New York Times Will Print "Pussy," But Not "Cock"

Categories: Media

297px-Pussy_Riot_by_Igor_Mukhin.jpg
They've run articles about the Russian punk group Pussy Riot without putting asterisks in the name or changing it in any way.

But in reviewing the play Cock, the paper of record called it Cockfight Play and explained that the real title was unprintable.

Could they be deluding themselves into thinking that Pussy Riot is actually a play on cats?

Well, if so the play Cock has a double meaning, as it's not just about male genitals but also about a human version of a cockfight, as the Times' made-up title for it would suggest.

No, this is just a case of flat-out hypocrisy.

But I'm glad that it's Pussy Riot--the victims of oppression and censorship--that are the ones not being censored in this case.

Still, I wish the media wouldn't be such pussies.


Advertisement

My Voice Nation Help
6 comments
larrypage00001
larrypage00001

Why are you going to print pussies and no cocks? What kind of printer and ink toner cartridges are you going to use in printing them? The title is very confusing and at the same time very green minded.


Source: http://www.inkjetsuperstore.com/

bethesda
bethesda

They're pussies and dicks. The double standard is nuts.

nostradavid
nostradavid

Are the media pussies or just dicks? It depends on the editor. 

Timmee
Timmee

That's Putin the Times in its place!

blissbaby
blissbaby

I hope they can at least say penis.

blissbaby
blissbaby

I found that weird too! What's with the double standard??

Loading...