AT&T "Censored" Anti-Bush Lyrics In Pearl Jam Song

RolandTD20Kdrummer

According to Pearl Jam's website, portions of the band's Sunday night set at Lollapalooza were missing from the AT&T Blue Room live webcast. Fans alerted the band to the missing material after the show. Reportedly absent from the webcast were segments of the band's performance of "Daughter," including the sung lines "George Bush, leave this world alone" and "George Bush find yourself another home."

After questioning AT&T about the incident, Lollapalooza was informed that material was indeed missing from the webcast, and that it was mistakenly cut by AT&T's content monitor. Tiffany Nels of AT&T told CMJ that they are working the matter out with the band. "We regret the mistake," she explains. "This was not intended and was an unfortunate mistake made by a webcast editor." She went on to explain that AT&T has a policy for any excessive language, and that it was set up because of its all-ages audience.

"This, of course, troubles us as artists but also as citizens concerned with the issue of censorship and the increasingly consolidated control of the media," the band wrote on their website. "AT&T's actions strike at the heart of the public's concerns over the power that corporations have when it comes to determining what the public sees and hears through communications media." The band went on to point out that "most telecommunications companies oppose 'net neutrality' and argue that the public can trust them not to censor."

The full version of Pearl Jam's performance of "Daughter" at Lollapalooza will be available on the band's website in the near future.


http://prod1.cmj.com/articles/display_article.php?id=44047312

LikeAnOcean

"The full version of Pearl Jam's performance of "Daughter" at Lollapalooza will be available on the band's website in the near future."


Aw hell yeah!

gue_barium

It was a "mistake", yeah right.

chopitdown

the mp3 version i got from megaupload, (which I believe was from the webcast) had the lyrics in the song.

dunkman

in the land of the free?!?!?!?

i thought america had the most 'freedoms' in the world... censoring a band??? wtf!!!

where's all the right wingers now?

FinsburyParkCarrots

http://news.com.com/8301-10784_3-9715930-7.html

http://www.newswiretoday.com/news/22034/

whitepants

AT&T is lying, this is bullshit. They censored PJ on purpose because of the truthful anti-bush commentary.

DeLukin

I didn't believe it at first, but this sucks. Say what you want about AT&T having every right to do whatever they want since it was their webcast, this is still corporate scumballery at its finest.

I would LOVE it if the mainstream press got ahold of this.

http://gigaom.com/2007/08/08/att-censored-pearl-jam-webcast/

my2hands

FinsburyParkCarrots wrote:

http://news.com.com/8301-10784_3-9715930-7.html

http://www.newswiretoday.com/news/22034/

right on...

nice post... i am going to put these in print on the porch sticky

know1

A private company deciding what it is comfortable broadcasting is not censorship. Heck - they didn't have to have the webcast at all for that matter.

jlew24asu

dunkman wrote:

in the land of the free?!?!?!?

i thought america had the most 'freedoms' in the world... censoring a band??? wtf!!!

where's all the right wingers now?

right wingers are for censorship?

soulsinging

know1 wrote:

A private company deciding what it is comfortable broadcasting is not censorship. Heck - they didn't have to have the webcast at all for that matter.

they do when they sign a contract with a band offering to broadcast an unedited performance. they claim they only edit out profanity. now, i will agree dubya is pretty much a dirty word in my book, but not enough to be censored.

it's one thing to cmoe out and say "we are going to cut any reference to politics we disagree with," it's another to lie to consumers and tell them they are getting one thing and then modifying it without permission or publication. this is what got walmart into trouble with selling edited movies and cd's without telling anyone. it's fucked up and it's wrong. period.

you want to censor, fine. but you've got to let the world know you're doing ti instead of this underhanded sneaky bullshit.

DeLukin

soulsinging wrote:

they do when they sign a contract with a band offering to broadcast an unedited performance. they claim they only edit out profanity. now, i will agree dubya is pretty much a dirty word in my book, but not enough to be censored.

it's one thing to cmoe out and say "we are going to cut any reference to politics we disagree with," it's another to lie to consumers and tell them they are getting one thing and then modifying it without permission or publication. this is what got walmart into trouble with selling edited movies and cd's without telling anyone. it's fucked up and it's wrong. period.

you want to censor, fine. but you've got to let the world know you're doing ti instead of this underhanded sneaky bullshit.

