“Beeping” out the US president's speech? Why?
For context, I'm from Europe (Berlin, Germany).
It really bends my mind when speeches of the president are cleaned up in TV.
I understand the beeping is defined for TV specifically, even if used elsewhere. I use the presidents speech as an example of very important speech.
There are political and juristic aspects on this, but these are not my point.
It is about a severe distortion or the meaning in language use.
What I do not understand is how a distortion of meaning in important cases can be acceptable. This distortion is caused by giving use of expletives more priority than the semantics, the actual meaning on a sentence level.
So, ok, reporting the presidents speech verbatim on TV would breach a contract between the FCC and the TV station, right?
What the fuck?
I follow US news closely, and can accept a lot to be true. But this confuses me.
Note this is actually not a rant - it literally confuses me.
Let me give an example: The removal of expletives can change the meaning of what is said severely.
In a speech referring to a set of African countries, there could be the section
[...] these "beep" countries.
That could typically interpreted as
[...] these fucking countries.
if the actual text
[...] these shit hole countries.
Here, the first variant can be interpreted as strong emphasis, while the actual text could be interpreted as an insult. Also, it can be interpreted as a very strong insult.
I think the meaning is fundamentally changed here. So much so that it is of political relevance. Especially of relevance to international relations.
This is an extreme example, but it should prove that relevant distortion of the meaning of what the president says.
word-usage pejorative-language offensive-language speech figures-of-speech
asked 5 hours ago
Volker SiegelVolker Siegel
475415
|
show 8 more comments
For context, I'm from Europe (Berlin, Germany).
It really bends my mind when speeches of the president are cleaned up in TV.
I understand the beeping is defined for TV specifically, even if used elsewhere. I use the presidents speech as an example of very important speech.
There are political and juristic aspects on this, but these are not my point.
It is about a severe distortion or the meaning in language use.
What I do not understand is how a distortion of meaning in important cases can be acceptable. This distortion is caused by giving use of expletives more priority than the semantics, the actual meaning on a sentence level.
So, ok, reporting the presidents speech verbatim on TV would breach a contract between the FCC and the TV station, right?
What the fuck?
I follow US news closely, and can accept a lot to be true. But this confuses me.
Note this is actually not a rant - it literally confuses me.
Let me give an example: The removal of expletives can change the meaning of what is said severely.
In a speech referring to a set of African countries, there could be the section
[...] these "beep" countries.
That could typically interpreted as
[...] these fucking countries.
if the actual text
[...] these shit hole countries.
Here, the first variant can be interpreted as strong emphasis, while the actual text could be interpreted as an insult. Also, it can be interpreted as a very strong insult.
I think the meaning is fundamentally changed here. So much so that it is of political relevance. Especially of relevance to international relations.
This is an extreme example, but it should prove that relevant distortion of the meaning of what the president says.
word-usage pejorative-language offensive-language speech figures-of-speech
asked 5 hours ago
Volker SiegelVolker Siegel
475415
1
TV stations are legally bound (or have an internal policy) to bleep out swear words at certain times of the day. The same is true of radio stations. It doesn't matter what the source is.
– Jason Bassford
5 hours ago
Why would reporting the presidents speech verbatim breach a contract?
– James Random
4 hours ago
2
@VolkerSiegel Are you asking a question about the English language or about the the law and politics of media? If you're asking a question about the English language, what is it? Note that if something is bleeped out, there is no way of knowing what was said. All you can do is assume that something was said . . .
– Jason Bassford
4 hours ago
1
Though I have no great fondness for the current US president, I have not heard/read of any instance where he has used "fucking" in a speech or recorded interview. I believe he has used terms akin to "shithole" occasionally, and been highly criticized for it. I don't recall any instances where his speech was bleeped for US broadcast (but then I try not to listen to the guy).
– Hot Licks
3 hours ago
1
I'm voting to close this question as off-topic because it about legal restrictions, not English.
– Hot Licks
3 hours ago
|
show 8 more comments
For context, I'm from Europe (Berlin, Germany).
It really bends my mind when speeches of the president are cleaned up in TV.
I understand the beeping is defined for TV specifically, even if used elsewhere. I use the presidents speech as an example of very important speech.
