When I was a senior at AU, I took a Journalism and Ethics class with Toby. The teacher, Professor "Hotson" Watson, would often ask his students what we thought would be appropriate to print in a newspaper.
There was one girl in the class who was unbearable. Anytime we were shown a photograph of a dude on fire or of a starving child, anything the least bit controversial, she would argue to the point of tears that it didn't belong in a paper. She would squeal about how she didn't want her six-year-old sister to be corrupted.
Of course, I disagreed with her constantly. I believe that it's a newspaper's responsibility to give the reader as much information as possible. I've given the Post a hard time in the past for refusing to use the words "nigger" and "fag" when the actual words were the crux of a major story. I hope tomorrow's Post features some gruesome photos of the monks being shot down in Burma so that its readers get the full scope of the atrocities happening in Southeast Asia. When it's in the best interest of the story, I want my media to pull no punches.
I'm boring you with this because I want it known that I'm no prude.
That being said, what the Hell was the Washington Post Express thinking when it printed the word "pussy" in an interview with Megadeth frontman Dave Mustaine? Did they really need to print Dave Mustaine saying "I'm not a pussy"?
Printing that was unnecessary and bizarre. I think most people would agree that the word "pussy" is offensive. I certainly don't use it in mixed company. Or, to be more specific (and accurate), I used that word in mixed company and I got yelled at. I've never seen it published in a mainstream news media outlet unless it was proceeded with the word "cat" or "willow." Wouldn't "I'm not a [wuss]" have worked just as well?
Of course I can't find a link. Stupid Express.