Well said. Even if they would've been consistant with the censorship (bleeping Save You, for example) it would've been better than just editing out political views that someone obviously didn't agree with. I consider myself conservative-leaning and even I didn't appreciate what AT&T did.

RolandTD20Kdrummer

FinsburyParkCarrots wrote:

http://news.com.com/8301-10784_3-9715930-7.html

http://www.newswiretoday.com/news/22034/

Very nice Fins. Yes indeed.

know1

soulsinging wrote:

they do when they sign a contract with a band offering to broadcast an unedited performance. they claim they only edit out profanity. now, i will agree dubya is pretty much a dirty word in my book, but not enough to be censored.

it's one thing to cmoe out and say "we are going to cut any reference to politics we disagree with," it's another to lie to consumers and tell them they are getting one thing and then modifying it without permission or publication. this is what got walmart into trouble with selling edited movies and cd's without telling anyone. it's fucked up and it's wrong. period.

you want to censor, fine. but you've got to let the world know you're doing ti instead of this underhanded sneaky bullshit.

True - if it was in the terms of their contract to broadcast it unedited (other than FCC watchwords), then they were in the wrong. I don't really see that expressly stated as being in the terms of the agreement, though.

But I don't call that censorship in it's true nature. I call that breaking the terms of an agreement.

soulsinging

know1 wrote:

True - if it was in the terms of their contract to broadcast it unedited (other than FCC watchwords), then they were in the wrong. I don't really see that expressly stated as being in the terms of the agreement, though.

But I don't call that censorship in it's true nature. I call that breaking the terms of an agreement.

what do you consider censorship then? it doesn't have to come from the government to be censorship.

know1

soulsinging wrote:

what do you consider censorship then? it doesn't have to come from the government to be censorship.

Agreed. I knew that, in essence it was still a form of censorship, but I think there's a distinction when it comes from the government or the public as opposed to a private company (and I know that, as a corporation they are technically public, but there's still a distinction in my mind.

I'd be real surprised to see that the agreement was actually that they would show it unedited. What if Eddie had started saying negative things about AT&T?

HANKTHELANK

This reminds me of how ESPN dubbed cheers over the crowds boo's of Bush Sr's coin toss at a Saints game after Katrina. I guess that isn't censorship either.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/9/26/8550/57285

soulsinging

know1 wrote:

Agreed. I knew that, in essence it was still a form of censorship, but I think there's a distinction when it comes from the government or the public as opposed to a private company (and I know that, as a corporation they are technically public, but there's still a distinction in my mind.

I'd be real surprised to see that the agreement was actually that they would show it unedited. What if Eddie had started saying negative things about AT&T?

i wouldnt. it seems like the kind of thing the band would fight for... they weren't added to the broadcast until the last second.

also, i feel the distinction is more long the lines of what is being censored. when a company is shutting down political speech about government, it makes no difference to me if it's a technically private company. like someone else said... they didn't censor the BP song or the veteran talking abstractly about the war. however, they did overdub cheers when people bood bush at a football game. it seems mighty suspicious to me how far they will go to protect anything that might tarnish the president. im not a conspiracy theorist, but given this whole net neutral controversy, i'd not be surprised if there is a reason at&t wants to be sure to stay on dubya's good side. the flip side is me wondering if the whole dixie chicks nonsense might simply ahve scared anyone from being the carrier of an anti-bush message, lest his disciples target them.

g under p

I've always believed this country is really ruled by the corporations. Politicians love them and cater to them cause they bank them into office and in return receive plenty of tax breaks.

I saw this earlier this morning and meant to post it but this does not surprise me, I wonder to whom this corporation contributed to? I wonder?

Peace
Earle

surferdude

Does anyone including Pearl Jam know what was in the contrac they signed? Did it give AT&T editing rights? If it did it's not censorship in any way.

If Pearl Jam wants to ensure it's full and complete concert gets aired they should buy air time. When they sold the rights it may have come with conditions they did not like but agreed to anyways.