There are political and juristic aspects on this, but these are not my point.
It is about a severe distortion or the meaning in language use.
What I do not understand is how a distortion of meaning in important cases can be acceptable. This distortion is caused by giving use of expletives more priority than the semantics, the actual meaning on a sentence level.
So, ok, reporting the presidents speech verbatim on TV would breach a contract between the FCC and the TV station, right?
What the fuck?
I follow US news closely, and can accept a lot to be true. But this confuses me.
Note this is actually not a rant - it literally confuses me.
Let me give an example: The removal of expletives can change the meaning of what is said severely.
In a speech referring to a set of African countries, there could be the section
[...] these "beep" countries.
That could typically interpreted as
[...] these fucking countries.
if the actual text
[...] these shit hole countries.
Here, the first variant can be interpreted as strong emphasis, while the actual text could be interpreted as an insult. Also, it can be interpreted as a very strong insult.
I think the meaning is fundamentally changed here. So much so that it is of political relevance. Especially of relevance to international relations.
This is an extreme example, but it should prove that relevant distortion of the meaning of what the president says.
word-usage pejorative-language offensive-language speech figures-of-speech
asked 5 hours ago
Volker SiegelVolker Siegel
475415
For context, I'm from Europe (Berlin, Germany).
It really bends my mind when speeches of the president are cleaned up in TV.
I understand the beeping is defined for TV specifically, even if used elsewhere. I use the presidents speech as an example of very important speech.
There are political and juristic aspects on this, but these are not my point.
It is about a severe distortion or the meaning in language use.
What I do not understand is how a distortion of meaning in important cases can be acceptable. This distortion is caused by giving use of expletives more priority than the semantics, the actual meaning on a sentence level.
So, ok, reporting the presidents speech verbatim on TV would breach a contract between the FCC and the TV station, right?
What the fuck?
I follow US news closely, and can accept a lot to be true. But this confuses me.
Note this is actually not a rant - it literally confuses me.
Let me give an example: The removal of expletives can change the meaning of what is said severely.
In a speech referring to a set of African countries, there could be the section
[...] these "beep" countries.
That could typically interpreted as
[...] these fucking countries.
if the actual text
[...] these shit hole countries.
Here, the first variant can be interpreted as strong emphasis, while the actual text could be interpreted as an insult. Also, it can be interpreted as a very strong insult.
I think the meaning is fundamentally changed here. So much so that it is of political relevance. Especially of relevance to international relations.
This is an extreme example, but it should prove that relevant distortion of the meaning of what the president says.
word-usage pejorative-language offensive-language speech figures-of-speech
word-usage pejorative-language offensive-language speech figures-of-speech
asked 5 hours ago
Volker SiegelVolker Siegel
475415
asked 5 hours ago
Volker SiegelVolker Siegel
475415
edited 4 hours ago
Volker Siegel
asked 5 hours ago
Volker SiegelVolker Siegel
475415
asked 5 hours ago
Volker SiegelVolker Siegel
475415
asked 5 hours ago
Volker SiegelVolker Siegel
475415
475415
1
TV stations are legally bound (or have an internal policy) to bleep out swear words at certain times of the day. The same is true of radio stations. It doesn't matter what the source is.
– Jason Bassford
5 hours ago
Why would reporting the presidents speech verbatim breach a contract?
– James Random
4 hours ago
2
@VolkerSiegel Are you asking a question about the English language or about the the law and politics of media? If you're asking a question about the English language, what is it? Note that if something is bleeped out, there is no way of knowing what was said. All you can do is assume that something was said . . .
– Jason Bassford
4 hours ago
1
Though I have no great fondness for the current US president, I have not heard/read of any instance where he has used "fucking" in a speech or recorded interview. I believe he has used terms akin to "shithole" occasionally, and been highly criticized for it. I don't recall any instances where his speech was bleeped for US broadcast (but then I try not to listen to the guy).
– Hot Licks
3 hours ago
1
I'm voting to close this question as off-topic because it about legal restrictions, not English.
– Hot Licks
3 hours ago
|
show 8 more comments
1
TV stations are legally bound (or have an internal policy) to bleep out swear words at certain times of the day. The same is true of radio stations. It doesn't matter what the source is.
