|
|
Post by CentreHice on Jan 15, 2011 10:50:34 GMT -5
A radio station is governed by the CRTC. They have rules to follow. If they do not want to follow those rules then they do not have to set up a radio station. They have to play 66% Canadian content... The highest Can-Con percentage for radio is 35%. |
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Jan 15, 2011 11:11:39 GMT -5
A radio station is governed by the CRTC. They have rules to follow. If they do not want to follow those rules then they do not have to set up a radio station. They have to play 66% Canadian content... The highest Can-Con percentage for radio is 35%. Has this changed recently, CH? I had a local sports radio personality come in as a guest speaker to one of my classes. He told us it was 40%, but that was three years ago. He also told us it was extremely difficult to find enough Canadian content (or content people would actually listen to) to fill that percentage without being repititious. I know I don't have the time for repitition especially in mainstream radio, which is usually on only as background when I'm in the truck. Cheers. |
|
|
|
Post by CentreHice on Jan 15, 2011 11:34:29 GMT -5
I remember it being raised to 35% in the late 90s, Dis. I'll check to see if it's gone up. EDIT: Under the Commercial Radio Policy, 35 per cent of all music aired each week on all AM and FM stations must be Canadian. In addition, 35 per cent of music broadcast between 6 a.m. and 6 p.m. Monday through Friday must consist of Canadian content.LINK |
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Jan 15, 2011 11:43:00 GMT -5
Thanks dude. This guy I was referring to isn't a DJ, so he was probably quoting something he 'heard'.
Cheers man.
|
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Jan 15, 2011 13:43:45 GMT -5
Last year, a listener to radio station CHOZ-FM in St. John's complained that the '80s rock song includes the word "faggot" in its lyrics and is discriminatory to gays. One guy can influence national policy. However, what if I take offense to the current format used in Gay Pride parades? What if I were to submit a complaint that while I'd like to support the gay movement, I find scantily, leather-clad or half-naked men dancing around in public to be offensive? I'll tell you what would happen. I'd be singled out in the media as an intollerant bigot who's against freedom of speech. Yet, one person last year took offense to one word in a song that was written many years ago and he gets his way on a national level. My hat goes off to the radio host who spoke up in defense of his programming. But, I believe the CBRC has lost on a lot of levels on this one. Cheers. |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Jan 15, 2011 14:19:36 GMT -5
I guess CO can weigh in on this (I may be wrong)... but A radio station is governed by the CRTC. They have rules to follow. If they do not want to follow those rules then they do not have to set up a radio station. They have to play 66% Canadian content and they can not incite violence (for examples) I disagree with your voluntary vs mandatory comparison. The reason the CRTC does it is in case pre-teens and younger hear the words and are incited (or yes parent's offended), and for legal reason. The semantics of licensing is utterly irrelevant and a straw argument. What is the fundamental issue here is the RIGHT for me to hear what I want to hear and YOUR demands that what I and everyone else wants to hear should conform to YOUR requirement/tolerances through censorship. As for legal reasons, please, you are not a lawyer and Googling what you think is the law is not much of an argument. Even if you think it is. Now as for the internet. They do not have free-will either. I can not come on here and type anything I want. For one, you mods will catch it and rightfully delete (and most probably) ban me ... if it passes through the cracks, well there are internet rules too. I would think, that leaving certain posts (inciting violence, hate speech, all sorts of examples) could possibly get CO in alot of trouble (not to mention me) if left on the board (he could be seen as agreeing with the message if not). So posts are moderated for decorum yes, but also from a legal perspective too ... and that's what the CRTC is doing with the radio stations. You can't type here what you want to type is because it's a PRIVATE SITE and the owner of the site makes the rules. You are free to play by the rules and you are free to leave. There is no mandate for you to come here. NONE. ZERO. NADA. You are free to go elsewhere and exercise your free speech without censorship. On the other hand a radio station is licensed and that is the weapon those in control use to censor their right to free speech. They have no choice. NONE. ZERO. NADA. Legal perspective? Your are either kidding or your tossing that out to see if it has any traction. If you are