AT&T "Censored" Anti-Bush Lyrics In Pearl Jam Song
RolandTD20Kdrummer
Posts: 13,066
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
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
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
Aw hell yeah!
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
i thought america had the most 'freedoms' in the world... censoring a band??? wtf!!!
where's all the right wingers now?
http://www.newswiretoday.com/news/22034/
First PJ Show: March 20, 1994 | Ann Arbor | Crisler Arena
I would LOVE it if the mainstream press got ahold of this.
http://gigaom.com/2007/08/08/att-censored-pearl-jam-webcast/
right on...
nice post... i am going to put these in print on the porch sticky
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
right wingers are for censorship?
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.
Very nice Fins. Yes indeed.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
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.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
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?
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/9/26/8550/57285
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.
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
*MUSIC IS the expression of EMOTION.....and that POLITICS IS merely the DECOY of PERCEPTION*
.....song_Music & Politics....Michael Franti
*The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite INSANE*....Nikola Tesla(a man who shaped our world of electricity with his futuristic inventions)
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.
when it hits you, you feel to pain.
So brutalize me with music.”
~ Bob Marley
editing/censoring someones political beliefs or dissent of the president is CLEARLY censorship.
it really does strike right at the core of democracy and the freedom of dissent
ameircans justifying political censorship? what the hell is this country coming too
it was political censorship. period. and that is not healthy, for anyone.
when it hits you, you feel to pain.
So brutalize me with music.”
~ Bob Marley
It wasn't a reporter. Remember. It was a "mistake." I don't know that many corporations are on the hire for "mistakes". I can google it. I might get a job, who knows?
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
Or when a political article is written?
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
there is a difference between an original creative work (ie. article authored by an entity drawing on multiple sources of into) and between streaming a live event and snipping parts you don't like. if you are on radio interviewing someone and cut off the guy's mic when you dont like what he's saying (im lookin at you o'reilly), that is censorship. plain and simple. if at&t was simply doing a concert recap with highlights of lolla or highlights of pearl jam at lolla and chose not to show the moments where ed spoke, then that is fine as it is their original compilation/take on the event. but they claimed to offer a stream of a live event and then quickly blacked out parts they didn't like. that is censorship. now, we can argue all day about whether or not it that is as bad as government censorship (i say yes), and we can argue all day about whether or not what they did is illegal (probably not). but the fact is it IS censorship and regardless of the legality of it, it is morally and ideologically repugnant and cowardly.
I think interviewing someone and printing only the quotes you want is essentially the same thing.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
not really. an interview has to be edited for print. the interview is what the article is built around, but ultimately the writer crafts a coherent written creation from it. now, if you claim the interview is a transcription, you've got a different beast. an article based on an interview, like a lolla documentary, would be an attempt to capture the flavor or flair of the interview or performance. this is different from a simple stream or transcription, which purports to be a word-for-word recreation of an event.
I disagree - I think they are more alike than different.
And getting back to the original issue, if AT&T's contract said they would broadcast unedited, then they violated it. If it didn't then it's fine. It's got their name on it, and I think they should be able to take parts out if they do not want them (unless they agreed they wouldn't)
It wouldn't surprise me if they might not have done the same thing if they were anti-Hillary comments. They probably do not want their company name affiliated with any party politically.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.