Naught for Naughty

Ha, ha, I didn't notice this before, but The New York Times published a review Monday of a punk band whose name was deemed too vulgar for the paper to print.
This is enough to send copy editors into spasms.

Etymology Story Eviscerated

Oh, good, I wondered where Language Hat was. I'm looking forward to his demolition of this obviously weak New York Times story about language. I know little about the origins of words but even I could see how puny the evidence was for this story.
From Language Hat:
APPALLING NONSENSE WINS AWARD.
Grant Barrett wrote to alert me to this NY Times story by Corey Kilgannon, which enraged me to the point of incoherence. I'm not mad at Daniel Cassidy—he's a genial amateur who got a crackpot book published, no better or worse than the zillions of crackpot books that get published every year, and it's not his fault he knows nothing about language and its history, it's the fault of the educational system, for which linguistics and its results do not exist. No, I'm mad at the Times, which accords his nonsense the kind of respect they wouldn't give theories about how space aliens killed Kennedy or how you can produce nuclear energy at home with knitting needles and walnuts.

"No Need for a Newspaper'

I don't know if this is what Jonathan Landman meant to say

New York Times deputy managing editor Jonathan Landman, in a memo to staff: "Times have changed. Our online storytelling skills have evolved to the point where you really can get the whole story without reading a newspaper article. It's a remarkably rich experience that goes well beyond using video or maps or pictures to tell a story—something we (and others) have done well many times. The innovation lies in putting them together in a way that tells the story with all the nuance, comprehensiveness, authority and depth that define The New York Times. (It's hard to imagine online storytelling at this level coming from a non-integrated newsroom. Neither 'newspaper people' nor 'web people' could have done it alone.)"