serious, then I have news for you, this site and EVERY SITE that I know and 99% of the rest of them are NOT concerned about legal perspective. At the very worst, at the most imaginative most you can come up with, the worst thing that would happen is that the host would ask the site owner what is happening, the site owner will say they have a nutcase problem and they got rid of it. That's it. There are no lawyers, no government agents and no Black and Brown shirts asking questions. As far as you posting some crazy stuff about buying a gun and going on a killing spree, well, good luck with that. You will be reported and you can explain yourself and you intent. This site or any other site can not be held liable for what runs through your head. That's why sites don't lose sleep about "legal perspective". BTW, I wont post any links, but I can give you sites that spit hate like it was candy and NOTHING and NOBODY has shut them down. Don't incite listeners, we can become vicariously libel if you do .... and thats what this listener did, she convinced (in other words proved her point) that the song incited young listeners to violence / bullying. Vicarious libel? Seriously? You can feel all the vicarious libel you can muster, I wont. Censorship:
Suppression of speech or other communication which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or inconvenient to the general body of people as determined by a government, media outlet, or other controlling body.It's good to know that there is at least one person on the internet who supports censorship. |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Jan 15, 2011 14:27:48 GMT -5
Last year, a listener to radio station CHOZ-FM in St. John's complained that the '80s rock song includes the word "faggot" in its lyrics and is discriminatory to gays. One guy can influence national policy. However, what if I take offense to the current format used in Gay Pride parades? What if I were to submit a complaint that while I'd like to support the gay movement, I find scantily, leather-clad or half-naked men dancing around in public to be offensive? I'll tell you what would happen. I'd be singled out in the media as an intollerant bigot who's against freedom of speech. Yet, one person last year took offense to one word in a song that was written many years ago and he gets his way on a national level. My hat goes off to the radio host who spoke up in defense of his programming. But, I believe the CBRC has lost on a lot of levels on this one. Cheers. If you play the victim card the right way, you can get some traction. Bring some cameras, bring a 7 year old child to the parade, make a big scene, claim that you just happen to be there and viola, you will get national coverage and lots of traction. Don't worry though, nothing will change. The gay community are professional at playing the victim card. Cries of victimhood are the weapon of choice for every interest group....and common sense has died. |
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Jan 15, 2011 14:28:10 GMT -5
As for your daughter.... If you don't like what the radio station is playing, turn to another radio station, shut it off, do any number of things that parents do if they don't want their children to hear something. Your "right" not to hear it is simple as controlling YOUR environment. Not mine. This was an argument that basically worked in favour of "The Simpsons." If you don't like the show, turn the channel. It's now the longest-running sitcom going (if it is a sitcom that is). Cheers. |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Jan 15, 2011 14:30:58 GMT -5
I remember it being raised to 35% in the late 90s, Dis. I'll check to see if it's gone up. EDIT: Under the Commercial Radio Policy, 35 per cent of all music aired each week on all AM and FM stations must be Canadian. In addition, 35 per cent of music broadcast between 6 a.m. and 6 p.m. Monday through Friday must consist of Canadian content.LINKCanadian content is a cultural issue and not a censorship issue. |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Jan 15, 2011 14:34:23 GMT -5
As for your daughter.... If you don't like what the radio station is playing, turn to another radio station, shut it off, do any number of things that parents do if they don't want their children to hear something. Your "right" not to hear it is simple as controlling YOUR environment. Not mine. This was an argument that basically worked in favour of "The Simpsons." If you don't like the show, turn the channel. It's now the longest-running sitcom going (if it is a sitcom that is). Cheers. Without that fundamental right and understanding, we are right back to the good ole fascist/imperialist/dictatorship days. |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Jan 15, 2011 16:00:38 GMT -5
