The Post and Bad Words

why.i.hate.dc thinks that the Post has an odd double standard when it comes to bad words:

    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?

Read the rest here.