as well, of course, but they don't always - especially when their words are being secretly taped by the federal government. So, former Gov. Rod Blagojevich's famously profane oratory about his sparklingly gilded opportunity to appoint a U.S. senator in 2009 has frequently posed a dilemma for us. How do we refer to a statement that virtually has become a cliché of the public airwaves yet includes the one of Carlin's Dirty Seven that will surely be the last to be accepted either on commercial radio or in popular print?

Our policy has been to report sparingly on Blagojevich's vituperations and to use the convenient "bleep" in their stead when a direct quote is absolutely necessary in the context of a given story or commentary. Of course, the parenthetical bleep does have the effect of either reminding readers of the likely expletive being replaced or stirring them to run down a list of possible culprits. But it still allows sensitive readers to avoid being assaulted by a word they find highly objectionable, and it allows us to demonstrate that we recognize there are some places where some words just aren't used.

Only two weeks ago, a federal appeals court - correctly in my opinion - gave more freedom to network television and radio stations themselves, rather than the government via the FCC, to regulate the use of profanity on their airwaves. Cynics might think such a ruling suggests it's "Katy, bar the door!" against a coming onslaught of "bad words" in print and on the air, but that is naive thinking.

Sure, there will be more places on television and radio where profane language is permitted, just as there are plenty of magazines, books and newspapers now that haven't the least restriction on it. But ultimately, even those of us who respect the power and sanctity of all words, always will remember that not every one is appropriate everywhere at any time.

• Jim Slusher, jslusher@dailyherald.com, is an assistant managing editor at the Daily Herald.