"Money for nothing" (Dire Straits) too offensive for Canada??

[Loralee Reach 245]

Canada Bans Dire Straits' "Money For Nothing" for Being Too Offensive. No, I'm Not Kidding

 

Matt Welch | January 13, 2011

The Canadian Broadcast Standards Council has ruled that Dire Straits' 1980s hit Money for Nothing is too offensive for Canadian radio.

The ruling, released Wednesday, was in response to a complaint against St. John's radio station CHOZ-FM. The listener complained that the word faggot ? which appears three times in the song is "extremely offensive" to gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people.

The council is an independent body created by Canadian radio and television broadcasters to review the standards of their content. [...]

The council ruled that the song contravenes its ethics code which states: "broadcasters shall ensure that their programming contains no abusive or unduly discriminatory material or comment which is based on matters of race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, marital status or physical or mental disability.":

It ruled that "faggot," when used to describe a homosexual, is "even if entirely or marginally acceptable in earlier days, is no longer so."

[Guest jake_cdn]

I found this to be too funny coming from a broadcasting corporation who forces programing on you continually. Who really wants to watch Heartland or Little Mosque on the Praire once never mind three or four times because of time switching or listen to Terry Jacks instead of choosing what we want to hear.

 

This is just another good example of our tax dollars being misused. Though I do not use the word "faggot", it is a word that is in the vocabulary of many people in this country. Should we ban all songs with words that are offensive to some people? If so, then who decides this ... the CBC? I think not.

 

The CBC is again over-stepping the boundaries of free speech and our personal freedoms. What is next book burnings.

 

I do not advocate offensive language on the radio or TV but there is such a thing as personal censorship. If you find the song "Money for Nothing" offensive then do not listen to it.

 

Whether we like it or not, words such as these are a part of our society. Just because the CBC will not use a word like "fuck" does not mean that it will disappear from the vocabulary of people of all ages in our country.

 

If you really want to talk about things that are offensive then let's talk about how the CBC will not show a naked body but has no issue with filling our screens with graphic programming about violence and murder.

[Dabbler 702]

I think that there is a place for censorship to a degree. I would like to think that anything which is clearly promoting violence or hatred should at least be retstrict to air play at certain times of day.

 

However, to simply look at the word and not the context is simple minded. The song is a blue collar view of the "rock star". I think that even today you will people who would choose to use similar vocabulary. I am increasingly concerned if we have grown so sensitive that art is no longer allowed to reflect society for fear of what we might see.

 

Dabbler

[Guest Ou**or**n]

This absolutely makes me ashamed of our current culture of uber political correctness. Art is about expression and in no way was it intended to incite hatred. Good lord it was an 80's song when so many male performers wore make-up that they were easily seen as gay by working class guys like in the song. Anyone ever seen some of the promo pics of bands like Japan or Bauhaus from that era? My dad took one look at them and then gave me a long slow look...

 

A low moment in Canada. Thank god for the Internet where we access the uncensored version!

[cyclo 30131]

I think a quick clarification is in order before this thread takes a wrong turn.

 

The CBC hasn't banned the song. The members of the Canadian Broadcast Standards Council, a self regulating industry association, have decided not to broadcast the song.

 

From their 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."

 

http://www.cbsc.ca/english/index.php

[Loralee Reach 245]

if a word is in the dictionary it can be used.....however this is not about a word....this is about art (if rock music enters in the definition) and the misinterpretation of lyrics directed to a "rock star" by blue collar guys who obviously were not in his league.

Remember than even the word God is banned from some places, but the concept of God is not; same with the rest.

As a society is difficult to please everyone...I guess?

LoraLee

[cyclo 30131]

I agree that we should support artistic integrity and the ability for artists to produce their work without censorship. They often use offensive terms, scenarios etc to highlight issues through the use irony or satire etc, which was the case with this song. We should also have access to offensive artistic works.

 

Being outraged at the recent industry decision may be a little late and misplaced. The original version of the song has hardly ever been played on radio in the past 25 years. There's a "radio edit" version, leaving out the verse in question. The radio edit is what is normally played. It's also the version which is on the Greatest Hits cd.

