garais50 et al.,
“It was barely 4 years ago that Don Imus the nationally popular, syndicated radio talk-show personality was very publicly censured for skating into the ‘whore’ territory on the air by using the street slang version of the word (i.e. “Ho”).”

  The meaning of"Ho” is not exactly the same as a “whore”.  One of the definitions of “whore” is: A person considered as having compromised principles for personal gain.  This is what Mr. Streips had in mind, not a hard working girl offering sex for cash on a street corner.

Visu labu,

Sveiki!

The one point that hasn’t been made is that Streips used ‘whore’ to describe a political party – i.e., an abstract entity with many members, rather than a specific individual or an ethnicity, race, religion, etc..  It would be a very different situation had he used it to describe a former Minister of Welfare (Staķe), who spoke in Saeima on behalf of ludicrous and indefensible legislation intended to make criminal prosecution more difficult, which would definitely have been helpful to Lembergs at that time.  While strongly worded criticism of Staķe - a public official - is at least technically permitted in Latvia, singling her out and calling her a ‘whore’ might have engendered a protracted law suit with an uncertain outcome.

Just curious again:  is calling a political party a ‘prostitute’ also an unacceptable simile? 

Visu labu,

E.

Sveiki Bruno!

Yeah, yeah, yeah….I know full well that many words have secondary and tertiary meanings. And just like tax evaders love to exploit loopholes to achieve less than honorable intentions, verbal jousters like to be able to fall back on tactics that amount to: “Who me? That wasn’t what I meant or what I was talking about”, even they know full well that the overwhelming majority of the audience thinks in terms of primary definitions first or even exclusively”.

I’m not buying it and it sounds to me like the station’s management wasn’t buying it either.

As for the point that you raise, Elizabete, it’s a valid point that context of non-personalized usage of a word tempers the sting of its primary pejorative meaning, but try explaining to the average unsuspecting black person that your use of the word ‘niggers’ was meant in the abstract sense and wasn’t really directed at any particular ‘######’.

If a communicator cares to have class, there are other and better options to get a point across….unless of course the publicly claimed point was all a ruse in the first place and your real intent was to get a free zinger in there on a technicality such as a tertiary definition or taking cover under the First Amendment.

So, why even go there?

Alberts

Sveiks, Albert!

I was very careful to point out that Streips’ characterization wasn’t leveled at „a specific individual or an ethnicity, race, religion, etc.” – which has its own set of rules.  Both of your examples “nappy-headed hos” and „niggers” are clearly racial slurs and come under the hate speech category, which is governed by the UN treaty that Latvia signed. 

We’re clearly not going to agree, but I do still wonder whether substituting ‘prostitute’ for ‘whore’ would make Streips’ comment acceptable? 

Visu labu,

E.

PS Just an aside – if Streips had characterized „Vienotība” or „ZRP” as a whore, I’m quite certain that LTV1’s station management would have had absolutely no problem with the broadcast.  Latvia’s public life is highly politicized.

Hi Elizabete:

I guess I’ll surprise you by saying that I actually agree with you that using the word ‘prostitute’ would likely fly whereas using the ‘W-word’ skates on questionable ice. I’m not quite sure how to explain why my gut tells me that, but it might have a lot to do with the same reason that clinical medical terminology for certain body parts doesn’t get flagged by media censors as readily whereas street colloquialisms for those same body parts do get censored across the board.  It’s obviously not an exact science in how those judgement calls get made, though.

My earlier point was simply that if someone wants to communicate something then there are more widely acceptable words with which to achieve that goal than to resort to reaching for the loaded inflammatory terms. I don’t for a minute think that explosive language is used accidentally. The intent therein isn’t to communicate. The intent is to have an inflammatory effect.

Alberts

garais et al.,
“I’m not quite sure how to explain why my gut tells me that, but it might have a lot to do with the same reason that clinical medical terminology ..........”

Blah, blah, blah.

Visu labu,

Hi, Albert!

I’m not really surprised, but was somewhat confused by whether you were objecting to the use of a specific word, or the concept Streips was expressing.  Bruno’s definition (A person considered as having compromised principles for personal gain) does neatly summarize it.  I didn’t find either offensive at all, but to each his own.  By the way, just googling a bit I found on wiki „In Germany most prostitutes’ organizations deliberately use the word Hure (whore) since they feel that prostitute is a bureaucratic term.”  On the other hand, I also wouldn’t be surprised if some Latvians would be unhappy if ‘prostitūta’ were used, since unlike the ‘m’ word, it’s not strictly a Latvian word.  There’s just no pleasing everyone. : )

Of course, only Streips could clarify what he meant, but considering his wording (see my translation below) my impression was that he meant to communicate his utter disdain for many – but not all – of the politicians in ZZS:

„Those Green-Agrarians who are elected and rational people – Raimonds Vējonis and one or two others –  now could finally free themselves of their procurer and become a simple, orderly party that represents the interests of Latvia’s countryside, without being whores – and I am not afraid of this word – for a single person’s individual interests.”  (The emphasis that I bolded is from Streips’ tone.)

