I found it quite humorous that the The New York Times is being criticized for not publishing the name of a book titled, "Chess Bitch: Women in the Ultimate Intellectual Sport". It is slightly funnier than the fact that a book was even written with such a title to begin with.
The Times censored the name of the book in two articles that it ran. What made the decision even more questionable was that the author of the book, wrote one of these pieces, which appeared in ‘The Week in Review’ section of the paper. The publishing house (Silman-James Press) behind the book is quite displeased with this decision, and called the Times’ attitude ‘squeamish’.
"The Times has displayed astonishing squeamishness and misplaced political correctness in this act of out-and-out censorship," said Gwen Feldman, co-publisher of Silman-James Press. "We asked that the Times have the courage and courtesy of setting the record straight by publishing the full title of `Chess Bitch,' but they have declined even though one of its top editors has admitted in an email to me that `it was an act of overly zealous concern for readers' sensitivities.' Their act is even more egregious since The Week in Review section invited Jennifer to author an Op-Ed essay based at least in part on the notoriety of `Chess Bitch.'
The publishing house has a lot to lose in terms of publicity and sales because of this decision, and therefore would naturally protest the decision. But, I would still have to agree with them to some extent. I find it to be quite a ludicrous assumption that people who absorb news of rapes, murders and torture on a daily basis will cringe at the use of the word ‘bitch’—that too when it has been used in quite a harmless context.
As Feldman wrote in her Nov. 29 letter to The Times: "One does not recall a similar aversion to mentioning an author's titles by way of lending credibility to their presence in the newspaper, particularly when the book is the precise reason the editors called upon Ms. Shahade to lend her sagacity to their pages.
Aren’t we all chanting the mantra of more editorialized, dynamic news these days? Isn’t it a raging issue that blogs are stealing mainstream media’s thunder, because they are more bold and honest? Even though my inclination is always to defend the mainstream media, in this particular case I have to diverge
If they cannot print the name of this book simply because it has the word ‘bitch’ in it, either we as the readers should feel pretty stupid or The New York Times should seriously loosen up.
Michelle Crowley @ December 7, 2005 - 9:25pm
Hi Rabia, I was going to write a similar blog, but then I wasn't sure if we were supposed to use words considered "profane," so I wrote to Professor Penenberg to find out if it was ok to use the word "bitch" in a blog.
Anyway, you beat me to posting while I was waiting to hear back, so I'll post my blog in response to yours. It's pretty similar, we even pulled the same quote from the Business Wire. I like your point that the Times editors failed to realize that people can read about such horrors as rape and murder but can't see the word "bitch" in print.
Here's my two cents:
Here is an interesting situation: Chess wonder woman Jennifer Shahade wrote a book entitled “Chess Bitch: Women in the Ultimate Intellectual Sport,†released in September 2005. On November 27, she showed up twice in the New York Times, receiving mention in one article about chess, and authoring an op-ed called “All the Right Moves.†Oddly, the Times acknowledged the fact that Shahade had written a book, but they didn’t include the title, which might have been helpful to people curious to read more. At the end of the op-ed, the Times gave this information: “Jennifer Shahade, the United States women's chess champion in 2002 and 2004, is the author of a recent book about women in chess.†In “Sex and Chess. Is She a Queen or a Pawn?,†also published on November 27, it is disclosed to the reader that Shahade “has just published a book about her experiences as a woman playing a game dominated by men.†But no title.
Now the book's publisher, Silman-James Press, is accusing the paper of “recklessly censoring†the book title, according to a Business Wire:
I suppose that the Times isn't under any obligation to make sure to mention the book, but it is definitely very strange that they mentioned the book without saying the title. If the paper was vehemently against printing the word, then this would be a bit more understandable. But a search for "bitch" in the Times database turns up 732 results. Hmmm.
»