[lg policy] Linguistic Hygiene and National Public Radio

Sat Jul 25 15:09:26 UTC 2015

 3 Things To Know About NPR's Policy Regarding Offensive Language
 July 25, 2015 7:47 AM ET
   [image: Mark Memmott 2010]
<http://www.npr.org/people/104192887/mark-memmott>
  Mark Memmott
 <http://www.npr.org/people/104192887/mark-memmott>
Twitter <http://www.twitter.com/markmemmottnpr>
      Listen to the Story

     [image: Memo Bleep]

Credit: Kainaz Amaria/NPR

*Editor's note: The headline on this post tips our hand. But just to be
clear, we're discussing language that some readers don't want to hear or
read, even when it's bleeped or not spelled out.*

This question came up in the newsroom: Should an NPR journalist say during
a podcast that someone's an a****** if many people would agree that person
is an a******?

The question wasn't about a real person. It was about someone who would bet
against his favorite team or would bet that his lover would say "no" to a
marriage proposal.

The editors at NPR said "no," the correspondent shouldn't say that word.
The policy is that our journalists shouldn't use such language on the air,
on NPR.org, in podcasts or on social media.

On *Weekend Edition Saturday*, we talk about NPR's policy on the use of
offensive language. Legal affairs correspondent Nina Totenberg
<http://www.npr.org/people/2101289/nina-totenberg> joins the discussion,
and makes a passionate case that the network's policing of parlance goes
too far. She doesn't think NPR journalists should use profanity. "But we
do, it seems to me, bend over backwards to do something we shouldn't —
which is to cleanse the news," Nina says, when NPR "bleeps" certain words
said by those who are in our stories.

To help frame the discussion, here are some key points about NPR's policy:

*1. It starts with respect.*

"As a responsible broadcaster," the policy reads
<http://apps.npr.org/documents/document.html?id=1273045-potentially-offensive-language-guidance>,
"NPR has always set a high bar on use of language that may be offensive to
our audience. Use of such language on the air has been strictly limited to
situations where it is absolutely integral to the meaning and spirit of the
story being told. ... We follow these practices out of respect for the
listener."

*2. Things are different on the Web, but we want to be true to our
principles.*

The inspiration for this *Weekend Edition* discussion was a note this
blogger sent to the staff
<http://ethics.npr.org/category/memos-from-memmott/#2408>. It read, in part:

"We don't want to seem boring and out-of-step. We do want to sound like
America. But, the bar that NPR journalists need to get over before using
such language themselves has to be set incredibly high — so high, in fact,
that it's almost impossible to get over.

"We're professional communicators at a major news organization. What we say
and write in public reflects on NPR. No matter what platform we're using or
where we're appearing, we should live up to our own standards. Yes, there's
more room in podcasts to let guests speak freely and for our journalists to
be looser with their language. But it doesn't mean NPR correspondents are
free to use words or phrases in podcasts that they would never use on the
air.

"We should always be the news outlet that revels in language. There are so
many wonderful words. Use them!"

*3. The decisions are made by NPR's journalists.*

Sometimes, NPR's editors decide to put offensive language on the air
because it's an important part of a story. For example, when correspondent
Eric Westervelt was traveling with U.S. Army forces during the Iraq War,
the troops came under attack. His microphone caught the sounds, including a
soldier telling a man to "get the f*** under the truck." That went on the
air, unedited and unbleeped. It met NPR's test of being "vital to the
essence of the story." <http://ethics.npr.org/category/i-respect/#426>

Of course, the FCC regulates public airwaves and may takes steps to fine
broadcasters that put obscene or profane language on the air. The
commission's guidance to broadcasters includes the warning that
"ineffective bleeping" — letting even part of an objectionable word be
heard — might be cause for a fine.

No public broadcaster could argue that it ignores the FCC's guidance.
Lawyers are consulted on these issues. But responsible broadcasters have
journalists making the final decisions.

Mark Memmott <http://www.npr.org/people/104192887/mark-memmott>* is NPR's
standards and practices editor. He co-hosted The Two Way from its launch in
May 2009 through April 2014.*
http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/07/25/425971171/3-things-to-know-about-nprs-policy-regarding-offensive-language

-- 
**************************************
N.b.: Listing on the lgpolicy-list is merely intended as a service to its
members
and implies neither approval, confirmation nor agreement by the owner or
sponsor of the list as to the veracity of a message's contents. Members who
disagree with a message are encouraged to post a rebuttal, and to write
directly to the original sender of any offensive message.  A copy of this
may be forwarded to this list as well.  (H. Schiffman, Moderator)

For more information about the lgpolicy-list, go to
https://groups.sas.upenn.edu/mailman/
listinfo/lgpolicy-list
*******************************************
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/lgpolicy-list/attachments/20150725/5903c121/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
_______________________________________________
This message came to you by way of the lgpolicy-list mailing list
lgpolicy-list at groups.sas.upenn.edu
To manage your subscription unsubscribe, or arrange digest format: https://groups.sas.upenn.edu/mailman/listinfo/lgpolicy-list