What’s acceptable
Going through back issues of newspapers can be instructive as to the vast changes in what is considered morally acceptable.
Language my editors would have blue-pencilled back in the 1940s is commonplace today. Some tend to blame the media, but the media is just a mirror reflecting the audience that keeps it in business.
Part of growing up is searching for words that will have some shock value in dealing with the older generation.You start with bathroom words like poop and these prompt sniggers among your age group and an angry reaction from parents. You move on from there to the bedroom. Today’s movie makers seem stuck in the second bracket.
Read Also
Crop insurance’s ability to help producers has its limitations
Farmers enrolled in crop insurance can do just as well financially when they have a horrible crop or no crop at all, compared to when they have a below average crop
Getting back to the question of journalistic approaches, some years ago in the Saskatchewan Legislature, Agriculture Minister Toby Nollet, nettled by an opposition member, called him a bastard. The Speaker immediately demanded he withdraw the remark and he did so but this left the issue of whether to report what had really been said.
Today this would have been no problem; the offending word would have been in 72-point headlines. At that time the editor decided it would be safer to say Mr. Nollet expressed some doubt concerning the legitimacy of the member’s birth.
Today’s daily newspaper contains a litany of stories about sexual abuse, assaults and murder. We had those stories 50 years ago too, but we weren’t allowed to couch them in such lurid language.
With more National Enquirer type coverage of violent crime it’s easy to get the impression that’s all the news there is.