I guess CO can weigh in on this (I may be wrong)... but A radio station is governed by the CRTC. They have rules to follow. If they do not want to follow those rules then they do not have to set up a radio station. They have to play 66% Canadian content and they can not incite violence (for examples) I disagree with your voluntary vs mandatory comparison. The reason the CRTC does it is in case pre-teens and younger hear the words and are incited (or yes parent's offended), and for legal reason. The semantics of licensing is utterly irrelevant and a straw argument. What is the fundamental issue here is the RIGHT for me to hear what I want to hear and YOUR demands that what I and everyone else wants to hear should conform to YOUR requirement/tolerances through censorship. As for legal reasons, please, you are not a lawyer and Googling what you think is the law is not much of an argument. Even if you think it is. You can't type here what you want to type is because it's a PRIVATE SITE and the owner of the site makes the rules. You are free to play by the rules and you are free to leave. There is no mandate for you to come here. NONE. ZERO. NADA. You are free to go elsewhere and exercise your free speech without censorship. On the other hand a radio station is licensed and that is the weapon those in control use to censor their right to free speech. They have no choice. NONE. ZERO. NADA. Legal perspective? Your are either kidding or your tossing that out to see if it has any traction. If you are serious, then I have news for you, this site and EVERY SITE that I know and 99% of the rest of them are NOT concerned about legal perspective. At the very worst, at the most imaginative most you can come up with, the worst thing that would happen is that the host would ask the site owner what is happening, the site owner will say they have a nutcase problem and they got rid of it. That's it. There are no lawyers, no government agents and no Black and Brown shirts asking questions. As far as you posting some crazy stuff about buying a gun and going on a killing spree, well, good luck with that. You will be reported and you can explain yourself and you intent. This site or any other site can not be held liable for what runs through your head. That's why sites don't lose sleep about "legal perspective". BTW, I wont post any links, but I can give you sites that spit hate like it was candy and NOTHING and NOBODY has shut them down. Don't incite listeners, we can become vicariously libel if you do .... and thats what this listener did, she convinced (in other words proved her point) that the song incited young listeners to violence / bullying. Vicarious libel? Seriously? You can feel all the vicarious libel you can muster, I wont. Censorship:
Suppression of speech or other communication which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or inconvenient to the general body of people as determined by a government, media outlet, or other controlling body.It's good to know that there is at least one person on the internet who supports censorship. The topic here is censorship .... whether it is a mandatory censorship or a voluntary one does not matter to me ... censorship is censorship. PERIOD - see I can use capitals too. Now, please show me where I said I support censorship. I did not. I said I agree with changing the lyrics to a song for the public airwaves, just as I support this site not letting me type the name of an NHL coach. The reason behind that I fully support. That isn't supporting censorship. However, using YOUR definition - are the mods here not "an other controlling body"; my point from the start (and made badly, or my hands type faster than I think) is that there is censorship on the internet (as witnessed on this board) and you can't have your censorship cake and eat it too ... either you are against censorship (as you are saying you are) or you believe it is ok in certain circumstances (which you practice on here) ... I fully support Dire Straits or any group to to express their creative hearts out ... that doesn't mean anyone has to listen to it. But I will support their right to say it, record it, release it, etc ...... If people want to they can buy the CD , just like you requesting me or anyone else to go elsewhere to post on an internet board. As for the legalese, it is obvious I didnt google S*** ... it was an opinion, a thought that came to my mind because my wife is a moderator of an internet board. |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Jan 15, 2011 16:06:12 GMT -5
