CBS just marred a fine Grammy night by silencing the Lil Wayne, Eminem, Drake performance at least 10 times.
What is CBS afraid of? More unconstitutional FCC fines? If so, the CBS execs who made the bleeping decision should resign, and let people who have respect for Americans and our music step up and run the tiffany network. Ed Sullivan has become a laughing stock for his presentation of Elvis only from the waist up, his censoring of the Rolling Stones, and his attempt to censor the Doors. Historians will similarly look with ridicule upon CBS's ham-handed handling of the Grammys.
The audiences for network television are already receding. If the networks are to have any future at all, any chance of competing with the generally better programming of cable (when was the last time you heard a bleep on an HBO concert?) and the vistas of the Web, the networks need to stop running scared, and start treating their viewers like adults.
We do, after all, have a First Amendment in this country.
20 comments:
If they had not bleeped, the majority of viewers would probably stop watching CBS because the majority doesn't appreciate the foul language that is destroying our children and our future.
I personally turned it off as soon as they announced the M&M trash mouth was going to be on.
anon1: so? last time I checked, the First Amendment protected the rights of minorities to listen to whatever they please ... also, I wonder how much of a "majority" really agrees with you.
And, last but not least - what evidence do you have that "foul language" ever destroyed any child's future?
anon2: that's your right. My point is that CBS ought not to impose your point of view on others.
Children learn everything from sex, drugs, relationships and about life in school and from friends. Quit blaming the media and quit protecting your children from the real world. It has not been proven yet that a child listens to a bad word and then become criminals or murderers or start doing drugs. Just because you want to protect your children you are not going to control what we watch. Move to Mars then if you want to protect them from humans.
Very well said, anon3!
I'll just say one thing: exposure IS protection, not the other way around.
You want a way into your kids' lives? Learn to like what they like. You teach them that they are their own person, with their own thoughts, choices, desires, etc .. but when it comes to one thing you know nothing about, or are simply afraid of, you attempt to restrict their access? Teaching via hypocrisy is certainly more 'dangerous' than teaching without logic.
Excellent points and well said, too, Felonious!
Can someone present in the building confirm whether Lil Wayne & co. were even cursing? I refuse to believe that these guys were going to get on stage - on live TV - and knowingly perform an explicit version of the song. I'm sure they were instructed and reminded that this was live TV. In fact, I heard both Eminem and Drake edit themselves...that is, those few times the audio wasn't completely muted. Whatever happened to "safe harbor" anyway? Ha!
I was told by a reporter today - for Bronx 12 News (television), where I was interviewed about this - that the words "shit" and "fuck" were pretty frequent in the performance.
You know if those two singers(if you can call them that) do not have the intelligence to get their point across without vulgar language then they should give up being in the music business.
To the person that wrote this article, what in the world do you mean by this statement?"start treating their viewers like adults".
Look dum dum some of the viewers are children,ok? I guess you think it is ok to use foul language around children? Oh that would really teach a good lesson to kids.What makes you think the people that went to the Grammys and those at home wanted to hear such filth as that?
Does cussing make you feel so like a man? Is that what it takes for people like you and those two rappers to feel like men. It makes you feel all big and bad? You have no idea what being a man really is, or for that matter a human being with morals. No wonder Americas future looks dim with such as those two being idolized.
What is it that makes such words filthy or immoral?
What is it about specific word choice that makes you feel like it's only done to impress others? Furthermore, why would someone being trying to impress others with such language if, as you purport, everyone believes that using such language is immoral and doesn't impress anyone?
Does it make you more of a 'man' to refute others' right to their word choice?
And, perhaps you don't understand the music industry: Artists are popular because people like them. Like what they say, how they say it. If words should be censored, and you're trying to 'protect' 'children' ... then isn't exposing them to the unoriginal work only going to spark more interest in the original? If you really had a valid argument, you would say that we should disallow the dissemination of any information that even references the original work. There is no chance of keeping anything publicly available to 'adults' from 'children' anymore.
In my experience, petty arguments about the moral/immoral nature of specific forms of language are primarily used as self-serving attempts to assert intellectual or social position over others.
Sure there are times when more colorful language isn't appropriate...
But who are you to judge the cultural/musical expression of another and its appropriate place?
That's the bottom line here: expression is as free as the beings which express it.
The reason, as you put it (not that I agree), that "America's future looks so dim", is precisely because of the kind of rhetoric you spout. Perhaps if we weren't so intent on censoring our population's expression, we would all be better in tune with all that is embodied by our culture, be better connected, and more 'moral' as a whole.
Paul, do you have a link to the video of your interview?
First, it's too bad you don't have the courage, "anon," to use your real name. Mine is Paul Levinson, and it's clearly indicated at the top of this blog.
Second, it's sad that you have to resort to name-calling - "dum dum" - to make your point. But that's usually an indication of the weakness of your own argument, and I'm happy to have your comment here, because it's a good example of the level of argument you defenders of "good taste" resort to.
And, third, I feel like a human being because I am a human being, and this nothing to do with cursing - how about you?
Hey Joe -
I don't have a link to it yet, but I'll see if I can one later tonight or tomorrow.
Network audiences are "already receding?"
Fuck, man! Did you time warp back to 1985 to come up with that statement? That's like saying Eisenhower's corpse is "already cooling.
Shit, make some sense Gramps.
Another brave anonymous poster who likes to shoot his/her mouth off, but is afraid to leave a name.
Hey, if my post doesn't make sense to you, get some education. Do a little reading. You'll find that network audiences weren't receding all that much back in 1985.
The First Amendment has NOTHING to do with the actions of a private company. "Congress shall make no law........." Not a word about CBS.
Funny you would think a professor at a major university would know that.
Ever heard of the FCC? And didn't you get the memo about the recent SCOTUS decision, re: corporations & free speech? (not that i wholeheartedly agree with that decision when it comes to money as qualified as speech)
I just turn it off. I don't like rap and don't really think it is music anyway. That is all the censorship we need.
From what I have been able to gather, over the years, most "live" events such as this have come to be delayed, usually anywhere from 7 to 30 seconds. This has come to be from various incidents on all sorts of live broadcasts which have caused networks to fear backlash from the FCC and various groups in the vocal minority such as the Parents Television Council.
Were the acts stupid to curse? Well that depends. Though I'm sure they were instructed not to curse, many do regularly in live TV performances and it doesn't result in the crowd shots and long bits of silence viewers of the Grammys were subject to. Considering that, is it reasonable for these acts to think they could at least do the same as smaller broadcasts they appear on? I believe so.
Also, award winners being surprised and saying things such as "Holy Shit!" is nothing new. Whether you like the acts given the silent treatment last night or not, it is clear that CBS was woefully unprepared for what nearly everyone else expected.
Post a Comment