The OFFICIAL Unofficial Achewood Message Board
Trivial Pursuits => History => Topic started by: linnea on August 12, 2007, 08:48:49 pm
-
http://www.denverpost.com/nationworld/ci_6583782
AT&T Edits out anti-Bush lyrics in Pearl Jam webcast from Lollapalooza. Company says it was a "mistake." Yeah, right. Pearl Jam had this to say: "If a company that is controlling a webcast is cutting out bits of our performance—not based on laws, but on their own preferences and interpretations—fans have little choice but to watch the censored version," they said.
I highly doubt this was a mistake. They'd better backpedal faster, because stuff like that is not appropriate. There are laws against obscenity, sure, but editing stuff for political reasons is indefensible.
-
It's still a marketplace type decision that isn't illegal. Some people find it unethical and others don't.
If the company fails due to this decision, that's the market at work. If it doesn't, it doesn't. Entertainment is entertainment. It's not news that's being 'censored'; no one is being muzzled here. I am sure Pearl Jam did not perform for free, and selling yourself to the media has it's price.
It's possible to say that an 'idea' was being censored but it's hardly a new or revolutionary idea, is it? The broadcasting company has every right to control what goes out on their sponsored airtime - that's the reality of their business, they are responsible to shareholders and advertisers.
Besides, now that everyone knows what was said but not broadcast, it's a moot point.
Righteous indignation is worthless unless it's an impetus to action. Out of all the complaining, someone should organize a boycott; start a letter writing campaign, get a congressman to sponsor a bill that would legislate against the harm you perceive, or something. Otherwise, just sit back and accept it.
-
Stupid way to try to surpress the political message, since this is no doubt going to get more publicity than an unedited broadcast would have. Even in as slow a news season as this no one would have gotten a story out of "ATT Doesn't Edit Anti Bush Lyrics."
-
I've been following this in Wired. At first it was played off as just a mistake, then Wired found out it had happened to other videos, which caused the statement to change to it not being company policy and "steps were taken" so it won't happen again. Wired is trying to make it into a big net-neutrality thing, as AT&T owns a lot of the pipe out there but I really don't see this equating to them decided to throttle-down bandwidth on say, moveon.org or goddammitstopputtingadjectivesinfrontof marriage.foo.
-
It's still a marketplace type decision that isn't illegal. Some people find it unethical and others don't.
If the company fails due to this decision, that's the market at work. If it doesn't, it doesn't. Entertainment is entertainment. It's not news that's being 'censored'; no one is being muzzled here. I am sure Pearl Jam did not perform for free, and selling yourself to the media has it's price.
I'm glad you're back.
-
It's still a marketplace type decision that isn't illegal. Some people find it unethical and others don't.
If the company fails due to this decision, that's the market at work. If it doesn't, it doesn't. Entertainment is entertainment. It's not news that's being 'censored'; no one is being muzzled here. I am sure Pearl Jam did not perform for free, and selling yourself to the media has it's price.
It's possible to say that an 'idea' was being censored but it's hardly a new or revolutionary idea, is it? The broadcasting company has every right to control what goes out on their sponsored airtime - that's the reality of their business, they are responsible to shareholders and advertisers.
Besides, now that everyone knows what was said but not broadcast, it's a moot point.
Righteous indignation is worthless unless it's an impetus to action. Out of all the complaining, someone should organize a boycott; start a letter writing campaign, get a congressman to sponsor a bill that would legislate against the harm you perceive, or something. Otherwise, just sit back and accept it.
his hers its.
-
So it's supposed to be okay because they were piping the broadcast? Doesn't it strike you as...Gilead-esque for them to censor such a thing? I can't imagine that someone felt it was their duty to censor non-obscene lyrics.
If I wanted to live someplace where corporations have carte blanche to decide what kind of political content people are exposed to, I'd live in - Shit, I guess I already live in America.
-
Man, doesn't it suck when you realize everything you've ever been told is a lie?