I remember it being raised to 35% in the late 90s, Dis. I'll check to see if it's gone up. EDIT: Under the Commercial Radio Policy, 35 per cent of all music aired each week on all AM and FM stations must be Canadian. In addition, 35 per cent of music broadcast between 6 a.m. and 6 p.m. Monday through Friday must consist of Canadian content.LINKThanks CH for the clarification I thought the CRTC changed the number to a higher content because I was under the assumption (a wrong one obviously) that they changed the rules as to what qualified as Canadian content. I thought that Canadian content now meant the song had to be recorded, produced, written, or performed by a Canadian. (I remember Bryan Adams was considered non-Canadian for Junos and I thought the rules changed) .... I just googled and it is in fact television that is 60% ... my bad ... |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Jan 15, 2011 16:10:39 GMT -5
I remember it being raised to 35% in the late 90s, Dis. I'll check to see if it's gone up. EDIT: Under the Commercial Radio Policy, 35 per cent of all music aired each week on all AM and FM stations must be Canadian. In addition, 35 per cent of music broadcast between 6 a.m. and 6 p.m. Monday through Friday must consist of Canadian content.LINKCanadian content is a cultural issue and not a censorship issue. Canadian Content is based on one policy .... radio frequencies are public property, and provides a service essential to national (and cultural) identity that must reflect Canadian attitudes, opinions, ideas, values and artistic creativity. EDIT: I've heard people argue on here before that Don Cherry should be censored because he is using a public resource (the CBC) to spew his drivel; and yet now content on public radio frequencies should never be censored? Isn't that a double standard / hypocritical? |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Jan 15, 2011 21:50:07 GMT -5
The topic here is censorship .... whether it is a mandatory censorship or a voluntary one does not matter to me ... censorship is censorship. . Why don't you tell the guy who wrote this..... I am driving down the road in my car, I think it is a reasonable request for my young daughters not to hear "I'm a B*tch, I am lover ...." or yes even "f*ggot"Now, please show me where I said I support censorship. I did not. I said I agree with changing the lyrics to a song for the public airwaves, If you can't see the conflict in what you wrote in those lines alone, then this entire discussion is pointless. just as I support this site not letting me type the name of an NHL coach. The reason behind that I fully support. That isn't supporting censorship. Again, think about this line. However, using YOUR definition - are the mods here not "an other controlling body"; my point from the start (and made badly, or my hands type faster than I think) is that there is censorship on the internet (as witnessed on this board) and you can't have your censorship cake and eat it too ... either you are against censorship (as you are saying you are) or you believe it is ok in certain circumstances (which you practice on here) ... I fully support Dire Straits or any group to to express their creative hearts out ... that doesn't mean anyone has to listen to it. But I will support their right to say it, record it, release it, etc ...... If people want to they can buy the CD , just like you requesting me or anyone else to go elsewhere to post on an internet board. Yes, I "believe" in carefully applied rules and regulation in a narrowly defined and private setting. That's it. Nowhere else. Certainly not over public airwaves. Yes, you made your point badly and you refuse to see how censoring on public airwaves is different from a private site. ANY private site. Or private home. Or private business. Do the rules and regulation of this site, the other site, the site down the street or your home/business apply to the public at large? Of course not. "Requesting YOU to go elsewhere?" That's nonsense and you know it. Playing the victim is not going to get you anywhere. This site, the other site, the site down the street, the site across town, every site on the planet is a private site and with it's own rules and regulation. None of them require/mandate to post here, there, or anywhere else. You are free to choose here, there and everywhere else. Now,, if you can come back and tell me the internet site that legally requires you to post there, then you win. |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Jan 15, 2011 22:10:11 GMT -5
The argument was made that offended people dont have to watch a TV channel. Turn the channel. In the States (the Simpsons FOX example) TV is a private business ... fine, ok, sure, as you say a private enterprise (HabsRus) can do what they want - I accept that arguement.
The radio in Canada is public. The frequencies are public property. You can not do as you please with public property and yes it is regulated. So while radio stations are private businesses they are using public property ....
The counter arguement would be, if you wanna hear songs then go buy the CD. No one is banning the production of the song, the release or the profit of the song ... it isn't censored in its entirety, just one word. If you are offended by the n word in Huckleberry Finn , don't buy it ... same as the CD ...