 

Radio edits have been used for decades. How often have you heard the n***** word on a radio playlist? Never. But it has been scattered throughout rap songs for decades. Cee Lo's F*** You is transformed into Forget You. Black Eyed Peas Let's Get Retarded becomes Let's Get Started. The list goes on.

 

In a pluralistic society, I think we have to acknowledge that certain terms, which have always been offensive to a portion of our population, eventually become unacceptable to the larger population. That's a changing cultural norm. It's not banning something or restricting artistic freedom. The work is still produced, available and freely consumed.

 

This reminds me of George Carlin's old routine "7 Dirty Words". It was a funny routine, but raised serious questions around this issue. In the end, in both Canada and the United States, you are allowed to produce and consume offensive art, but the airwaves are deemed to be a public space and there are often restrictions on what you can do in a public space. But once again, in this case, the government didn't restrict the broadcast of the original song, it was the industry, responding to changing social norms.

[Lowdark 5613]

What may become of all the R&B and Urban music stations? Those songs not only use racial and ethnic terms, but also use the word "bitxh" in just about every other sentence. I'm not judging the content, but why has there not yet been a complaint about that particular term and it's usage on the radio? And if there has been (as I'm sure there must have been), has the CRTC chosen to ignore it? If so, why? Maybe someone should ask them . . .

[Guest W***ledi*Time]

From Campbell Clark's report in today's Globe & Mail:

... the song has been consistently altered for decades, including by its writer, Dire Straits frontman Mark Knopfler.

 

A common radio version replaced the epithet with a term not related to sexual orientation, and Dire Straits? greatest hits albums include a version without the entire verse. Mr.Knopfler has long substituted other words in performances.

 

The lyrics portray the character who uses the epithets as ridiculous. But in a 1985

Rolling Stone

interview, Mr. Knopfler said complaints made him wonder whether having the word spoken by a fictional character was too subtle for song. "It suggests that maybe you can?t let it have so many meanings ? you have to be direct," he said.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/complaint-about-anti-gay-slur-prompts-ban-on-dire-straits-hit/article1869585/

[WildTiger 1296]

Although the CBSC is not a government agency it has taken on similar powers by proxy. Many government issued broadcast licenses include the requirement that the station be a member of the CBSC. If a station violates the standards set by the CBSC the station can lose it's license (already happened in the past). To compound the problem for the stations, they have no right to appeal CBSC rulings if the station finds the ruling, such as this one, to be ridiculous. Only the public can initiate an appeal.

 

There is a time and place for censorship, such as kiddie porn or hate literature, IMHO. But my concern is where we go from here if this is how we start applying the principals of censorship. If we can reach back 25 years to censor a song, how far can we go back to censor other forms of art? Our society publicly frowns upon porn and other forms of nudity. Do we now start putting clothing on classic works of art such as paintings and statues as some people are offended by that?

[Andee 220524]

This is crazy. I remember when MTV first broadcast this song way back when. Why has it suddenly become offensive?

 

Talk about a bureaucracy with a backlog of work to do!

 

http://www.veoh.com/browse/videos/category/music/watch/e178381Gmta9Kdw

[Reddog01 30280]

I understand that there is a move a foot and some support in the US to ban the "N" word in the classic "Adventures of Tom Sawyer." In addition to replacing the N-word, there are changes regarding the villain: "Injun Joe" to "Indian Joe" and "half-breed" becomes "half-blood."

 

Yes its "nice" to try and not offend anyone, but works of literature and music that use the words in a context to make the story credible are, well words to create an effect and an experience for the reader or listener. If its not "hate" literature or music written to incite violence, leave well enough alone. I think North American society is going to far on one hand, but how can we explain allowing up and coming ?classics? like "Jersey Shore" with F this and Bitch that, and story lines that are totally. off the wall...? I heard they had 8 - 10 million viewers last week. WTF.

