AT&T calls censorship of Pearl Jam lyrics a mistake
Apparently, saying disparaging things about President George Bush is enough to get you censored. At least that's what happened to the band Pearl Jam Sunday night during AT&T's Webcast of the Lollapalooza concert in Chicago.
According to fans who watched the concert on AT&T's Blue Room Web site, portions of the song "Daughter," in which singer Eddie Vedder altered lyrics to include anti-Bush sentiments, were bleeped out. The lyrics came during a segue into Pink Floyd's "Another Brick in the Wall."
The lyrics that were missing from the Web cast went like this:
"George Bush, leave this world alone; George Bush find yourself another home."
Pearl Jam was outraged. And the band railed against AT&T on its blog Wednesday for censoring the song.
"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 said on its site. "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."
AT&T issued a statement Thursday saying the whole incident was a big mistake. It had not intended to edit out any portion of the concert. Instead it blamed an overzealous Webcast partner who had supposedly been monitoring the Web cast to bleep out curse words.
"The editing of the Pearl Jam performance on Sunday night was a serious mistake made by a Webcast vendor and completely contrary to our policy," AT&T's statement said. "We have policies in place with respect to editing excessive profanity, but AT&T does not edit or censor performances. We have that policy in place because the Blue Room is not age-restricted."
AT&T said it is working with the vendor and the band to resolve the situation. And it plans to post the song in its entirety to ensure this doesn't happen again.
I understand people's sensitivity to vulgarity in this post-Janet Jackson-flashing-her-boob-world. But it really has to make you wonder how anyone monitoring a program specifically for offensive language or images would think that it was necessary to bleep political speech. Since when has the name "George Bush" risen to the ranks of a word that rhymes with "suck"? (I'm censoring myself here because I don't particularly like using that word anyway. But you get the picture.)
What's also strange is that other politically charged segments of the concert, including when Vedder brought a disabled Iraq War veteran onstage to call for an end to the conflict, were not edited.
So perhaps this was really a mistake. But the question remains, how did this happen? And how can it be prevented from happening again in an environment where all of our news, entertainment and information is being controlled by fewer media conglomerates.
Big phone companies argue that it's absurd to think they'd purposely block content, because users would simply go elsewhere. Pearl Jam even referenced in its blog one of my own CNET News.com articles from last year, where I quoted former AT&T CEO Edward Whitacre saying, "Any provider that blocks access to content is inviting customers to find another provider."
But Pearl Jam brought up a good point on their blog when they said that in a situation where only one provider is offering content, it's easy for content to simply be deleted or blocked. It's also easy for a provider to block traffic from a service they think threatens their business.
"What happened to us this weekend was a wake up call, and it's about something much bigger than the censorship of a rock band," the blog said.
Indeed, I agree with Pearl Jam. There's a slippery slope we're walking these days. How much control should network operators and big media companies have? In my opinion, it's time people start paying attention to all the big communication and media consolidation that is going on right now in this country. If we don't sit up and take notice now, there may come a time when it's too late.
Marguerite Reardon has been a CNET News reporter since 2004, covering cell phone services, broadband, citywide Wi-Fi, the Net neutrality debate, as well as the ongoing consolidation of the phone companies. E-mail Maggie. 
AT&T is disgusting.
Tell me, did you tell Arnold Schwarzenegger to 'Shut Up and Act' when he was running for California's governor? Do you say the same about about Fred Thompson and his Presidental run? What about Charlton Heston, or Ted Nugent? What about Country music acts expressing their fascist opinions in music? Do you say anything about those?
I'm sure you don't. People who scream crap like 'Shut Up and Sing' never do. Why? Because celebrities they agree with get a free pass to say anything they want.
I may dislike overtly political statements in entertainment, but EVERYONE has the right to express any opinion they want. That is consistency, not hypocricy.
OH... Wait... Thats right... thats sort of, exactly, what theyve always done, isnt it..?
...Sort of the very definition of "ART", isnt it..? But really... "Rock and Roll" (above all else) should be forced to conform to socially-conservative "norms", and never question "authority", right..?
Heaven knows... such freedoms, and liberties, might lead to... God forbid... independent-thought. Or worse, it might lead to a misguided belief that those in "power" should, somehow, be held accountable for their-own actions.
day to looking up the proper spelling the word rhetoric - educated
people really do appreciate that sort of thing.
Well, a lot of people give a crap. And in a democracy (this IS still a democracy, for now) which affords every citizen the right to free speech, then you really have no right to tell someone to "shut up and sing." Would you tell Toby Keith that, given that he's a pretty hardcore Bush supporter? Somehow, I get the impression that your opinion of how appropriate it is for well-known artists and musicians to express their political views in public ebbs and flows in direct proportion to how supportive they are to the current President.
You've got it right on with your treatment of Springsteen. If you don't want to hear what he has to say, don't go. You should apply that to Pearl Jam as well, instead of insisting that someone who is as free as you or I to express his opinions should just "shut up and sing."
Thank you for my not having to share air with you.
Plesae turn off.
Please drop out.
Please....
TIA
to censored the band's political expression, then Pearl Jam probably
would not have participated nor taken AT&T's money. But they
weren't afforded the opportunity to make that decision.
But then again, I read the article before I posted a comment in response to it. Did you?
... to be more profane than those commonly known 4 letter
words.
Just look at how he's trashed our reputation worldwide. Just look
how he's opened the doors for terrorists in the middle east.
Listen to all the lies and spin manipulations he gives about
everything. Watch him urinate on our constitutional rights.
Somehow, I can't blame AT&T until I stop laughing about this.
But when I do stop laughing, if I'm not in a straight jacket and in
a padded room, I'll find this act of theirs disturbing indeed. But
not surprising, considering AT&T is facing lawsuits for illegally
handing access to our communications over to fuhrer b**h.
This is more of a case of risk management. Ever since the brown nip came out at the superbowl, the FCC will levy fines, sponsors will desert, and the Helen Lovejoy?s of the world will cry ?won?t somebody think of the children??
There are consultants out there who help produce these events and if something is questionable they will use their time delays to protect the bottom line.
You just don't do it. This is why this is karma.
- I loved the comment
- by szamprogno August 11, 2007 2:21 PM PDT
- If I'm paying for a concert, I want a concert, not a lesson in politics from a non-qualified biased person.
- Reply to this comment
-
-
- He's qualified...
- by edgedesign September 27, 2007 6:39 PM PDT
- He's qualified to say whatever he wants whether you agree with it
-
-
(25 Comments)or not... he's a U.S. citizen. What AT&T did was wrong.
Deal with it.