-
So it's supposed to be okay because they were piping the broadcast? Doesn't it strike you as...Gilead-esque for them to censor such a thing? I can't imagine that someone felt it was their duty to censor non-obscene lyrics.
If I wanted to live someplace where corporations have carte blanche to decide what kind of political content people are exposed to, I'd live in - Shit, I guess I already live in America.
Corporations do things with their property just like you. If someone carved a swastika into your car, you'd probably try to repair it or hide it, because it is (presumably) not a view you wish to be expressed on your property. Or in a more relevant hypothetical, if your boss was listening to you talk to a customer and you said something he disagreed with, he is completely within his right to disconnect you. When someone sells their time and uses someone else's property they are subject to what that person does with their property.
I completely agree with the right to free speech in this country, but do it on your own time and dime or be subject to limitations. I can't find a rational reason to demonize a corporation for controlling what its equipment does.
-
It's still a marketplace type decision that isn't illegal. Some people find it unethical and others don't.
No, not illegal. Highly unethical and downright fuck*ng wrong, but not illegal. Are you saying that you don't find this unethical?
If the company fails due to this decision, that's the market at work. If it doesn't, it doesn't.
True. But the free market relies on the free flow of information. And unless we're able to communicate about what utter scumsuckers AT&T are, nobody will know enough to vote with their dollars. Of course, the huge (scary) irony of the situation is that AT&T has a great deal of control over the most effective means of communication that people like you and I have access to. Plus, they've shown that they're not above censoring content to further their own ends. It's not really a free market if one of the parties doesn't have access to all the information about the transaction.
Entertainment is entertainment. It's not news that's being 'censored'; no one is being muzzled here.
Unless Pearl Jam agreed to give AT&T the right to edit their performance for political content, they most certainly are being censored. Also, I think your distinction between entertainment and news is a little facile. There's a loooong history of "entertainment" products which have had significant political impact. Slaughterhouse 5 and Catch-22 were both "entertainment" products. Are they less deserving of protection from censorship.
As to the idea that no one is being muzzled. I grant you that the government is not the one doing the censoring in this case. There's no first amendment issue here. But I do think we should consider the realities of the situation when we talk about muzzling. AT&T is the 800 lb gorilla in the internet room. They could flex considerable muscle if they chose to, and they've just indicated that their intentions aren't good.
Why doesn't it bother you that they've indicated a willingness to abuse their control over the internet tubes? It could just as easily be your ox being gored. As you say, their responsibility is to the bottom line. They'd kiss Stalin's ass if it would make them a buck. So as so-called conservatives, are you defending this just because a large corporation did it? Surely you recognize the terrifying implications this story has for the future of free communications on the internet?
I thought conservatives were for limited government power. Does that mean you're OK with your freedoms being infringed when a huge corporation is doing it?
Righteous indignation is worthless unless it's an impetus to action. Out of all the complaining, someone should organize a boycott; start a letter writing campaign, get a congressman to sponsor a bill that would legislate against the harm you perceive, or something. Otherwise, just sit back and accept it.
But talking about it IS action. People need to know what AT&T did. They need to think about what it means that the company who brings the internet into their homes took a blatantly political action. People can't be true partici##### in a free market unless they have all the relevant information about their transactions. Talking about it lets more and more people know that AT&T are sleazeballs. It's not the only action that's needed, but it's a start.
Fuck AT&T. If I have anything to say about, they'll never get another dollar of mine. If I can get another person to think the same way as a result of my righteous indignation, I've done my job.
-
Corporations do things with their property just like you. If someone carved a swastika into your car, you'd probably try to repair it or hide it, because it is (presumably) not a view you wish to be expressed on your property. Or in a more relevant hypothetical, if your boss was listening to you talk to a customer and you said something he disagreed with, he is completely within his right to disconnect you. When someone sells their time and uses someone else's property they are subject to what that person does with their property.
I completely agree with the right to free speech in this country, but do it on your own time and dime or be subject to limitations. I can't find a rational reason to demonize a corporation for controlling what its equipment does.