... but it isn't as simple to tell the public not to listen to a radio station, since the frequencies are public property.
|
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Jan 15, 2011 22:17:07 GMT -5
The topic here is censorship .... whether it is a mandatory censorship or a voluntary one does not matter to me ... censorship is censorship. . Why don't you tell the guy who wrote this..... I am driving down the road in my car, I think it is a reasonable request for my young daughters not to hear "I'm a B*tch, I am lover ...." or yes even "f*ggot"Yep .. I think I have a right to listen to a public medium and not subject my kids to questionable material. Radio do not come with advisories like TV, nor do they come with schedules like TV .... if there was an advisory turning the radio channel would be an option I guess, or a seven second delay ala Cherry to tell you there was questionable material for minors .... I guess if this is the next great evil in the world , censoring questionable material over public mediums, the Canada is the next dictatorship in the world. |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Jan 15, 2011 22:19:27 GMT -5
Yes, I "believe" in carefully applied rules and regulation in a narrowly defined and private setting. That's it. Nowhere else. Certainly not over public airwaves. That was my entire point. That public mediums are censored all the time .... the counterpoint (I guess I should go back and re-read) was the radio channels are private. They are, but the frequencies they use are NOT. EDIT: I think I misread your post. My opinion is that public mediums should show respect and decorum to ALL the public, whereas a private setting (one you choose to be in, or even pay to be in) can be more lax (within the boundaries of the law of course). Which is the complete opposite of your opinion it appears. |
|
|
|
Post by franko on Jan 16, 2011 23:00:07 GMT -5
are TV frequencies also not public but designated?
if only radio, can I complain about Howard Stern and get him off the air because he offends me? Lowell Green [here in Ottawa]?
I think the whole question here is the placement of the line. if something offending someone is enough to get the person/song/word off the air, then nothing will be safe within a short while.
I'm waiting to hear if a lot of rap music will be edited or pulled. not likely.
|
|
|
|
Post by CentreHice on Jan 17, 2011 18:12:46 GMT -5
About censoring music....Frank Zappa fought this battle. Here's a clip from Crossfire in 1986. Music and music video censorship has gradually "loosened up" since Elvis was shown ONLY from the waist up on The Ed Sullivan Show. Speaking of Ed Sullivan: I remember Jim Morrison singing the original "Girl we couldn't get much higher" against the Sullivan censors wishes. The Stones were told to sing, "Let's spend some time together...." instead of "night". Flash-forward 40 years and you have, for example, 50 Cent's Candy Shop......both video and lyrics more than suggestive--receiving tons of airplay. |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Jan 19, 2011 9:58:01 GMT -5
I'm waiting to hear if a lot of rap music will be edited or pulled. not likely. They would need a complaint first .... some radio stations were planning a "Money for Nothing" marathon in protest of the decision - the CBSC said the radio stations (on ein Halifax and one in Edmonton I believe) could face reprimands "only if a listener complains". One thing I was unaware of was that this was a CBSC decision and not a CRTC decision - and they are quite different. The CRTC is governement, the CBSC is not. From the Canadian Broadcast Standards Council Website: The Canadian Broadcast Standards Council (CBSC) is an independent, non-governmental organization created by the Canadian Association of Broadcasters (CAB) to administer standards established by its members, Canada's private broadcasters. The Council's membership includes more than 730 private sector radio and television stations, specialty services and networks from across Canada, programming in English, French and third languages.
