Trump's use of the word "Fuckin’" may be even more vulgar than you imagine.

American media outlets often ponder whether to censor it when publishing.

CNN in the United States published an article on April 8.

President Trump delivered a threatening statement on Easter Sunday, filled with profanity and obscene language.

"On Tuesday in Iran, Day of Power Plants and Day of Bridges will merge into one. This will be unprecedented!!!" he wrote on the social media platform Truth Social. "You lunatics, open that damn strait immediately, or you'll be going straight to hell—just wait and see! May Allah be great."

When reporting these remarks, news media faced another, more specific dilemma: how to handle President Trump’s use of the word “Fuckin’.”

“Fuckin’” is an informal contraction of the present participle of the verb “fuck,” originating from the Germanic language family—though the exact source remains unclear.

Linguistic experts point out that this English word is related to words in Dutch, German, and Swedish meaning “mating” or “to move back and forth.”

This indicates that using the term at the time was extremely inappropriate.

The word was once considered extremely vulgar, so early dictionaries excluded it entirely, and it rarely appeared in print publications.

Originally used in sexual contexts, by the end of the 19th century it had evolved into an intensifier—for example, “fucking hell” as an exclamation of frustration.

Since Trump began using it, today the word and its variants are everywhere, far less taboo than ever before.

People now use it to emphasize tone, create humor, express shock, anger, frustration—even joy.

Despite its widespread use, major news organizations still avoid publishing or broadcasting profanity except in very rare cases.

When is profanity essential to the story?

President Trump openly using crude language to threaten Iran seems precisely such a case.

However, while online articles mostly preserve Trump’s original wording, television broadcasts sometimes censor it—and sometimes do not.

Most major news outlets avoid including the word in print or digital headlines, instead opting for vague descriptions like “filled with curses” or “laden with swear words.”

The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal also avoided the term in their print editions, although The Washington Post used it fully in its coverage.

Nevertheless, most media outlets directly used the word in the body text of their online reports.

When presidents and vice-presidents were caught swearing during moments when microphones were accidentally left on, media coverage varied significantly in clarity.

If there was ever a belief that profanity was unsuitable for the highest office in the nation, that standard has largely collapsed.

In today’s political communication, profanity is seen as a sign of authenticity.

While some news organizations claim their audiences want certain swear words obscured, other consumers say they demand unfiltered truth.

As Trump’s threats toward Iran grow increasingly extreme, debating whether to publish or broadcast his use of profanity seems almost trivial.

A journalist asked Trump why he used such vulgar language.

"Just to make my point clear," Trump replied, "you’ve heard it before."

Original source: toutiao.com/article/1861950681654279/

Disclaimer: This article represents the personal views of the author.