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

2

Comments

  • my2hands
    my2hands Posts: 17,117
    know1 wrote:

    But I don't call that censorship in it's true nature.

    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
  • my2hands
    my2hands Posts: 17,117
    here we go with the business guys and the contracts :rolleyes:


    it was political censorship. period. and that is not healthy, for anyone.
  • surferdude
    surferdude Posts: 2,057
    my2hands wrote:
    here we go with the business guys and the contracts :rolleyes:


    it was political censorship. period. and that is not healthy, for anyone.
    Is it censorship when a reporter edits an interview?
    “One good thing about music,
    when it hits you, you feel to pain.
    So brutalize me with music.”
    ~ Bob Marley
  • gue_barium
    gue_barium Posts: 5,515
    surferdude wrote:
    Is it censorship when a reporter edits an interview?

    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.
  • know1
    know1 Posts: 6,801
    surferdude wrote:
    Is it censorship when a reporter edits an interview?

    Or when a political article is written?
    The only people we should try to get even with...
    ...are those who've helped us.

    Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
  • soulsinging
    soulsinging Posts: 13,202
    know1 wrote:
    Or when a political article is written?

    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.
  • know1
    know1 Posts: 6,801
    soulsinging wrote:
    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.
    The only people we should try to get even with...
    ...are those who've helped us.

    Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
  • soulsinging
    soulsinging Posts: 13,202
    know1 wrote:
    I think interviewing someone and printing only the quotes you want is essentially the same thing.

    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.
  • know1
    know1 Posts: 6,801
    soulsinging wrote:
    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.
    The only people we should try to get even with...
    ...are those who've helped us.

    Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
  • hippiemom
    hippiemom Posts: 3,326
    surferdude wrote:
    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.
    No, it did not give AT&T the right to edit for political content. How do I know this? Because their corporate spokesman admitted that it was a "mistake." Corporations the size of AT&T do not allow their spokesman to just say whatever pops into their heads, all official statements are run past the attorneys first. If they had the right to censor political content, the spokesman would have said so. No corporation EVER admits to wrongdoing, or even screwing up, unless they have no other option.
    "Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." ~ MLK, 1963
  • my2hands
    my2hands Posts: 17,117
    people trying to complicate a very simple matter


    a large telecom corporation edited/censored a rock and roll concert because of dissent towards the president. not nudity, not profanity, but because of political dissent

    it is that clear cut. and it is fucked up. period.

    and i dont give a damn if there was a contract or not.

    just a piece to the much larger puzzle that has been going on for this entire administartion... dont challenge the authority of the king. these folks have been constantly trying to build an imperial presidency with powers that will last well into the future. and it is working. and the major telecom companies are right in line with this shit
  • jlew24asu
    jlew24asu Posts: 10,118
    my2hands wrote:
    people trying to complicate a very simple matter


    a large telecom corporation edited/censored a rock and roll concert because of dissent towards the president. not nudity, not profanity, but because of political dissent

    it is that clear cut. and it is fucked up. period.

    and i dont give a damn if there was a contract or not.

    just a piece to the much larger puzzle that has been going on for this entire administartion... dont challenge the authority of the king. these folks have been constantly trying to build an imperial presidency with powers that will last well into the future. and it is working. and the major telecom companies are right in line with this shit

    its nice to see freedom ringing loudly on this one
  • FinsburyParkCarrots
    FinsburyParkCarrots Seattle, WA Posts: 12,223
    know1 wrote:
    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.

    Since 1990, they've funded both parties pretty equally: the Republicans a bit more. They're probably keen to be on the side that's winning/in charge now, like regular little arselickers.
  • THC
    THC Posts: 525
    this is scary. its beginning to show how easily they will be able to censor freedom of speech in the future w/ all the media controlled by one or two companies. There does not seem to be any more enforcement of anti-monopoly laws anymore and its scary when one man or company can control everything we see, hear, and watch.
    “Kept in a small bowl, the goldfish will remain small. With more space, the fish can grow double, triple, or quadruple its size.”
    -Big Fish
  • Skitch Patterson
    Skitch Patterson Posts: 642
    everyone seems so upset about this company... that pearl jam willingly worked with. Eddie has railed pretty significantly against multi media giant corporations, but in the past couple years has worked with AOL/Time Warner, Viacom/MTV/VH1, and now AT&T...

