One man’s expletive, another man’s lyric:

Profanity pervades press personality cult

Gaston De ROSAYRO

I have never been a fan of outright blue humour or excessive profanity. Okay, I for one can swear in all three national languages and as an additional facility in Chinese and Malay. I shot back at a News Editor who had made a huge faux pas that I had spotted and expunged in the nick of time.

He was miffed and told me that I was being unfair because he could only swear in English. I said that was not my problem. I advised him that he had to make the effort. “If you English-speaking folks can’t learn to speak another language, you could at least learn how to swear in it. After all, if you can cuss in a language, you can get by, even if you can’t say another word,” I told him I also enlightened him that I could curse in more than six languages. He said that he was aware I was fluent in three. Asked to clarify he said: “English, sarcasm and profanity!”

Swearing is universal. Even world leaders are not immune to it. Sir John Kotelawala, one of most admired and controversial prime ministers of the time, was not averse to spewing out colourful invective. Legend has it that he castigated some photographers while he accompanied Queen Elizabeth II on her first visit here. He was annoyed because he thought they were too slow with the shutters while the Queen held an umbrella over him at Sigiriya. Mercifully, for diplomatic protocol his profanity was confined to choice Sinhala vernacular.

During both John F Kennedy’s and Richard M Nixon’s terms in office as President of the United States, Time Magazine published articles that stated how each used profanities in the White House. The articles handled the fact quite differently for the two Presidents, showing a bias that reflected a general attitude about the men. When Kennedy was President, Time ran a feature on him that explained something to the effect that “although Kennedy was of aristocratic upbringing, he was still down-to-earth.” The article was bubbly and presented using profanity in the White House in a positive or admirable light.

About nine years later, during the time of the Watergate scandal in the Nixon administration, Time reviewed the transcripts of tapes that Richard Nixon made of his conversations in the White House. Time reported that the President actually used profanities.

They were shocked at this type of behaviour in office. The reason for this difference in attitudes certainly had to do with the fact that President Kennedy was a graceful, charming man, with a good sense of humour. Who could criticize him for a little profanity or off-colour humour? On the other hand, President Nixon was a serious fellow. He also alienated many of the press, as was shown in his sour remarks to the media.

Both Presidents profanities while in office. Because Kennedy was more likeable to members of the press than Nixon, the swearing was considered acceptable. Well the moral of the story is that it boils down to the old adage of the singer and not the song.

And that a good sense of humour is better than a dour personality. More, never, ever alienate the press. And that history is the daughter of lies because the history of a person often depends on his personality. Which means that one man’s expletive is another man’s lyric

You hear swearing in the newsrooms of journals all over the world. Newsrooms are the theatre for colourful language because of the high pressure the job entails. In the old days pencil points kept snapping, typewriter keys punched in blanks. But in the modern context computers crash or play up and whole meticulously crafted paragraphs disappear. It usually occurs particularly during the pre-calm witching hour when deadlines are getting too perilously close for comfort.

The profanities then become thicker and more imaginative as tempers flare. If that happens to any mortal and he doesn’t swear then I can swear that he person is a sure candidate for sainthood. But I am still petrified that the non-swearers may bludgeon the computer with the nearest chair so that it spills out its guts of labyrinthine wires and hard disk chips and its complete artificial brains.

For instance, I once had to intervene during a heated exchange between an Australian Copy Editor and an Indian News Editor in a Hong Kong newsroom. The four-letter expletives flew like sparks from clanging broadswords.

The Australian although suffering from a congenital stammer stuttered: “Why Harri you ffff…fff..flaming idiot, why don’t you crawl back into the black hole of Calcutter where you came from.”

The Indian scribe, a worthy and versatile opponent, came back with his slashing counter-attack although faltering on his effs in his anger: