Swearing in F1

[stefan_]

A little bit off topic too, but this came into my mind when I saw the whole what-is-and-isn't-released discussion. Was this broadcasted live?

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F0vdLNVLW4E[/youtube]

[strad]

NASCAR drivers swear like longshoremen and if you watch the Showtime program Inside NASCAR they play a good five minutes each week of the drivers unloading. . They all swear...all the time...they must have to look for ones they can broadcast during the races.
In F1 all snippets you hear are time delayed and at that point of no use to competitors.

[Intego]

Formula One drivers told to avoid racy language

A spokesman for the governing International Automobile Federation (FIA) said on Thursday that a private and 'friendly' letter had been sent to all teams' communications directors about the bad language.
The letter reminded them that it was "very much our collective responsibility to make sure drivers are aware such language has no place during media events."
It added that swearing in broadcast interviews "shines an unwelcome beam of adverse publicity on their teams and sponsors, the sport and FIA."

This article also says that teams only get public radio messages from their rivals.

Ironically, teams have been known to encourage drivers to pepper their team radio chat with strong language during the race to ensure their comments will not be chosen for broadcast and heard by rivals.

[smellybeard]

Think about it. The commentators CAN'T be hearing all the team radios. How could they possibly listen to 24 conversations, watch the race AND commentate on it simultaneously?

It's a matter of fairness to the teams. There can be no arbitrary editorial control over the release of radio messages that could favour one team over another; all teams and messages must be treated equally so therefore all messages must be released and on a comparable timescale.

This was introduced two years ago. I'm sure somebody who knows the rules well enough will know where to find a reference to it.

[bhall]

Random: How is "sh!t," or any one of its various permutations, somehow more acceptable than the genuine article? Obscure a letter or two, and writing it is generally never a problem, even though the meaning of the word remains completely intact and is conveyed just as effectively as if it wasn't censored at all. The same rule is applied when the word is spoken aloud, too. As long as the word is censored immediately following the voiceless palato-alveolar fricative that begins the word - the sh sound - you can pretty much get away with saying it in church. But, again, the idea conveyed remains whole.

This appears to be true of all "obscene" language. Why? Is a word defined by its form or by its meaning?

(Or do I just need a better cure for insomnia?)

[strad]

8.7 Driver radio :
Other than authorised connections to the FIA ECU, any voice radio communication system between car and pits must be stand-alone and must not transmit or receive other data. All such communications must be open and accessible to both the FIA and broadcasters.

[Cam]

Here's a link to a UK research which "identifies the relevance, and even the importance, of using non-conventional and sometimes uncivil language in the workplace." Looks like Vettel (who is in a work situation remember) may be on to something. Interesting stuff and certainly makes you look at the situation from another perspective.

F@#K YEAH!: UK UNIVERSITY STUDY ADVOCATES CURSING AT WORK

The study, “Swearing at work and permissive leadership culture: When anti-social becomes social and incivility is acceptable,” was conducted by Yehuda Baruch and Stewart Jenkins at the University of East Anglia.

The researchers studied the prevalence and effect of swearing on the working environment and found that casual, non-abusive cursing can allow employees to let their guard down and get to know their co-workers. If someone is profanity-prone in real life, but cleans it up for work, that self-censoring may prevent them from showing personality at work, the study suggests.