I’ve made a separate post out of the following comment, which was placed under the twitter post but really is a different subject:

While I consider the use of Ghetto slang such as the B-Slapping intellectually substandard in its inclusion in Opinion pages, I do not oppose its use as it gives us an understanding about the maturity of its users but if as indicated by the Gazette writer, that the term is humorous and non-offensive, than I must ask you as a member of the Editorial Board why the Gazette censors the B word when used by e-forum participants? If the publisher considers it offensive or denigrating when used by a reader should not the same censoring standard be applied to its employees? But then a pattern seems to have recently emerged here since that same writer can refer to some subscribers of the Gazette as slobs, a denigrating and uncivil reference, because they do not conform to his vociferous biases against smokers and junk foods eaters, while complaining in a separate opinion piece that some letters to the editor are uncivil. One gets the impression that a double standard is at play and would appreciate clarification as to your standards as a Member of the Editorial Board.

OK, I’ll take a shot at a response. I’ll also take a chance, and restate the two questions, more simply:

1. Why is it OK for a Gazette editorial to use the term “bitch-slapped” but not OK for visitors to gazette.com to use the same word when writing comments?

2. Where does The Gazette get off calling some subscribers slobs, and then complaining that some letters to the editor are uncivil?

Let’s start with the first question. It’s referring to an “Our View” opinion column published Jan. 30. In it, the argument is made that a group called ProgressNowAction is inconsistent when it criticizes Denver radio talker Jon Caldara. The radio host, referring to criticism Hillary Clinton received for a faux pas, asked pundit Ann Coulter if she thought Clinton “got bitch-slapped tonight,” and ProgressNowAction is claiming Caldara was out of line.

The opinion column asserts ProgressNowAction has not taken several other publications to task for using the same term. Thus, the column concludes, ProgressActionNow is guilty of selective outrage.

The column also claims that the term itself is “a common humorous slang.”

I won’t address the merits of the selective-outrage argument (that’s going on over here). The question posed by the reader is about something different: why the newspaper is free to print the term in an editorial and even pass it off as harmless yet forbid visitors to gazette.com to use the term.

As far as the editorial goes, it would be pretty impossible to discuss the issue at hand without using the phrase — the issue is the phrase itself. Sometimes you have to name the thing in order to discuss it, even if it isn’t something you’d bring up in polite company.

But if it’s so harmless, why forbid readers to use it? That’s a very good question. I happen to disagree with the column; I think the term is hurtful, and I can’t think of a circumstance in which I would regard it as funny. I certainly wouldn’t allow my kids to throw that phrase around in my house. And the reader is right: if we think it’s a harmless term, we should remove it from our automatic filters and let readers use it in their comments. We need to decide whether the term is something we want tossed around the comment boards, and if it isn’t, we need to stop considering it “a common humorous slang.” I’ll report back on that one.

Now, the second question:

We never did call anyone, especially our wonderful, intelligent subscribers, “slobs.” We did use the term in a different “Our View” column, published Jan. 31. That column was arguing against the idea of a state law that would require all Coloradans to purchase health insurance. Here’s the relevant paragraph:

Unfortunately, health insurance doesn’t work that way. Those who buy group health insurance, and try to minimize any chance that they’ll actually need it, aren’t rewarded the way safe drivers are. Insurance customers who don’t smoke, don’t food binge, and keep their weight and blood pressure in check are charged the same rates as those who smoke and drink and wallow in junk food. It forces healthy folks to subsidize slobs, which means their insurance is more burden than bargain.

I think it’s evident that the newspaper isn’t calling subscribers slobs. The column is making a contrast, for argument’s sake, between people who maintain their health, and those who willfully neglect it. It doesn’t even make the claim that being a slob is necessarily a bad thing, only that it’s a more costly health proposition.

UPDATE Re: “bitch-slapped” 2/6/08: The intent of the original opinion column was to point out that the term is regarded in some circles — including both the person being criticized and the people doing the criticizing — as common and humorous. It’s in that context that any judgment of the use of the term ought to be evaluated, the opinion column argued: If one side thinks the term is no big deal, why is it upset that some other person thinks the term is no big deal?

The column didn’t do much to point out that the Gazette does not share that casual regard for the term. I consider the term demeaning and hurtful, and so does our editorial board. Others might think it’s hip and funny, but we don’t agree.

For that reason, we will hold our online contributors to the same standard, and will continue to filter out the word from any comment a gazette.com visitor writes on our website.

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.