"f**k" in WashPost
db.list at PMPKN.NET
Mon Jun 28 12:25:23 UTC 2004
Subject line altered to make spamkillers happy.
From: Jesse Sheidlower <jester at PANIX.COM>
: Followers of vulgarity may be interested to see that today's
: Washington Post includes the word "fuck" printed in full,
: with no dashes or asterisks, on page A4. The article concerns
: our Vice President's use of the term in the Senate:
And, for a bit of _Post_ history that AFAICT hasn't been mentioned in this
discussion, from Dana Milbank's "White House Insiders" online chat Friday 25
June (which included a good bit of discussion of the Cheney-Leahy exchange):
Washington, D.C.: Regarding this morning's article about Cheney's use of an
expletive, I thought it was a perfectly reasonable editorial decision to run
the article the way it ran, with the expletive and all, but I've heard a lot
of criticism (most of which is probably partisan). I'm just curious,
however, about what kind of editorial discussion there was at the Washington
Post regarding the article -- I think that's the first time I've seen that
particular expletive used in a Post article. Was it put on A4 because of
Dana Milbank: I'll leave the explanations of editorial decisions to my
superiors, but as a historical matter, that expletive appeared in the paper
in 1998 when it was used in the Starr report.
Another interesting bit later on, showing that it's not simply an editorial
decision to quote expletives:
Kansas City, Mo.: Your column on the Leahy/Cheney exchange notes that Kerry
used similar language in December. Was that reported in the Washington Post?
I read faithfully every day, but that was news to me.
Dana Milbank: Kerry used the same naughty word in an interview with Rolling
Stone. The Post did not repeat that word then, nor did it repeat the word
when Bush used it in 1999 in an interview with Talk magazine.
The entire chat is available at
The first exchange came fairly early in the session, the second one about
David Bowie http://pmpkn.net/lx
Jeanne's Two Laws of Chocolate: If there is no chocolate in the
house, there is too little; some must be purchased. If there is
chocolate in the house, there is too much; it must be consumed.
More information about the Ads-l