Lai veicas,

E.

Seems as what we have here is a blank canvas on which everyone can project their own subjective points of view that somehow then get muddled into one great big stew. Looks to me that there are many separate issues being discussed which aren’t necessarily related.

1. Did Streips cross the line by using the word “mauka”?

Each culture has a set of words to which they assign values. I think in the Latvian context the word “mauka” has a far more negative value than “whore” would in English even if the dictionary would define them as equals. Latvian doesn’t really lend itself to satisfying cussing (as the cliche goes that’s why God invented Russian) and certain words are far more jarring in the public context than others. In this context I think it can be said that Streips crossed a line.

2. Should Streips have crossed the line?

Streips is a commentator. His role is to stimulate debate and not watch his Ps and Qs. The simple fact that it lead to this discussion and many others is good enough for me.

3. Should LTV been fined?

I don’t see any problem with democratic governments establishing broadcasting standards and then enforcing those standards as long as they do it evenly.

4. Should governments control the language that’s used on broadcast mediums?

In a word no. I think governments trying to protect the tender ears of impressionable viewers is ridiculous. Had Streips used the word “ielas meita” or “prostitute” would the meaning had changed? Nope. Would it have been more palatable to those it offended? Not really. I think trying to protect us from certain words is a counterproductive exercise. It only adds to their mystique and further reinforces the idea that what you say is not as important as how you say it which in my opinion is bassackwards.

5. Should LTV have fired Streips?

That’s a tough one. I think private broadcast companies should have the right to do as they please. The market place can take care of judging whether they were right or wrong. But LTV is a government broadcast company. Its not their role to look out for the interest of any specific segment of the population. So that brings us back in a way to square one. If they fired him because he violated some standard by crossing the line with his use of the specific word “mauka” then yes. If they fired him because of what he implied with his use of the word “mauka” then no.
I had the same kneejerk reaction as Garais and the first thing this made me think of is Don Imus, but if you think about it a bit deeper that’s not really a good example. A far better example is what happened with NPR and Juan Williams.

Andrejs

P.S. You would think by now I would know to proofread my own posts before pressing update post and not catch typos right after. :)

Kārlis Streips knew what he was saying and what he wanted to emphasize.  That is why he choose the word “m…..”  Swearing on tv is much more pronounced and prevalent in the US than it is on Latvian tv.  His choice of the word resonated tautā.  Keep in mind the politics of his program and what is happening in Latvia.  ZZS is out.  Nobody wants them in any coalition.  ZZS people are going to be kicked out of a lot of sincure jobs in a ton of state agencies.  But before ZZS people depart, they are going to take some trouble makers with them.  Kārlis is one of them.  He has been a pain in the side of ZZS and other conservatives for many years.  He has been silenced.  (Although KS has said that he has been contacted by other tv stations)

Time to subscribe to Laiks.

Skats no malas: 1995-2011
Apskatīt komentārus

28.09.2011

Kārlis Streips

Skats no malas: 1995-2011

Sešpadsmit gadus un dažus mēnešus – tik ilgi Latvijas Televīzijas ēterā noturējās manis vadītais žurnālistu diskusijas raidījums „Skats no malas”. Iespējams, vismaz daži lasītāji to kādreiz ir redzējuši. Kopā ar trim citiem žurnālistiem katru nedēļu es pārrunāju sabiedriski polītiskās aktuālitātes. Šajā sezonā raidījumā  piedalījušies žurnālisti gan no dienas laikrakstiem, gan no citiem plašsaziņas līdzekļiem, kā latviešu, tā arī krievu valodā rakstošiem un raidošiem.  Starp žurnālistiem bija arī šī laikraksta komentētāja Sallija Benfelde un rietumniekiem labi zināmais informācijas technoloģiju eksperts Juris Kaža.

Iemesls, kāpēc LTV nolēma no raidījuma atteikties, bija tas, ka pagājušajā pirmdienā, runājot par Latvijas Zaļo un Zemnieku savienību, teicu, ka laiks viņiem beigt slimīgās attiecības ar kriminālapsūdzēto Ventspils pilsētas galvu Aivaru Lembergu, kuŗu zaļie zemnieki visu laiku uzskatījuši par savu „premjērministra kandidātu,” jo īpaši tāpēc, ka šogad šīs attiecības nekādu lielu labumu nav nesušas un ZZS vēlēšanās ieguva krietni mazāk atbalsta nekā iepriekšējās vēlēšanās pagājušajā gadā. Šajā sakarā lietoju vārdu, ar kuŗu apzīmē prostitūtas, un ar to pietika, lai LTV paziņotu, ka izbeidz darba attiecības ar mani.

Vairāk lasiet laikrakstā Laiks (Nr. 37, 10. lpp.)