So this was a case of private radio stations censoring themselves. |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Jan 19, 2011 10:50:37 GMT -5
Lowell Green [here in Ottawa]? I don't know who he is ... but he was referenced in the decision against "Money for Nothing" (for using the term "wog" on air) The funny thing about this decision is the CBSC went through great lengths distinguishing between the terms "fag" and "faggot". They ruled that "fag" (since it has more usages in the English/UK language) is actually allowable, but since "faggot" in Canada has one main meaning (although there is another UK meaning for a bundle of sticks) it falls into "into the category of unacceptable designations on the basis of race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, gender, sexual orientation, marital status or physical or mental disability" ++++++++++++ Just so people know the history of this complaint. The listener issued a complaint to the OZ-FM and OZ-FM responded to the listener using two major points. The first was that this was an award winning classic song, 25+ years on the radio in the form it aired, and that for authenticity they aired the original version. And the station went through great length to list the awards of the song. The second point was that when OZ-FM changed formats they made a decision to air songs in their unabridged versions, noting that radio stations usually only air abridged versions due to length of song but OZ-FM airs songs such as "November Rain" , "Sweet Emotion" , "Twilight Zone" and "We Won't Get Fooled Again" in their unabrisged versions. The listener then wrote the CBSC stating that OZ-FM only airs Kanye West's award winning song "Gold Digger" with racial slurs censored out. So whether a song is award winning does not come into OZ-FM decisions to censor songs. Then the listener pointed out that the even though OZ-FM plays the longer listed songs in only their original versions now, none of them have offensive language - the sole reason for the complaint. The CBSC then listed a bunch of possible areas of violation of their Canadian Association of Broadcasters’ (CAB) Code of Ethics and Equitable Portrayal Code. One of the points made is that musicians realize that some of their songs are unfit for radio and therefore to gain greater exposure sometimes make a version suitable for play (as was done for Money for Nothing). But the decision, it appears, was based on the evolution of words and their meanings .. A case in 1994 was won over the words "d*mn and godd*mnit" and the decision recognized that these words today would be quite soft. But it was the Quebec panel in 2005 that recognized that the CBSC would have to deal with the "f-word family" and words that were previously common usage now becoming unacceptable to society. |
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Jan 19, 2011 11:36:50 GMT -5
are TV frequencies also not public but designated? if only radio, can I complain about Howard Stern and get him off the air because he offends me? Lowell Green [here in Ottawa]? I think the whole question here is the placement of the line. if something offending someone is enough to get the person/song/word off the air, then nothing will be safe within a short while. I'm waiting to hear if a lot of rap music will be edited or pulled. not likely. I remember Lowell Green back on Ottawa radio back in the 60's. Haven't heard him recently. The last time was a few years back, but I do remember him trying to stir the pot on a number of different subjects. He's still going is he? Cheers. |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Jan 19, 2011 12:24:07 GMT -5
I'm waiting to hear if a lot of rap music will be edited or pulled. not likely. They would need a complaint first .... some radio stations were planning a "Money for Nothing" marathon in protest of the decision - the CBSC said the radio stations (on ein Halifax and one in Edmonton I believe) could face reprimands "only if a listener complains". One thing I was unaware of was that this was a CBSC decision and not a CRTC decision - and they are quite different. The CRTC is governement, the CBSC is not. From the Canadian Broadcast Standards Council Website: The Canadian Broadcast Standards Council (CBSC) is an independent, non-governmental organization created by the Canadian Association of Broadcasters (CAB) to administer standards established by its members, Canada's private broadcasters. The Council's membership includes more than 730 private sector radio and television stations, specialty services and networks from across Canada, programming in English, French and third languages.
So this was a case of private radio stations censoring themselves. Really? Or is this a case where radio stations reluctant agree to a non-governmental body simply to keep the government stormtroopers off their back. |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Jan 19, 2011 12:28:08 GMT -5
I'm waiting to hear if a lot of rap music will be edited or pulled. not likely. Not very likely simply because those affected will scream racism or "cultural" victimhood. We now have a hierarchy of victim-hood..... .....and for the record. you are on the bottom. |
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Jan 19, 2011 15:33:04 GMT -5
This was an argument that basically worked in favour of "The Simpsons." If you don't like the show, turn the channel. It's now the longest-running sitcom going (if it is a sitcom that is). Cheers. Without that fundamental right and understanding, we are right back to the good ole fascist/imperialist/dictatorship days. Dictatorship takes a set of nuts, HA, and only politician I can remember having a set that big was Brian Tobin (though he was far from being a dictator). Other than him, I'm not so sure the rest of the lot actually qualifies. They're awfully good at caving in to the slightest pressure, though. Cheers. |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Jan 19, 2011 19:52:03 GMT -5
They would need a complaint first .... some radio stations were planning a "Money for Nothing" marathon in protest of the decision - the CBSC said the radio stations (on ein Halifax and one in Edmonton I believe) could face reprimands "only if a listener complains". One thing I was unaware of was that this was a CBSC decision and not a CRTC decision - and they are quite different. The CRTC is governement, the CBSC is not. From the Canadian Broadcast Standards Council Website: The Canadian Broadcast Standards Council (CBSC) is an independent, non-governmental organization created by the Canadian Association of Broadcasters (CAB) to administer standards established by its members, Canada's private broadcasters. The Council's membership includes more than 730 private sector radio and television stations, specialty services and networks from across Canada, programming in English, French and third languages.
