The paper reports on ESPN firing a web writer for using a racist headline—but declines to print the headline.

Instead the paper’s Richard Sandomir writes this of the headline’s racist language:

The phrase had two meanings, one of them an ethnic slur.

It was “Chink in the Armor,” which, you know, you should get fired for writing.

I don’t understand the rationale for withholding the salient fact of a news story-to protect our delicate sensibilities?

If someone at, say, Fox News used a racist term to describe President Obama and got fired—would the Times censor that as well? What if the President in an irate moment used a racist term to describe China’s new premier? When George Wallace used the n-word, did the Times delete that? (No, it did not.)

There’s no good reason to withhold “chink in the armor” in a news story, and lots of good reasons to include it-such as the fact that it contributes to a public discussion and informs the public of a the central fact of a newsworthy event.