    as far as im concerned, AT&T at least showed some balls in agreeing to broadcast the show... im sure more than a couple other companies have "censored" pearl jam by not working with them, just to avoid this situation.
  • floyd1975
    floyd1975 Posts: 1,350
    Skitch Patterson wrote:
    everyone seems so upset about this company... that pearl jam willingly worked with. Eddie has railed pretty significantly against multi media giant corporations, but in the past couple years has worked with AOL/Time Warner, Viacom/MTV/VH1, and now AT&T...

    as far as im concerned, AT&T at least showed some balls in agreeing to broadcast the show... im sure more than a couple other companies have "censored" pearl jam by not working with them, just to avoid this situation.

    I agree with this post too.
  • RolandTD20Kdrummer
    RolandTD20Kdrummer Posts: 13,066
    Skitch Patterson wrote:
    everyone seems so upset about this company... that pearl jam willingly worked with. Eddie has railed pretty significantly against multi media giant corporations, but in the past couple years has worked with AOL/Time Warner, Viacom/MTV/VH1, and now AT&T...

    as far as im concerned, AT&T at least showed some balls in agreeing to broadcast the show... im sure more than a couple other companies have "censored" pearl jam by not working with them, just to avoid this situation.

    It's not a charity scenario...dey's makin some coin as well.
    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)
    (")_(")
  • Uncle Leo
    Uncle Leo Posts: 1,059
    Just because they did not break a law does not mean they did not censor it. They did. Sure, it may have been their right to do so, but they still censored it.

    I really don't care whether it was their right or not. If they broke a contract, the breaking of the contract is fairly meaningless to me. Either way, it's pathetic. AT & T, do some fucking research. They should have known this could happen--Then either show the fucking show or don't. To cut out things that don't happen to coincide with corporate political views is just sad--Ed's little rant won't make a difference to the world, but let people have dialogue. And if the political rant got out, it would be Ed/Pearl Jam, not AT and T that would be criticized for it.
    I cannot come up with a new sig till I get this egg off my face.
  • hippiemom
    hippiemom Posts: 3,326
    Skitch Patterson wrote:
    AT&T at least showed some balls in agreeing to broadcast the show...
    Nonsense. AT&T has been broadcasting festivals for years. They don't do it out of the goodness of their hearts, they do it because it has advertising value for them. They are using these performances to attract attention to their brand, and if they're obtaining the services of the performers under false pretenses, not informing them that political speech may be censored, then they deserve to be called on that. Notice that they've been backpedaling all the way, because they know what they did was wrong. If the Lolla promoters or any of the individual artists had signed an agreement that stated that AT&T was permitted to censor at will, they'd be waving that all around.
    "Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." ~ MLK, 1963
  • Skitch Patterson
    Skitch Patterson Posts: 642
    hippiemom wrote:
    Nonsense. AT&T has been broadcasting festivals for years. They don't do it out of the goodness of their hearts, they do it because it has advertising value for them. They are using these performances to attract attention to their brand, and if they're obtaining the services of the performers under false pretenses, not informing them that political speech may be censored, then they deserve to be called on that. Notice that they've been backpedaling all the way, because they know what they did was wrong. If the Lolla promoters or any of the individual artists had signed an agreement that stated that AT&T was permitted to censor at will, they'd be waving that all around.


    and other companies broadcast them as well. I guess my point is, a lot of other companies may not even take a chance to broadcast such a politically charged band. And if AT&T was really TRYING to censor him, to the extent being talked about here, wouldnt they have censored Do the Evolution or Worldwide Suicide?

    AT&T's story is believeable to me. They gave someone the power to edit, and the person fucked up (either intentionally, or an honest mistake). AT&T has apologized for the mistake, explained it... what else do people want? Are we so jaded that EVERYTHING bad that happens was done intentionally to hurt us? Even if it is, why cant an apology be issued to improve things?

    Everyone is so angry, and i cant help but think that is a huge part of our problem.

Categories