|
I think the only real failing of the message is that it doesn't instantly and directly bring attention to wrongdoing. It's too ambiguous. "Fuck Bush" really only communicates an emotional response. One would be saying more if they said "Bush is a bad dresser", frankly. I've seen articles called "Bush Illegally Bypasses FISA" or "Bush Admits No WMDs", which clearly outline wrongdoing and allow the reader to have the emotional response. It's better that way. Instead of it seeming like you and your buddies drinking beers and watching CSPAN (which I do), it's more like an authority outlining facts and allowing you to draw your own conclusion.
My own emotional response? Fuck Bush. But, if I'm going to be writing about Bush, it doesn't really do anything but act like a high five between people who can't stand Bush. That's great for your back porch during a BBQ, but in media it lacks substance.
As for the use of an obscenity? I couldn't care less. I do see that as free speech, as it does communicate free opinion on a leader. If someone said something like "Fuck Martin Luther King" I'd be pissed as hell, and they had better back it up, but I shouldn't be able to stop him from saying it. I can tell him to run and hide, though.
|