Reviewing the "The No Asshole Rule" on-air Date: Sat, 9 Feb 2008 23:27:56 -0600 (CST) Freedom of the press belongs to the man who owns one. " A. J. Liebling" Free speech on the air belongs to the broadcaster who can think of fighting the FCC and the government which establishes huge fines for some broadcast speech - especially between 6am and 10pm local time. You can express some words in book form, but you're not free in how you review the book on air. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-sutton/title-tales-weird-censor_b_85569.html Robert Sutton February 9, 2008 ####### Robert Sutton Professor of Organizational Behavior (by courtesy) Professor of Management Science and Engineering, School of Engineering Codirector of the Customer-Focused Innovation Executive Program Robert Sutton focuses on evidence-based management, the links (and gaps) between managerial knowledge and organizational action, innovation, and organizational performance. His research styleemphasizes the development of theory and recommendations for practice on the basis of direct observation of organizational life and interviews with executives, managers, engineers, and other organization members. < http://gsbapps.stanford.edu/facultybios/biomain.asp?id=09991316> ######### PART 1 When I published The No Asshole Rule, I expected strong reactions to the dirty title. But I didn't expect them to be so time-consuming and baffling. I've had at least 200 conversations in the past year with (often nervous) journalists, booksellers, and hosts at speeches about "what to call your book." These exchanges are not only time-consuming. Many are disconcerting because they challenged my preconceptions about who would love, despise, or reject the title. And I've been baffled, frustrated, and amused by the weird and inconsistent censorship rules (or lack of rules) applied to the title. I have identified 13 different reactions. I will talk about the seven in this post and six in the next: 1. We like the book but are afraid to say anything about it. I think of National Public Radio as enlightened and courageous; but some of their people were wimps about the title. NPR's Morning Edition first booked an interview, and the producer told me how much she loved the book. But then she stopped returning my messages and eventually canceled the interview because "the title makes my bosses nervous." Other national NPR shows did display more courage, as I was eventually interviewed by Talk of the Nation and Marketplace, as well as by several local NPR stations. When I asked why Morning Edition pulled the plug, a producer from a local station speculated, "They were probably afraid that some politician will get mad and cut their funding." 2. We can talk about the book, but won't use one letter of that dirty word. The New York Times won't print even a single letter from the word "Asshole." They call it "The No ******* Rule" (even on their Advice, How-To and Miscellaneous bestseller list). My publisher responded with a full-page ad in The Times that pictured the cover with the word "asshole" blacked out, which proclaimed "The bestseller everyone is talking about. The title they won't print here." 3. We thought we couldn't say it, but we've changed our minds. The Wall Street Journal started in about the same place as The Times, but eventually printed all seven letters in Carol Hymowitz's column on "CEO Reading Lists." This represents enormous progress because, because just 10 months earlier, the Journal quoted me using the word "sucks" in a story on "yes men," but printed it as "s---s." This prompted emails from bewildered people who couldn't translate "s---s, including one who assumed the word was "shits." 4. We hated the title at first, now we like it. The editor of one business magazine reacted with disdain to an email about the book and shot back "What is next, the no dick rule?" When he actually read the book a few months later, he changed his mind and wrote a nice little piece about it. 5. A-hole is OK, not asshole. This is the tactic used by many newspapers (or the related a**hole), as well as most U.S. radio and TV stations -- ranging from KGO radio in San Francisco to NBC's Today Show (which flashed "A-hole" on the screen for a few seconds, almost like a subliminal message). I can't figure out why "A-hole" is less obscene than "asshole." Exactly who are fooling or protecting by banishing that "ss?" 6. You can use the word, but we can't. That's how Inc. magazine handled it -- they didn't want their writer to use the term "asshole," but was comfortable quoting me using the dirty word. They called it "The Bully Rulebook," and writer Leigh Buchanan poked fun at the censorship by using varied "clean" synonyms in the article, including "jerks," "brutes," "schmucks," jackasses, "antagonizers," "tormentors," "schmos," "browbeaters," and (my favorite), "rascals." 7. We will say the title, but will play loud music so people can't hear it. I was delighted when The No Asshole Rule won a Quill Award for the best business book of 2007. But some weirdness came out at the Quill awards ceremony in New York when former New Yorker editor Tina Brown was given the task of presenting me the award. She was apparently complaining quite a bit about having to say the title in front of the live audience and on TV. When she presented it, they played such loud music that no one could hear her say that nasty seven letter word. I am not entirely sure that the music was intentional, but if it was, I have to give them credit for creative censorship. Ms. Brown was otherwise completely charming and we had a nice chat offstage -- and she never mentioned her discomfort to me. Next time I will talk about another six reactions to my title. I can tell you, however, that book publishers are one group that isn't deterred by the title. There are at least two new "asshole books" coming out in 2008, including Martin Kihn's (funny but also weirdly thoughtful) A$$HOLE: How I Got Rich & Happy By Not Giving About Anyone & How You Can Too. I am glad that my dirty title provoked Mr. Befera to write such a compelling and funny complaint. Overall, however, I've been surprised by how few complaints I've had about the dirty title. I have also been a bit shocked by complaints about my decisions to censor the title in some venues. A few months back, I gave a talk to a group of Stanford alumni, volunteers who provide a range of free services to my university. I talked with my hosts about how to best describe the book. I was worried about offending the volunteers, as well