What the exlpl*tive!?

As a journalist for a school newspaper, I know that sh*t happens, and whether or not to quote it can be a problem. Some journalists are all for the inclusion of cuss words, whereas others avoid it with fierce opposition.
In a story I found on a blog site for the Pheonix Times, a memo was sent to a trickster writer from an entertainment section of the prominent Tribune newspaper, titled "Get Out." The writer cleverly replaced the f-word after it had been taken out of a DJ's name (Mr. William Fu*king Reed.) The newspaper's executives responded, explaining:

The cost to the company to destroy the altered copies of Get Out approaches $12,000. But more important than the money, I share with Karen a deep disappointment that someone would do this. In my entire 14+ years at the Trib, it’s been a joy for me to work with a team of honorable professionals.

So, where do I stand on the issue? I believe it's all about context. Had the reference been on the front page of the main publication, I would definitely disagree with publishing the full word. Still, since the DJ's title was featured in an entertainment section (and, aside from that, it was part of his name and not an adjective used to describe him) I would not be as hesitant to publish the word.

Still, executives are executives and, in this case, the reporter's joke did not resonate with the powers that be. So, here's to adjectives that don't offend, and managers that don't find humor in obscenity.

Having your media cake and eating it, too.

On Romenesko this week, I found a Q & A where a journalist had a query regarding online convergence. The question was posed like this:

If I were to indicate to the bosses that I would like to do more video and multimedia stuff, possibly full time, will I have a chance to return to reporting? Or is this a point of no return?

I can sympathize with the quandry. I entered journalism convinced that I would spend my days with nothing more than a reporter's notebook and an inquisitive mind. Now, this is appearing to not be the case. I had better get used to using a journalistic arsenal that includes a camcorder, camera, voice recorder and a variety of other tools I had never dreamt of incorporating. Additionally, I had better learn the skill of content convergence.
My thought was reiterated by the posted answer to the question, by Joe Grimm:

You're so wise to look for ways to expand into new media -- and to do it without getting pigeonholed in a job that could keep you away from what you want to do.

I am seeing a lot more possibilities for people who create blends or combinations. Examples: The sports writer who concentrates on the intersection of sports and contemporary issues, the features writer who works the seam between pop culture and national or generational divides.

So, I guess that's the answer, kids. Multi-facetness is the name of the game. Approach it, embrace it and let it employ you.