Remember when I got all up in the Post's grille for their refusal to print the word "faggot" when it was dealing with that Ann Coulter-John Edwards flap? If not, here's a link. I was reading the Post on my lunch break and came across something interesting in Michael Wilbon's column in the sports section. The column was one of thousands to take on the Imus situation*.
In 1997, during a "60 Minutes" profile, Mike Wallace confronted Imus and a former producer who quoted Imus as saying he'd hired a staffer to "do nigger jokes."
The word "nigger" is repeated in the next sentence.
I thought that the Post's refusal to print the word "faggot" was detestable and cowardly. I see the willingness to print the mother of all slurs as a change for the better. It illustrates the extent of Don Imus's racism while not treating the paper's audience condescendingly. I am a little curious as to why the Post let this slide. Do the editors treat these matters on a case-by-case basis? If so, their inconsistency is baffling. Or is Wilbon allowed to use this specific slur in context because he's black? If that's the case, this would be the most confusing and pointless double-standard of all time. Perhaps the Sports editor and the Style editor have differing opinions on what is acceptable in a newspaper. In that case, I am calling for a jihad on the Style section. Censorship and Laura Sessions Stepp? Have you no decency?
Or maybe my earlier post shamed the Post editors into seeing things my way. Haha, LOL.
I have hated these inconsistent journalism practices since The Eagle wouldn't let me print the word "douchebag" while the incompetent sex columnists were allowed to print the obscenity "fuck." Christ. I was the humor columnist. Swearing is funny!
Ugh, I guess I have to e-mail the Post's ombudsman (lame!) to see what's up.
*Wonkette's take on the Imus imbroglio is by far the best thing I've seen on the Internet in a good long while.