So, Andy Haden [*] is in trouble for using the “d” word. I’m not going to repeat the word here; I wouldn’t want to get in trouble myself! Oddly enough the mainstream media don’t seem to be worried about using it (see the New Zealand Herald article) which seems perhaps a little hypocritical.
No doubt they would argue that they are merely discussing other people’s use of the word. Which is kind of the point, really – that’s exactly what Mr. Haden was doing. Taken in context (oh my!) it seems perfectly clear that he was using the word he believed the Crusaders franchise would use, in order to imply that they are outright racists. (I will leave aside the question of whether this claim is to any extent justified or not, as I wouldn’t have a clue.)
I’m not sure whether it is the press or the general public that is incapable of understanding subtleties like context, but either way it’s a sad state of affairs. (Actually taken in combination with my other topic of the day, I’m starting to wonder if the press simply prefer to interpret everything in whichever light makes the best story. I suppose I shouldn’t be surprised if this is true, but I prefer to take a hopeful view and assume that journalistic integrity hasn’t completely disappeared from the world.)
[*] Whoever he is exactly – what on earth does a “rugby ambassador” actually do?