Here's the difference. AT&T provides the medium. They are not perceived as endorsing every bit of content conveyed across that medium. Should I be concerned about the content of every long-distance call that is transmitted over AT&T's telephone lines? What if, during a telephone conversation with you, I endorse the fine products of AT&T's competitor, Sprint. Is it OK for them to delete that part of the conversation?
We expect AT&T, as a provider of the medium over which the internet travels, to be content neutral. I think that's a reasonable expectation. If they're going to fuck around with the information that's carried over their wires, we have a right to know about it.
I don't want to give AT&T a right of approval over what I post on the internet. I didn't think that was part of the deal heretofore. If it's going to be that way in the future, I'm pretty much screwed, because they hold all the cards.
Why doesn't that piss you off?
-
Someone please clarify what actually happened here? The way it's being portrayed in this thread AT&T censored the content of one of their subscribers. That would be completely unethical and possibly illegal. But the way I understand it Pearl Jam was appearing on an AT&T sponsored show. AT&T as producers of the show decided to edit the content of one of their hired performers. If this is what happened Is it Douchy?, certainly. Is is illegal or even unethical?, probably not.
-
AT&T hired some company to pay some dudes to monitor the delayed feed (that was being displayed on AT&T's website) from the concert presumably to cut out excessive profanity or nudity. For whatever reason they dumped 2 lines of one pearl jam song where the band told george bush to 'leave this world alone' and 'find another home'. I don't have any reason to believe there is some grand conspiracy involved here. I am more apt to believe that whoever was riding the dump button thought political speech wasn't meant to be part of AT&Ts broadcast of a concert.
-
I'd boycott AT&T, but... you know... iPhone...
So I'm torn. I did switch away from their DLS to Comcast internet, which was more prompted by AT&T's shitty service than their political views.
The real problem here is that AT&T censored the political speech instead of what they really should have been shielding us from: the music.
-
A corporation has rights over their property like anyone else.
Invoking the free market when people complain about corporations misses the fact that customers communicating with each other is an important part of how the free market works.
I think AT&T doing this is pretty fucked up but I also think it is more likely to be some guy misinterpreting his orders to cut out potentially offensive content rather than some conspiracy to censor doube-plus-un-good-think.
Customers should be aware of this and be able to choose to not support this company based on this action, unfortunately this doesn't work when you have these near monopolistic corporations that are so tied to the government that people effectively have no option.
At the end of the day, they're not the government so this isn't worth getting upset about but it's a fact of the modern world that these corporations are getting hard to distinguish from the government and that is a scary thing indeed.
-
AT&T owns a lot of the internet backbone in the US. The fear is that their "willingness" to censor political speech during this broadcast is a harbinger of how they will control the backbone after net-neutrality is gone. We already know that in a non-neutral world companies that pay a fee will be granted priority and higher speeds through the backbone but this makes people worry that content will also be throttled up or down based on political and social views.
-
No, not illegal. Highly unethical and downright fuck*ng wrong, but not illegal. Are you saying that you don't find this unethical?
It's highly ethical if your ethical standpoint is that your actions are primarily to protect your shareholders. It's highly unethical if you believe no content should ever be curtailed for any reason.
Ethics can be subject to your position relative to the fence.
True. But the free market relies on the free flow of information. And unless we're able to communicate about what utter scumsuckers AT&T are, nobody will know enough to vote with their dollars. Of course, the huge (scary) irony of the situation is that AT&T has a great deal of control over the most effective means of communication that people like you and I have access to. Plus, they've shown that they're not above censoring content to further their own ends. It's not really a free market if one of the parties doesn't have access to all the information about the transaction.
Because of the number of other outlets and their willingness to point out what is perceived as censorship on the part of AT&T, there is plenty of access to information about the transaction, and probably about most transactions. That's why the market works - competition. As long as monopolies can be prevented or dismantled through government vigilance and action, we'll still have choice and we will still be able to count on the competitors to point out the issues of their competitors.