So this was a case of private radio stations censoring themselves. Really? Or is this a case where radio stations reluctant agree to a non-governmental body simply to keep the government stormtroopers off their back. I'm not sure HA ...and you may be right. All I know is that the CAB created the CSBC to self-regulate themselves. I believe (could be wrong here) that without the CSBC the duties of the CSBC would fall to the CRTC and that would mean that tax-payers would foot the bill. I think broadcasters would want their own independent organization ruling on these things than the government .... I went to their website and read some of their recent rulings ... it is not an easy task to get them to agree to something like this. They always seem to find a reason (art for instance, for comedy routines), or a precedent to rule in favour of the radio station ... |
|
|
|
Post by franko on Jan 19, 2011 20:06:48 GMT -5
a threat to take them to an HRC can be very influential.
|
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Jan 20, 2011 7:31:50 GMT -5
a threat to take them to an HRC can be very influential. There was no threat franko .... that's pure conjecture. If she didn't win this CBSC complaint, she may very well have dropped it too. The LGBT community in NL has been giving this woman alot of flack too. Here is her letter to the CSBC: After reading the reply carefully, I still feel as though the reply I received is unsatisfactory.
In the letter, [OZ FM’s Senior Vice President] lists a number of reasons in an attempt to justify his stations airing the uncensored version of the song. One of the reasons given was the awards and acclaim that the original version of the song has received. These include 1986 Grammy for Record of the Year and 1986 American Music Award for Record of the Year. This is comparable to the achievements of Kanye West’s 2005 song “Gold Digger” which received 9 Grammy nominations, including Record of the Year, and is certified triple platinum. This song contains another discriminatory slur, not directed towards sexual orientation, but towards race. When played on OZ FM, this slur is censored despite the song’s achievements. I fail to see a difference between the two situations.
He also goes on to compare this song to others played in their original format such as: "November Rain" - Guns ’n’ Roses and "Sweet Emotion" - Aerosmith. He states that the aforementioned songs, along with "Money for Nothing," were at one time aired in abridged versions due to their length but are now played in their entirety as the result of a new format. However, that appears to be the only thing these songs have in common as neither of them contain the offensive language which is the subject of my complaint.
I am highly dissatisfied with the response I have received. I do not feel the argument in favour of the unabridged version of the song was valid, and it is certainly not strong enough to justify playing such words on the radio. This word carries an unavoidable connotation of hate. By airing it unapologetically on the radio, this station is indirectly propagating hate. Although I can see the value in a timeless classic rock song in its original form, I cannot help but feel that it does not overshadow the importance of ending discrimination.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ The CBSC has been "forcing" radio stations for years to censor certain songs, or play abridged versions of the song ..... why all the rukus now? |
|
|
|
Post by franko on Jan 20, 2011 9:21:35 GMT -5
a threat to take them to an HRC can be very influential. There was no threat franko .... that's pure conjecture. aye, it is, but [and I say this hesitantly], in the radical GLBT community there is a history of going to the HRC to get their way. Past action a harbinger of the future, perhaps.
what fun is giving people the benefit of the doubt? 
seriously, though, if she started the action, what is the likelihood she'd just say "OK, whatever". I guess we'll never know though, will we? especially even with this result she said
I would take issue with her statement that
especially since those in the community use it towards one another [or is it OK for someone in the community to use a word/term that on one else is allowed to? I wonder about those in the black community calling one another . . . well you know.
but I guess you see what you want to see:
I just thought the station was playing an old song.
I didn't think the song was discriminatory either . . . but that's just me.
I think because over the past number of years community standards have lowered and our tolerance for the vulgar has increased.
