January 31, 2007Traud columnScuzzball bills and the like n The telepathetic ... er, telepathic ... bill. Sen. Ken Cuccinelli wanted Virginians, especially "scuzzball reporters," to activate their ESP antennas and know whether someone doesn't want them knocking on the front door. |
SearchQuick Thought
Recent comments
Monthly archivesCategories
Latest columnsToday's editorials
Letters to the editorAbout this blogThe Roanoke Times editorial staff engages readers in a respectful dialogue and exchange of opinion, including our virtual editorial board where you can discuss tomorrow's editorials today. Read more about the editorial staff .....Advertisement.....
|
January 31, 2007
Traud column
Scuzzball bills and the like
The editorial board in recent weeks has written extensively on some of the important matters before the General Assembly. And we've lent our insight on some of the not-so-important bills, including:
n The telepathetic ... er, telepathic ... bill. Sen. Ken Cuccinelli wanted Virginians, especially "scuzzball reporters," to activate their ESP antennas and know whether someone doesn't want them knocking on the front door.
Comments
[January 31, 2007 9:30 AM]
L. TraudAfter my column was on the page yesterday and the other editorial board members looked at, Christian (who's in New River) and I had this e-mail exchange regarding a paragraph that originally said:
First off, he wants to change the definition of adultery to strike "sexual intercourse" and substitute "carnal knowledge," which he defines with words we would not to publish and at least one of which I would have preferred not to look up the definition.
C: which word in the adultery bill could we have not published?
L: Go away
C: what? I mean I can guess which you had to look up, but which is so bad? all are technical descriptions of acts. if they are good enough for the general assembly, they should be good enough for us.
L:Yeah, and if explicit testimony as to how someone raped or molested someone is good enough for juries to hear then it should be good enough to publish? Get real. It isn't as though kids over their breakfast cereal are looking up GA bills. They're reading the paper and it's bad enough mom and dad have to explain adultery.
C: I'm not questioning your decision not to include any of the words, though I am not so prude, but you make it sound like the paper would not allow them.
L: I changed it to prefer not to publish, but I would suspect that most paper's, this one included, would have a sit down to discuss whether there is merit to publishing these words.
Dan suggested we should blog this.
C: I wouldn't want to blog this sans the words and I don't want to do a sitdown.
L: I'm not suggesting we do a sit down. Nor would I have as much problem blogging the words or providing a link to the bill as that is a different audience. You wouldn't use the term cold-hearted bastard in the print edition without an overwhelming compelling reason.
C: bah, I'm not sure there's anything else to say on this. would have been good on the blog, I suppose.
The bill can be found here.
[February 1, 2007 6:44 AM]
JohnSEither the page has moved, or the URL given is incorrect. Are you aware of any other sources for the bill's contents?
JS
[February 1, 2007 9:36 AM]
C. TrejbalThat's odd. John, here are a couple of links.
The bill on the General Assembly site.
and
a fantastic commentary.
[February 1, 2007 11:01 AM]
L. TraudThe commentary link Christian provided is, well, to put it mildly, rather graphic. It is also well written and makes an interesting point. However, the language is not of the nature that would be suitable for general circulation.
[February 1, 2007 11:48 AM]
JohnSI'm kind of torn on this one. While I don't think it would be *wrong* to publish the bill's contents verbatim, it still makes me feel somewhat oogy. I suppose it's best to err on the side of caution with these choices.
JS
[February 1, 2007 1:03 PM]
C. TrejbalThat's a fair position, John. This is something we in the biz deal with all the time. The oogy feeling is something that needs to be taken into account. Newspapers therefore have internal policies about what we'll print under what circumstances.
In cases like this one where clinical terms are being used, it can get dicey. The same goes for times when unpleasant things to some are essential to conveying the story.
The good news is that newsrooms and editorial boards typically have a mix of people. Some regularly will push for broader inclusion; others will be more hesitant. It's through discussions like this one that we reach a decision about what will best serve readers. The real problem would be if the debate never happened.