Unless Pearl Jam agreed to give AT&T the right to edit their performance for political content, they most certainly are being censored. Also, I think your distinction between entertainment and news is a little facile. There's a loooong history of "entertainment" products which have had significant political impact. Slaughterhouse 5 and Catch-22 were both "entertainment" products. Are they less deserving of protection from censorship.
This is an interesting question - and I would love to see the contract, because I would bet that there is in fact plenty of language that allows AT&T broad latitude for self-interest. But here again competition works - because other washed-up 90's bands seeking relevance will possibly avoid AT&T, and maybe some relevant ones as well. That's the cost of the action they took.
As to the idea that no one is being muzzled. I grant you that the government is not the one doing the censoring in this case. There's no first amendment issue here. But I do think we should consider the realities of the situation when we talk about muzzling. AT&T is the 800 lb gorilla in the internet room. They could flex considerable muscle if they chose to, and they've just indicated that their intentions aren't good.
And if they lose in the long run, too bad for them.
Why doesn't it bother you that they've indicated a willingness to abuse their control over the internet tubes? It could just as easily be your ox being gored. As you say, their responsibility is to the bottom line. They'd kiss Stalin's ass if it would make them a buck. So as so-called conservatives, are you defending this just because a large corporation did it? Surely you recognize the terrifying implications this story has for the future of free communications on the internet?
Actually, I don't yet - I see a lot of power and influence in the hands of individuals and people who previously could not have banded together in their basements to bring down CBS News and Dan Rather. I think that there is a shift in what the terms "Free Communications" means but I don't see that eroding.
I thought conservatives were for limited government power. Does that mean you're OK with your freedoms being infringed when a huge corporation is doing it?
I don't think I talked at all about government power. I talked about market forces. The government's role in this case to me is limited to assuring Anti-trust laws are followed and that businesses conduct themselves in a legal fashion. I don't call for the government to regulate the content or the decision-making beyond the requirements for taxation, accounting, anti-trust and other 'administrative' processes. If they want to fuck up and lose their business, that's - well, that's their business.
But talking about it IS action. People need to know what AT&T did. They need to think about what it means that the company who brings the internet into their homes took a blatantly political action. People can't be true partici****** in a free market unless they have all the relevant information about their transactions. Talking about it lets more and more people know that AT&T are sleazeballs. It's not the only action that's needed, but it's a start.
True, it's a start. Another issue for another day is the fragmentation of opinion and action, the busy-ness of Americans, and our increasingly short attention span. Talk gets cheaper every minute, and unfortunately it's hard to get a significant number of people behind anything anymore.
Fuck AT&T. If I have anything to say about, they'll never get another dollar of mine. If I can get another person to think the same way as a result of my righteous indignation, I've done my job.
A Free market at work is a beautiful thing.
-
Have I mentioned that I'm glad you're back?
-
because other washed-up 90's bands seeking relevance will possibly avoid AT&T,
Well again I have to point out that if I were a washed-up 90's band I'd go out of my way to choose AT&T and hope they censor me. It's great free publicity.
Fuck AT&T. If I have anything to say about, they'll never get another dollar of mine. If I can get another person to think the same way as a result of my righteous indignation, I've done my job.
And of course for AT&T it's totally lousy publicity. It's mysterious to me why a big corporation that probably has lots of smart people working for them couldn't foresee this.
-
According to Wired (http://blog.wired.com/music/2007/08/atts-lollapaloo.html) the contract didn't actually mention censoring of any kind. I imagine that censoring "profanity" is considered so obvious as to not need mentioning.
Also according to Wired, it wasn't AT&T but a sub-contractor that issued the ban on "getting political." (http://blog.wired.com/music/2007/08/crew-member-pre.html)
-
Oh Eddie Vedder. I used to dream of you, your unkempt locks, your lovely blue eyes. Now you're just bland, irrelevant, blah, blah, blah...
All I can say is that I always support free speech, but that this is the exact sort of 'round the back marketing that Pearl Jam always corts.
Also: interesting link about Jeremy (http://www.sshep.com/jeremynew.htm).