In reference to the whole murderous, diapered astronaut story that blogger E brought to my attention, our friend Nadine noted the journalistic predilection for strange euphemisms ("maximum-absorbency garments," sayeth CNN). That being the case, what gives, BBC? Has your well run dry? This article--which sister of cold4thestreets brought to light--uses a COMMON AND DEEPLY OFFENSIVE SLUR rather gratuitously, and pretty obviously for laughs. Apparently, said slur, in addition to being a term for a bundle of sticks, is also in Britain the name of a disgusting fruit-of-the-swine-based dish.
I share the article not because I find the repeated use of the term funny. Far from it. This isn't one of those unfortunate examples of earnest journalism turned to putty in this reader's dirty mind. It's evidence that the western world's most revered news institution can be very cheeky in an uncomfortable sort of way, is totally oblivious to how its readers will interpret what it offers as news, or is totally lacking in propriety. I mean, we can't chalk up my qualms to just cultural differences--there is something seriously weird going on here, right? The article is meant to be funny not just because the Doodie family is totally batshit, but because of the word itself and its myriad of meanings. Or am I being too sensitive?
No comments:
Post a Comment