Strongly disagree. It's ridiculous to see a prominent newspaper act afraid of writing a naughty word in an article related to Jeffrey Epstein, sex-trafficking, and other similar subjects.

It's worse that they changed someone's quote. If they didn't want to print "asshole" they should have either found a way to "bleep" it, or just not used that quote. Changing what someone said shouldn't even be considered.

Perhaps the nytimes is worried about being sued by rich pedophiles.

I'm left wondering what the term is

Edit: I did check the tweet. I was trying to point out that it's not clear what the "earthier" term is, in disagreement with the parent post.

"asshole"

Personally, I hate this Bowdlerization from the Times. It changes the meaning of the tweet, and it's not even the worst case where I've seen their desire for propriety interfere with their core mission of informing their readers about the world.

If their readers are uncomfortable with words like asshole, maybe a source like Time for Kids would be more appropriate for them.

The tweet they linked tells you:

https://mobile.twitter.com/Joi/status/770625716?s=20

Sorry, yes I checked the tweet. I was trying to point out that it's not clear what the "earthier" term is, in disagreement with the parent post.