as the head of the Stanford Board of Overseers, who introduced me to the audience. We decided to take the most cautious course. I'd called it "The No Bleep Rule" throughout the 45 minute talk. After the talk, two different alums -- both over the age of 80 -- gently berated me for censoring the title. One of them called me a "wimp" for not taking full advantage of the freedom of expression that comes with a tenured position at Stanford. I know it is impossible to please everyone. But I do try to be sensitive to the different standards held by different communities. I've learned to just go with the flow with each of my hosts, to work with each group to help them decide which variation -- be it "bleep," "jerk," "a-hole," or the uncensored "asshole" -- feels most comfortable given the audience, standards within the group, and the personal values held by my hosts. And then I stick to their wishes. But no matter how much or how little censorship is applied, I always find a way to explain why call them assholes: At least for me, no other word quite captures the emotions provoked by these demeaning creeps. It turns out, however, that even I have some standards. My French publisher joked that I could call the sequel "The Asshole Shits Again". I don't think that I could bring myself promote that one. ######## PART 2 In my last post, I talked about seven different kinds of reactions that I've had from the media and elsewhere to the obscenity (at least in the minds of some people) in my book title The No Asshole Rule. This post presents another six of these strange, annoying, and often funny reactions. And I end with a few comments, plus a well-crafted complaint letter to the San Francisco Chronicle. 8. We can use the word, but you can't. This is how it works at Amazon.com. They spell out the word "asshole" in many places on their site, but I've had perhaps a dozen people write me that Amazon rejected their reviews because they wrote the word "asshole." Worse yet, when they tried to write another review without the obscenity, they weren't allowed to post that either. At Amazon, as with other outlets, reviewers are allowed to use "a-hole" or "a**hole." 9. It is OK to use the word, but not gratuitously. I was interviewed by approximately 20 Canadian Broadcasting Corporation stations. Many Canadian hosts warned me that it was OK to say "asshole", but "not gratuitously." One host advised that it meant "don't use the word more than about once a minute," which didn't help at all. Unfortunately, even after such advice and all those interviews, I have no idea where "non-gratuitous" use ends and "gratuitous" use starts. 10. The word is fine. A few outlets that never made a big deal of it, they just printed the word. Examples include American Lawyer, Time magazine, Publisher's Weekly, and The New Yorker. These outlets aren't as much fun to talk about, but I do appreciate their courage. 11. Say "asshole" A LOT. A satellite radio host asked me to repeat the word "asshole" over and over again because his listeners would enjoy it and it would help me get all the censorship out of my system. I was happy to comply. 12. You can say "asshole" but not "arse." That was the guideline imposed by one British Broadcasting Corporation "presenter" because, as she explained, "arse" would offend her mother, but "asshole" would not. As Bernard Shaw observed, we are, indeed, two countries divided by a common language. 13. We can't use the word, but will take every opportunity we can to poke fun at the censorship. I had several interviews with hosts who thought it was idiotic that they couldn't use the word "asshole." My publicist, Mark Fortier, put together a "style guide" (posted on my blog) that suggested different ways to talk about the book without saying the dirty word. Mark's guide proved to be especially useful to Pete Wilson of KGO radio. Pete started by saying something like (as Mark advised): 'We can't use this word. But it means "jerk," starts with an "a," and sort of rhymes with "castle."' I don't fully understand why people had such varied reactions and imposed such different rules, and doubt that I ever will. My hosts suggested three kinds of reasons. First, there is the threat of indecency determinations or fines in the case of TV and radio stations. I had many TV and radio producers warn me "If you say the word asshole, it could cost us over $300,000." A recent court ruling reduces this risk, as "fleeting" expletives now appear to be protected. So, if I accidentally say the word "asshole" just once or twice during an interview, the broadcasters probably can't be fined now. BUT there is still plenty of fear of FCC fines since as the rules remain quite murky about what constitutes an obscenity (most radio and TV producers were sure that "fuck" was an obscenity, but weren't sure of "asshole" was on the FCC's banned list) and, if asshole is an obscenity, most producers and broadcasters don't understand where the line is drawn between "fleeting" and "unacceptable" use. Given all this fear, most still err on the side of caution. Second, some hosts are concerned about the "sensibilities" of their audiences. The host of a Canadian radio station told me that it was legal to say "asshole" on air, but she asked me not to after she read the title of the book once because "There are a lot of old ladies who listen to the show, and they don't like that kind of talk." On the whole, however, Canadians seem to be far more willing to print and broadcast the word "asshole" than their counterparts in the United States. I've noticed that outlets in Boston are among the most squeamish in North America. Editors at the Boston Globe, for example, are especially heavy-handed in their censorship. Third, and finally, concerns about the image and reputation of the publication or broadcaster often provoke censorship -- people worry that allowing dirty words to be said or printed might damage their careers or drive away customers (I suspect that this was part of the story at the Boston Globe). The latter two reasons may explain why the print media has been all over the map, as they are not regulated by the FCC. Instead, they impose rules that reflect some complex blend of what they believe their audience wants, what best fits the image of their outlet, and what is thought best for individual careers. Although I am still not quite sure why, for example, a national publication like The New York Times would only use "The No ******* Rule," while outlets that I think of as more conservative and cautious like the Wall StreetATE1V1