For someone who is usually super opinionated, I find myself smack in the middle on the question of whether to ban or not to ban certain words. A lesson I learned in Journalism-101 might be an answer or a compromise...or not. I'm ambivalent.

::::::::

I'm ambivalent; right smack in the middle of to ban or not to ban certain words from Op-Ed News. If I were a volunteer editor...I don't know, but I might have been the lone negative vote.

Rob's arguments for the ban were cogent and anguished over; it wasn't something he did lightly with a lah-dee-dah attitude. In his words, he worried over it "for at least a year."

As the owner, publish, editor of Op-ed News and man of many hats, all he was asking was that instead of writers using what he considers "hate-evoking words," they use their imaginations and expand on their ideas, by writing entire sentences, rather than take the lazy way out and throwing them into a catchword.

The entire discussion reminded me of one of the first writing assignments we had in my Journalism-101 class. We had to write a news story without using one adjective.

The purpose was two fold:

One, to get us used to the idea that we were writing news stories, and two, adjectives are opinion. Opinion mixed in narrative news is a huge no-no.

Well, it was then. Now the lines between the two have become muddied and blurred, and I long for that kind of ethical reporting.

The exercise in adjective-exclusion, also got us to think outside the box. It wasn't easy to lock up the adjectives, but trust me, it's quite do-able.

Keeping opinion out of writing doesn't apply here, that's what we do; we're up front about it, but that doesn't mean we're excused from thinking outside the box of catchphrases and catchwords.

Would there have been so much discussion if Rob -- instead of saying "banned" words -- had said "editorial discretion" or "editorial judgement?"

Be honest. Everyone who writes here or elsewhere, self-edits. I do it all the time. I never write the word "fuck" out loud to glare in the reader's face.

I say "effing;" "freakin';" "fooking," a la a cockney accent; "fricking;" and rarely the "F" word. And, I would never even think of using the also banned "N" word.

Hell, I even hesitate to use the adjective "niggardly" -- an absolutely legitimate word dating back to Middle English -- for fear that it and/or I will be misunderstood.

All of that is self-editing.

Rob's point is that "Zionism," "Zionist," "Islamicism," and "Islamicist" are "too often used too loosely as a veiled way to express racist, hate messages."

(If you have a racist, hate-filled message, there are plenty of right wing sites out there for you, including Bill O'Reilly's.)

It should be noted that the "C"-word, which is considered vulgar, coarse and offensive to many women, is also banned. No way can I say Ann Coulter is a c***-r**-b**** in theses pages, even if it's an apt description of her.

Rob's decision also falls into the category of "editorial discretion," a practice of every newspaper, television and radio station in the country.

If newspapers didn't edit for content and printed every story that came their way, it would take a crane to deliver it to our front stoops each morning, not to mention there aren't enough trees in the world to accomplish the task.

There was also no necessity for him to be up front with his decision. It would have far, far easier to take it up with individual writers. He hasn't hidden the fact that he's lost some readership, memberships and writers, because of his announcement.

It happens. The Los Angles Times lost a lot of subscribers over two topics: One for lack of editorial judgement; the other over an extremely controversial topic.

First, they neglected to cover a huge annual festival sponsored by a prominent Jewish group that was attended by all the big pols from the governor on down. The outrage expressed in letters to the editor and on local talk radio rang out loud and clear. The smaller L.A. daily, the Daily News, covered the event. People noticed. The Times' loss of readership was the Daily News' gain.

The Times also lost subscribers, because of their former stance of never saying two words in a row: illegal alien. They danced all around the elephant in Los Angles and usually said, undocumented immigrant.

The Fred Astaire prizes for the best fancy footwork around the issue went to the Times guys who thought up "surreptitious immigrants" and "transnational criminals."

So, the Times lost some readership over those two issues. In the long run, did it matter? I wonder how many of those "cancellers" missed their morning Times so much, that they came back.

To ban or not to ban?, tis the question, and I remain ambivalent as ever.

However, thank you, Bob Scheibel, wherever you are. That J-101 exercise was well-learned and applies to all writing whether it be straight news reporting or expressing an opinion.

Authors Bio:
Sandy Sand began her writing career while raising three children and doing public relations work for Women's American ORT (Organization for Rehabilitation through Training). That led to a job as a reporter for the San Fernando Valley Chronicle, a weekly publication in Canoga Park, California. In conjunction with the Chronicle, she broadcast a tri-weekly, 10-minute newscast for KGOE AM. Following the closure of the Chronicle, Sand became the editor of the Tolucan Times and Canyon Crier newspapers in Burbank. She is currently a guest columnist for the Los Angeles Daily News and contributor to ronkayela.com