Reading and answer questions

Sample Rhetorical Analysis on “The Case for Profanity in Print” by Jesse Sheidlower

Link to Article:

https://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/31/opinion/the-case-for-profanity-in-print.html

In “The Case for Profanity” in Print written by Jesse Sheidlower and published in  The New York Times on March 30th 2014, the author makes a point that censoring profanity in our news is limiting our understanding of the news. Sheidlower wants his audience to understand that by censoring out words, we are censoring out information. We don’t have to let our words run rampant; our language should be tasteful. However, when certain words are censored out that are critical to our knowledge of events there needs to be change. Sheidlower makes this point as objectively as he can time and time again throughout his article by using the appeals of logos, pathos, and ethos while using a serious tone with very strong word choice.

Sheidlower starts off with the then current event of Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland recently leaked phone call with a certain crude word in as his first example towards the need for profanity in print. As newspapers refused to print exactly what was said, confusion grew amongst readers. Sheidlower goes on to talk about how in society we are used to these words and although we have become used to them news media has not. Sheidlower clarifies that taste is not the purpose of his article and that yet again his point is to help readers understand what is truly going on. Sheidlower explains that words that are offensive towards certain collections of individuals do need to be approached with care. He goes on to clarify that care of the use of the word does not mean that the news cannot accurately report what has happened if the public does not hear what has exactly been said. Next are examples of how news is handling profanity, or the lack thereof of handling the profanity. Sheidlower wraps up his article with a reviewing of the 1934 article “An Obscenity Symbol” about what the f-word is without the author, Allen Walker Read actually ever using the ‘dirty’ word in question. Now 80 years later Sheidlower wants the news to “print exactly what we mean.”

By showing concern for the opposing side of the argument he is using logos. To win the audience over, Sheidlower is careful to present an objective look at each side of the argument. With sentiments like, “Taste is a legitimate concern.” and “Terms that are insulting toward a particular group of people should be handled with sensitivity.” he shows that he has taken the time to think out why profanity should not be included in print. Sheidlower considered that many people find profanity to be in poor taste and he is very aware of that fact. He hears their concern. Sheidlower is also concerned about offending people, especially through remarks that are crude and racist. He implies that by following that section of argument with an example of racist sentiments that had been censored out. He is reassuring the audience that even though he is very critical of censoring and he obviously stands for profanity in print he has thought things through and is striving for the best for everyone. Not only is he logically thinking through both sides of the argument, he is seeking out the higher knowledge: The higher knowledge that the use of profanity would give the readers.

Sheidlower appeals to pathos following the times he appeals to logos. He addresses the concern of taste by saying that censoring, “isn’t a matter of sprinkling salty words around to spice up the content. These circumlocutions actually deprive readers of the very thing these institutions so grandly promise: news and information.” Sheidlower wants his readers to know that their values can still be upheld. If they find profanity to be in bad taste, they certainly don’t want to read articles with profanity running rampant. Sheidlower does not want articles with pointless profanities scattered throughout them. He simply wants the truth printed out so that the public can be fairly informed.  He addresses the issue of racism with the thought that, “Discussing a word is not the same as wantonly using a word.” Sheidlower makes the point that reporting offensive words that have been said are not the same as saying those offensive words. Racist or offensive terms trigger many feelings that are oftentimes hurtful. Sheidlower is concerned about the feelings of his readers. He is not ignoring the concerns of those opposing profanity in print, quite the opposite he is addressing those concerns. .

Sheidlower appeals to ethos through his titles mentioned at the end of the essay. At the time of publication he was the president of the American Dialect Society, which is dedicated to the English language. He is a lexicographer, which is a person who puts together dictionaries. He also is the author of “The F-Word” - a book on the history and meaning of the ‘f-word’. Sheidlower has thoroughly studied words, especially profanity, including the ‘f-word.’

Sheidlower keeps his tone serious to convey that his issue is a serious one.  Through censorship we can know that, “something important has happened, but that it can’t actually be reported.” If it can’t be reported, we can’t understand it. What will happen if we become uninformed as a people? Sheidlower calls for the news to start informing people like it was meant to. His closing statement? “It’s time to print exactly what we mean.” Sheidlower wants people to be informed and aware of what’s going on.

  His unique word choices help paint a picture. By using the word “baffled” which means totally bewildered or perplexed instead of just confused he shows just how deeply censoring throws the readers off.  He mentions that details have been “obscured” which means that it has been made unclear and difficult to understand. The term “integral” which means necessary to make whole is another unique choice. All of those words together help support his claim on just how important profanity is to be printed. To say that with integral profanity being obscured the reader is baffled is much more powerful than to just say the important profanity being left out makes the reader confused. Through the word choice a clear strong message is presented. Sheidlower wants profanity in print so that we can fully understand what is going on in our news today.

Word count: 1048

1