– Jason Bassford
5 hours ago
Why would reporting the presidents speech verbatim breach a contract?
– James Random
4 hours ago
2
@VolkerSiegel Are you asking a question about the English language or about the the law and politics of media? If you're asking a question about the English language, what is it? Note that if something is bleeped out, there is no way of knowing what was said. All you can do is assume that something was said . . .
– Jason Bassford
4 hours ago
1
Though I have no great fondness for the current US president, I have not heard/read of any instance where he has used "fucking" in a speech or recorded interview. I believe he has used terms akin to "shithole" occasionally, and been highly criticized for it. I don't recall any instances where his speech was bleeped for US broadcast (but then I try not to listen to the guy).
– Hot Licks
3 hours ago
1
I'm voting to close this question as off-topic because it about legal restrictions, not English.
– Hot Licks
3 hours ago
1
1
TV stations are legally bound (or have an internal policy) to bleep out swear words at certain times of the day. The same is true of radio stations. It doesn't matter what the source is.
– Jason Bassford
5 hours ago
TV stations are legally bound (or have an internal policy) to bleep out swear words at certain times of the day. The same is true of radio stations. It doesn't matter what the source is.
– Jason Bassford
5 hours ago
Why would reporting the presidents speech verbatim breach a contract?
– James Random
4 hours ago
Why would reporting the presidents speech verbatim breach a contract?
– James Random
4 hours ago
2
2
@VolkerSiegel Are you asking a question about the English language or about the the law and politics of media? If you're asking a question about the English language, what is it? Note that if something is bleeped out, there is no way of knowing what was said. All you can do is assume that something was said . . .
– Jason Bassford
4 hours ago
@VolkerSiegel Are you asking a question about the English language or about the the law and politics of media? If you're asking a question about the English language, what is it? Note that if something is bleeped out, there is no way of knowing what was said. All you can do is assume that something was said . . .
– Jason Bassford
4 hours ago
1
1
Though I have no great fondness for the current US president, I have not heard/read of any instance where he has used "fucking" in a speech or recorded interview. I believe he has used terms akin to "shithole" occasionally, and been highly criticized for it. I don't recall any instances where his speech was bleeped for US broadcast (but then I try not to listen to the guy).
– Hot Licks
3 hours ago
Though I have no great fondness for the current US president, I have not heard/read of any instance where he has used "fucking" in a speech or recorded interview. I believe he has used terms akin to "shithole" occasionally, and been highly criticized for it. I don't recall any instances where his speech was bleeped for US broadcast (but then I try not to listen to the guy).
– Hot Licks
3 hours ago
1
1
I'm voting to close this question as off-topic because it about legal restrictions, not English.
– Hot Licks
3 hours ago
I'm voting to close this question as off-topic because it about legal restrictions, not English.
– Hot Licks
3 hours ago
|
show 8 more comments
0
active
oldest
votes
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "97"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fenglish.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f489017%2fbeeping-out-the-us-presidents-speech-why%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
0
active
oldest
votes
0
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
Thanks for contributing an answer to English Language & Usage Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fenglish.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f489017%2fbeeping-out-the-us-presidents-speech-why%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
1
TV stations are legally bound (or have an internal policy) to bleep out swear words at certain times of the day. The same is true of radio stations. It doesn't matter what the source is.
– Jason Bassford
5 hours ago
Why would reporting the presidents speech verbatim breach a contract?
– James Random
4 hours ago
2
@VolkerSiegel Are you asking a question about the English language or about the the law and politics of media? If you're asking a question about the English language, what is it? Note that if something is bleeped out, there is no way of knowing what was said. All you can do is assume that something was said . . .
– Jason Bassford
4 hours ago
1
Though I have no great fondness for the current US president, I have not heard/read of any instance where he has used "fucking" in a speech or recorded interview. I believe he has used terms akin to "shithole" occasionally, and been highly criticized for it. I don't recall any instances where his speech was bleeped for US broadcast (but then I try not to listen to the guy).
– Hot Licks
3 hours ago
1
I'm voting to close this question as off-topic because it about legal restrictions, not English.
– Hot Licks
3 hours ago