An Ill-Defined Macaca And A Dubious Uproar
September 13, 2006 at 9:28 am
The A-Team blog points out this incredible admission by the Washington Post editorial page:
Think about the recent uproar caused by the use of “macaca,” a word whose meaning was never really defined.
Never really defined? The Post reported on the “uproar” for a month — and never defined it? Isn’t that what they’re supposed to do — explain why and what they’re reporting on? And if it was never defined, then why the uproar?
The Roanoke Times’ Mason-Dixon Virginina poll didn’t seem to have a problem defining macaca, asserting in its second question that macaca “is considered a racial slur in some language.”
It is? They might want to get word to the Post editorial board.
Riley, Not O'Reilly said,
September 13, 2006 @ 9:42 am
Not to mention Wikipedia and the Urban Dictionary which never had it defined as a slur until at least three days AFTER the comments were made. Can you say ex post facto boys and girls? I knew you could…..