During a meeting about immigration policy, lawmakers heard President Trump ask why the U.S. would admit people from "s---hole" countries like African countries and Haiti instead of places like Norway.

I have refrained here as have some TV news stations (NBC, shown here), but the major print news outlets—NY Times, Washington Post, and Wall Street Journal—all printed the actual profanity. The New York Times explains the decision:

But several media executives said on Thursday that the news value of Mr. Trump’s remarks, which the White House did not dispute, was undeniable.

“It would be futile to mask the word when the language itself, in reference to Haiti and African countries, was so extraordinary,” said The A.P.’s vice president for standards, John Daniszewski.

Discussion:

• Why would some media outlets use the word, while others avoid it? What does the decision involve?
• Some take issue with the reporting about "vulgar," "crude," or "profane" language, calling for the press to call the president a "racist" instead. What are your thoughts? First, does the comment indicate that he is a racist? Second, should the news agencies report this differently?
• An argument could be made that the president is just being himself, authentic. What do you think of this view?