I understand what an editorial is; I understand what free speech is. I also, however, understand that when an intelligent person uses crude language to make a point, it diminishes the strength of their argument.
In the February 25th edition of The Lamron, in Julie Williams' column "Tiger Woods: athlete first, philanderer second," she uses phrases such as "stick[ing] his nine iron in someone's 18th hole that isn't his wife's" and "whor[ing] around." The argument of the editorial becomes unclear because the questionable language distracts from the article's main point. There are two critiques of the public apology that Woods gave that state how he should have given an even more public statement, but then it switches, saying that he should "keep it in his pants and out of the public eye."
The phrases of the column seem so badly to want to use the earlier witty phrases that it does not come off as an issue that the author carefully considered upon hearing about Woods; rather, the incident has been used for some comedic effect that does not produce a legitimate stance. I understand that the writers and editors of The Lamron are among the most talented at Geneseo, but they don't need to win me over with what some would consider crude humor.
Sincerely, Matt AndrewsClass of 2013