The BBC's Rory Cellan-Jones blogged today (Prudish about politics) about how he's been shocked by the foul language used by political bloggers and tweeters since he's been covering the general election campaign. His post was prompted by the fate of Labour candidate Stuart MacLennan, who made a string of offensive comments on Twitter.
But my favourite paper seems just as addicted to language I'd never use in front of my mother. The Guardian's style guide is clear: the paper should not casually use words that are likely to offend, but should use them only when absolutely necessary to the facts of a piece, or to portray a character in an article; there is almost never a case when the paper needs to use a swearword outside direct quotes.
Yet the paper routinely ignores such sensible advice. On Good Friday, it published a letter from reader Patrick McNamee that included the f-word. It was part of a weak joke about the The Guardian's April Fool about Labour's election posters, and could hardly be regarded as necessary. Saturday's paper included the f-word in Charlie Brooker's television review and in an interview with Jonathan Ross and in a profile of actor Kayvan Novak. (The last two examples were at least in direct quotes.) A quick search suggests other instances in print and online.
The Guardian's former readers' editor Siobhain Butterworth pointed out in her Open door column in 2008 that the printed paper used the f-word 843 times in 2007, compared with 33 times in 1985. Many people will hardly notice such profanity, as society generally effs and blinds far more casually than it did 25 years ago. But I find it strange that a paper so highly regarded for its stylish writing thinks swearing is necessary.
Comments