[Guest Ou**or**n]

The lyrics portray the character who uses the epithets as ridiculous. But in a 1985 Rolling Stone interview, Mr. Knopfler said complaints made him wonder whether having the word spoken by a fictional character was too subtle for song. "It suggests that maybe you can?t let it have so many meanings ? you have to be direct," he said.

 

Translation - "most people were too stupid to get it"

[Mc Lovin 797]

The powers that be that decide on censoring radio are sometimes a bit out there. Check out how many edits the " radio version" of Everlast's " What it's like " has. The artist had the nerve to insert such words as - goddamn, balls, whore, weed ... and others I can't bring myself to type...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vCZ1YteCv5M&feature=related

[Kubrickfan 12836]

I love Ottawa, Montreal, Toronto, and other places I have been lucky enough to visit in Canada. I love the people, the friendly culture ... heck even the hamburgers taste better in Canada. But, as a U.S. citizen with the full protection of the First amendment to the U.S. Constitution, all I can say about this thread is LMAOROFL.

 

Respectfully, this is one area where I think our Founding Fathers (other than John Adams during his Alien and Sedition Acts phase) got it right. As offensive as some speech can be, all things being equal and in the long run, its better to keep the government out of it. I dont think you can have a full exchange of ideas if the government can tell you to shut up because someone gets offended.

[Loralee Reach 245]

Dire Straits Keyboardist Calls Canada's 'Money for Nothing' Ban 'Hilarious'

 

Ian Gavan

 

Dire Straits keyboardist Guy Fletcher responded Thursday (Jan. 13) on his official site regarding the Canadian Broadcast Standards Council's decision earlier this week to remove the English band's hit song 'Money for Nothing' from the airwaves for a derogatory word in its lyrics.

 

"Of course, it's hilarious," Fletcher ? using the moniker "Dr Fletch" -- said of the decision, later describing the official ruling as "unbelievable" and "WHAT a waste of paper." Another fan on his message board described it as "political correctness gone mad," which Fletcher replied with "Faggots for brains."

 

In the CBSC ruling, the song -- played on rock radio and classic rock stations since 1985 -- was deemed to violate the code of ethics due to the word "faggot" heard three separate times. A listener filed a complaint after hearing the unedited, unabridged version on Newfoundland radio station CHOZ-FM last February. The complainant described the song as "extremely offensive" and added that "there is absolutely no valid reason for such discriminatory marks to be played on-air."

 

The station responded on March 4, arguing that because the song's original version was "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 the selection."

 

The complainant responded to the station's letter, stating their dissatisfaction with the response and feeling the unabridged version "is certainly not strong enough to justify playing such words on the radio."

 

In another reply to a fan's post Fletcher revealed that "[frontman] Mark [Knopfler] tells me that due to the ban, he has now substituted the word faggot for 'fudger'... for Canada." He also described one paragraph in a Toronto newspaper article as being a "complete fabrication." The paragraph in question described how Knopfler continued performing the song in concerts over the years but substituted different words for the word in question.

 

Watch Dire Straits Perform an Edited Version of 'Money for Nothing'

However, Knopfler has indeed changed the song's lyrics at times in concert. A performance of 'Money for Nothing' from Knebworth in 1990 has him substituting the word in question with "queenie," "mama" and "trucker." Knopfler has made no official comment regarding the Canadian ruling.

 

According to a report by the Edmonton Sun, one classic rock radio station in Edmonton -- K-97 FM -- has decided to play the unedited version of the song Friday evening repeatedly for one hour to support freedom of speech.

[Andee 220524]

What a colossal waste of time and money considering there are much more pressing issues bureaucrats could be addressing.

[Guest s******ecan****]

Just another example of why government has no business deciding what we can say, read, write, or otherwise express. Anyone with common sense knows that the song was portraying somone with bigoted and intolerant views. So banning a song for portraying a epithet hurling antagonist would be the same as banning epithet hurling antagonists in books, movies, tv etc. Why we could even take it further and ban the study of WWII because Hitler was a racist and people just can't be exposed to those views in any context.

 

 

The only good thing about this was they had the good sense to overrule themselves