The Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission yesterday asked the Canadian Broadcast Standards Council to review its January 12 ruling over the Dire Straits song
The CRTC move shows some are making a mountain out of a molehill and probably don't understand the difference between the CBSC and CRTC. It seems a lot of commentators mistakenly believe the government is censoring Dire Straits and prohibiting broadcasters from playing Money for Nothing without editing it.
The facts:
*CBSC is not a government organization. It is a group within the Canadian Association of Broadcasters (CAB) designed to apply standards created by the CAB and the journalistic standards of the Radio-Television News Directors Association of Canada (RTNDA). One of its aims is to provide a recourse for members of the public who complain about the conduct of a broadcaster who is a member of CAB.
*Canadian broadcasters do not have to belong to the CAB. Membership is voluntary.
*The CAB published an "equitable portrayal code" on March 17, 2008. This is a code of behaviour voluntarily adopted by the broadcasters, not a government law. Among other things, the code requires members to "avoid the usage of derogatory or inappropriate language or terminology in references to individuals or groups based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, gender, sexual orientation, marital status or physical or mental disability."
*The CRTC is an arms-length federal government agency that regulates broadcasters and telecommunications carriers. It reports to Parliament through the Minister of Heritage.
*The radio frequencies used to broadcast content are not private property. They are essentially owned by the government who, through the CRTC, gives broadcasters permission to use them. That point is not relevant to the CBSC decision, given that the CBSC is an industry association. I just think it's worth mentioning.
*Money for Nothing is a song by Dire Straits released in 1985 that directly quotes a character calling a musician a faggot. The character seems to be using faggot as a generic insult (comparable to asshole) rather than as a reference to sexual orientation.
*As far as I can tell, no one has accused Dire Straits of promoting discrimination or hatred based on sexual orientation.
*Someone complained to CBSC that radio station CHOZ-FM played Money for Nothing without beeping out the word faggot.
*CBSC's Atlantic Canada panel released a decision Jan. 12, 2011 ruling that by airing the unedited version of Money for Nothing, the broadcaster contravened the CAB Code of Ethics and Equitable Portrayal Code.
*Lots of debate followed. For example, the decision was the topic of a panel discussion on the television show The Agenda with Steve Paiken. The panel, which included Queen's University professor Eleanor MacDonald and Liberal Party policy maker Akaash Mahara, discussed the issue in an episode titled The New F Word.
*On January 21, the CRTC sent a letter to Ronald Cohen, national chairman of the CBSC, asking it to appoint a national panel review complaints the CRTC received about the CBSC Atlantic panel decision.
The CRTC noted "many of the letters it has received mistakenly have assumed that it was the (CRTC), and not the CBSC, that determined that the version of the Dire Straits song containing the contested derogatory word was inappropriate for radio airplay. The volume of letters and perceived overlap of responsibilities between the Commission and the CBSC has created uncertainty for the public and for radio stations requiring information on the continued appropriateness of playing that version of the song."
I'm not sure what the CBSC can do now, other than remind folks that it's not the CRTC. Check
My view is pretty simple. Editing words out of songs is not censorship, but it's extremely annoying. Broadcasters who believe their listeners will be offended by words in a song should not play that song at all. Examples include Green Day's Holiday, in which front man Billy Joe Armstrong essentially creates a straw man argument against the American Republican Party, quoting a fictitious politician using Nazi slogans and derogatory language. Another example is Avril Lavigne, who sings about a "motherfucking princess." Radio stations tend to edit songs from both artists. If I objected to this kind of music I probably wouldn't listen to radio stations who played these songs, either in their unedited or edited form.
The fact that editing songs is annoying does not change the fact that it is not censorship. The CBSC is an important organization with an important mandate. It's good for the industry as a whole to have an external organization to which listeners can complain. It's also good for competitors in media organizations to agree on common standards.
No comments:
Post a Comment