Regarding what will undoubtedly be known as the Emerald’s “naughty word editorial”: I agree with the sentiments expressed in the piece, notwithstanding the tired “desperate measures” cliché, but I also think it demonstrates a certain degree of logical weakness to resort to obscenities when making a point. A clever, well-thought headline would have sufficed to grab the reader, and it would have avoided the collective groaning from people as they open the paper and see the word in question.
The main problem is that the headline – not the editorial’s message – will be the focus of debate. Already, the editorial is garnering media attention, but the controversy is about the use of the word in print, not the implications to free speech. The editorial’s arguments regarding free speech, which I wholeheartedly agree with, will most likely be ignored as talking heads debate the irrelevant issue of whether the F-word makes the Emerald look silly. Readers should be motivated to read an editorial because of the quality of its argument, not because it appears under a word that many people find offensive.
It is imperative for any publication to know its audience, as the editorial points out. That is an essential truth in journalism. Sure, the average college student will read the headline and probably won’t be offended – I admit, I wasn’t offended on a personal level. But here’s another consideration: Just because it doesn’t offend doesn’t mean it won’t be perceived as unprofessional and damage the Emerald’s credibility. Taking a stand on an issue is a noble goal of any journalistic enterprise, but just remember that when you have the power to decide what goes on the opinion page, you don’t necessarily have to slap people in the face with it. Why not let the journalism speak for itself?
Jan Montry
University alumnus
Four-letter words not needed to let strong editorial make its point
Daily Emerald
October 2, 2007
0
More to Discover