Readers React: Foul language cheapens the Golden Globes

To the editor: “Class” is not a word that comes to mind when describing the awards show after watching the 2016 Golden Globes. “Sleazy” works for the contributions that host Ricky Gervais brought to the table. (“Golden Globes 2016: Bleeped words and surprise winners recall the show’s rowdy history,” Jan. 10)

The show seemed disjointed. Sure, there were gorgeous women and handsome men, but the constant efforts to shock and shame seemed laborious and were tasteless. The Globes lost some viability this year, and hopefully someone in charge will do some soul-searching before the 2017 awards show.

It was almost as disheartening as watching the Republican presidential debates.

Ronald L. Wallace, Sherman Oaks



To the editor: Constant use of foul language is so immature and childish — it always reminds me of children, or teenage boys, deliberately using it as much as possible in efforts to not only be rebellious, but also to impress their equally childish friends. Using foul language for shock value is also childish.

Such saturated use of four-letter words only shows an ignorance of all the other, more refined words that are in the English language.

I’m much more impressed listening to those who can express themselves with a very comprehensive vocabulary, yet at the same time, speak in ways that laymen can easily understand.


Gail Marie Noon, San Pedro

Follow the Opinion section on Twitter @latimesopinion and Facebook