I don't see why the station didn't just say "OK" and use the bleeper three times in the song [you know, like they used to do with "Locomotive Breath".
He hears the silence howling, catches angels as they fall.
And the all-time winner has got him by the beeeep.
I doubt it would have satisfied her though |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Jan 20, 2011 11:07:43 GMT -5
I think because over the past number of years community standards have lowered and our tolerance for the vulgar has increased. I don't see why the station didn't just say "OK" and use the bleeper three times in the song [you know, like they used to do with "Locomotive Breath". He hears the silence howling, catches angels as they fall.
And the all-time winner has got him by the beeeep.I doubt it would have satisfied her though As far as I understand it ... this is exactly what she asked for, and it is exactly what the CBSC ruled. That radio stations have to play the abridged version of the song. Her original complaint was as follows: A song was aired, gMoney For Nothingh by Dire Straits, and included the word gfaggoth a total of three times. I am aware of other versions of the song, in which the word was replaced with another, and yet OZ FM chose to play and not censor this particular version that I am complaining about.
I find this extremely offensive as a member of the LGBT community and feel that there is absolutely no valid reason for such discriminatory marks to be played on-air.+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ The radio station replied citing the awards of the song and the fact they do not like to play abridged (shorter) versions of songs anymore (but they do play abridged versions of songs with curses and racial slurs). OZ-FM's reply: We have reviewed the material in question. When determining what musical selections air on our station, we always take content into consideration, and attempt to balance the point]of]view of our listeners with the integrity and authenticity of the musical selections aired.
In this specific case, the song in question has been played countless times in its original form, from its #1 release in 1984 to the present day, and continues to be aired on stations across the country in this form. As this selection has been aired continuously for 25+ years, and the original version is regarded by many as an historically successful and essential rock hit in that form with these particular lyrics, management chose in this specific instance to retain the authenticity of this selection. Below we have some chart stats on the single, [which] support its mainstream acceptance:
1986 Grammy for Record of the Year
1986 American Music Award for Record of the Year
1986 9 MTV Video Music Awards
Billboard #1 single September 21 ] October 5, 1985
The abridged version is aired on other stations mainly due to its length, but OZ FM changed formats to Active Rock and at that time it was decided that a number of selections be presented in their authentic format, for example:
The Who ] "Won't Get Fooled Again"
Golden Earring ] "The Twilight Zone"
Guns N' Roses ] "November Rain"
Aerosmith ] "Sweet Emotion"
All of these songs, in addition to Dire Straits "Money for Nothing", under OZ FM's previous format, aired from time to time in their abridged form, due to their length. However, under OZ FMfs new format all of these songs returned to their original form to provide listeners with authentic cut, as other stations in the market and across the country had done.
We understand the concerns you have raised regarding this particular selection and do apologize for any undue stress caused to you as a listener by the lyrical content of this selection, but based on the above reasoning, we have operated with the understanding that in this specific case, no editing of the material is warranted.
Thank you for your comments and concerns. Regardless of the outcome of this particular matter, the input of listeners is of great value to us, and we appreciate you taking the time to bring this to our attention.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Then she wrote the previously posted letter to the CSBC. She only wanted the other released version by Dire Straits to be played. Even the group realised back in the 80's that there was a possibility their song was unfit for the airwaves - that's why they made an abridged version. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ CSBC ruling (excerpt) There are, it goes without saying, limitless similar examples of dramatic and documentary films anticipated by Clause 10(a). The Panel is not, however, of the view that the Clause will generally be of application in the case of a song, in which the exposition of a context is less likely to be present. The Panel certainly does not close the door to that possibility but it does not consider that gMoney for Nothingh is such a song. The Panel finds no case for the application of the exception protecting legitimate artistic usage on this occasion.
Nor does the Panel conclude that the history of the recognition of the song in the mid-1980s in any way protects its airplay in unedited form today. The societal values at issue a quarter century later have shifted and the broadcast of the song in 2010 must reflect those values, rather than those of 1985.
|
|
