Should You Use The “N” Word?
Should you use the “N” word?
If your newspaper is running a story regarding a topic that involves racial slurs (an art exhibit, guest speaker, book release, MLK week) and the “N” word is used, do you print the word in its entirety? Would it be damaging to the context of the story to replace some letters with asterisks?
What if it’s a quote? Maintaining the integrity of a quote is important in stories, but at the sake of saying something that could be damaging to the newspaper’s integrity.
Should the race of the reporter matter?
About Kelsey Schnell, Creative Developer
Kelsey is the Creative Developer of College Newsroom and former Editor in Chief of the Ferris State Torch at Ferris State University. Currently he works at a marketing and PR firm in metro-Detroit. He is not good at picking up subtle hints or heavy objects. Visit Kelsey's personal site, www.kelseyschnell.com
7 Responses
We ran a column today by a black columnist about white people using that word as a greeting to black friends as long as they aren’t offended.
I checked out other newspapers and their habits with the word, and big papers, like the Trib and others, appeared to use n-word in all cases unless the word appeared in a quote or a book title. Then the word ran uncensored. I feel that is a pretty reasonable style.
Unfortunately, after I researched all of this and censored the word in the column, I missed one (it was late, after copydesk had left), so we inadvertently ran the n-word, uncensored, in our paper today. My fault. I would post a link to the column here but we’re switching our site and the archives aren’t up yet.
Another interesting thing i noticed on the Trib’s site is that, in white writer’s columns, the word ran ‘n-word,’ but in columns by black writers, it ran with the ‘N’ capitalized.
We have never censored it in a quote. If the quote isn’t essential to the story, why are you running it the quote anyway? “N-word” or not.
I think censorship for mere fear of offense just gives the word more power.
I’d call it editing, not censorship, if its the editor’s choice to not use the word. I edit out offensive language and the writers understand the justification: The point can be made without it, and we don’t run the risk of losing readers over something as stupid as us using a word they don’t like. If we’re going to lose a reader, I’d rather it be because of something meaningful.
Can you copy and paste the column mentioned in here for us to read? I think that might help the conversation.
This is a tough call. Context is huge when making the decision.
One thing I have been told, that makes sense to me, is that there is no reason to use a word if you have to replace it. For example, why run sh**. We all know what it means. Either eliminate it altogether or run all the letters of the word.
Fox:
I totally agree; most people would totally pick up on any of the star-words. All or nothing!
I think the fact that you’re thinking about this means your concerned about the content in your newspaper. (that’s a good thing)
I would like to see the column that you were talking about, NIULauren. If it doesn’t impact the integrity, not using the “N” word seems like a fair choice.
Book titles or quotes, I think you have to put it in there.
One thought behind the “all or thing” train of thought is not just they’ll know what it is, but that you’re really lying to yourself. It’s like these examples:
Oh, fudge!
Oh, sheet!
If I hear a person say this, I feel like they may as well say what they mean. Why hide it in an adult world?
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.