Patrick Flood

Rhetorical Analysis: The Case for Profanity in Print

I wish to explain and analyze the article The Case for Profanity in Print
written by Jesse Sheidlower. Jesse Sheidlower is the President of the American
Dialect Society. He is a Lexicographer. This piece was published through the New
York Times on March 30, 2014 by means of internet as well as printed text. This
article is presenting the topic of profanity and vulgarity that is used in professional
and even national situations that although may be inappropriate, it is relevant and
very often central for the news media to convey in order to not hold out the full
truth and details in stories. With society changing and accepting such profanity and
vulgarity, it is the point of this author that the news media is not quite as accepting
and not willing to share such language even if it is central to the situation.
Jesse Sheidlower is effective In his writing because of his appeals to logos,
pathos, and ethos. He gives to readers specific events and circumstances in which
relevant and even important vulgarity or profanity was used by either presidents,
leaders, and/or professionals, and reasons that the news media is depriving us all
of the full knowledge of situations.
He uses an example of logos by explaining the importance of the news media
giving full information regardless of vulgarity or profanity. Sheidlower uses Effective
examples of presidents, leaders, and professionals using profanity one on one or in
a professional setting. Thus effecting the nation but due to news media, it is not
fully conveyed what exactly happened in this profane and vulgar scene. He states
that we are being deprived by the news media of details about significant events
and leaders, even if the details are vulgar and/or profane. This is also an example of
pathos, for he is recalling to our attention of many situations in which we are detail
deprived, effectively allowing readers to personally feel the deprivation.
When Sheidlower reasons "Our societys comfort level with offensive
language and content has drastically shifted over the past few decades, but the
stance of our news media has barely changed at all", he indicates that the news
media avoids giving the full truth of such situations. This is an appeal to logos as
well. While society is willing to receive such information, the news media just isnt
willing to give. Thus depriving us.
Sheidlower uses another examples of logos. "Taste is a legitimate concern.
But this isnt 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.". by stating this he helps those
understand and remember the promise given to us from news media to receive as
much news and information as we can.

Many specific dates of occurrences of profanity and vulgarity within the more
professional and national field are recorded in this article. This being more of an
ethos appeal in the writing. Leaders such as former Presidents George W. Bush and
Bill Clinton are mentioned along with many others. Sheidlower continues on to
mention a few major news media sources reporting these occurrences such as The
Washington Times and The Atlantic, but makes a striking comment toward their
individual articles concerning those occurrences saying that they "covered widely"
what actually happened. Taking the profane, although relevant, words and replacing
them in all sorts of ways. Either the omission of letters from the words themselves
or even replacing the word entirely with phrases like "an obscenity" or "a vulgarity".
Another ethos example is from the beginning of the article when the story
about Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland making profane comments about
the European Union while on a phone call an ambassador to Ukraine. This incident
was discovered and was covered in the media. But when one reads some articles
that covered this story, you will find yourself not hearing or reading what was
actually said by Nuland, but rather descriptions that make you "read between the
lines" in order to realize what was said. The media wasn't straight forward and
didn't include the vulgar yet relevant words that Nuland was saying regarding the
European Union. Such "reading between the lines" is an example of
"circumlocutions" that may "deprive readers of... news and information". This
example gave credibility to what Sheidlower was explaining.
The points made by Sheidlower are very straight forward and as we have
been able to see, they have great examples to back them up. His style of rhetoric
and tools used are are legitimate in the sense that this is a concern that is real and
has been real for a while. Do we truly want all the information and news as
possible? details and all? Regardless of content?