Censorship and the Grammys. Is the US a free Country?

i-bent-my-wookie · February 24, 2003 3:33PM

All those nominated for awards at the grammys were warned by Grammy officials who were warned by Uncle Sam (my second-cousin) not to say anything political during their ACTS OR ACCEPTANCE SPEECHES. They would be bleeped and/or unplugged and/or halted immediately. In any respect anything political would definitely not make it to the Telecast of the event.

Free country? all I can say is...

"Ack, phhhhhhhhhhhhttt", that is paraphrased from Bill-the-Cat, Bloom County. Ironically, Bill-the-Cat was a US Traitor selling secrets to the russions. He was traded for Cutter-John in a two-player deal with the Red Giant.

I apologize for not having a link to an article since I saw it on TV on CNN 2 days ago.

[ 02-24-2003: Message edited by: I-bent-my-wookie ]

filmmaker2002 · February 24, 2003 3:36PM

Eh, it didn't matter anyway. A few artists including Fred Durst put their opinion out there against the "upcoming" war. Freedom of speech can't be stopped when its live TV. And apparantley mistakes can't either. That Grammy show was one of the worst I have seen (technically that is). The sound, video, cuts and everything were so out of whack it wasn't even funny. It's like they had a rookie running the control room. Oh well, maybe next year, if we are all still here.

i-bent-my-wookie · February 24, 2003 3:39PM

[quote]Originally posted by filmmaker2002:

Eh, it didn't matter anyway. A few artists including Fred Durst put their opinion out there against the "upcoming" war. Freedom of speech can't be stopped when its live TV. And apparantley mistakes can't either. That Grammy show was one of the worst I have seen (technically that is). The sound, video, cuts and everything were so out of whack it wasn't even funny. It's like they had a rookie running the control room. Oh well, maybe next year, if we are all still here.<hr></blockquote>

Perhaps the 'rookie' was CIA or FBI or another applicable national agency with its finger on the master-edit button (if such a button exists).

Seems to me that an industry designed around live performances could find a few people who new how to organize such an event. If im not mistaken, this is not the first Grammies awards

comment? questions? naked-conspiracy?

scott · February 24, 2003 3:48PM

My BS meter is "off scale high". Maybe it's broken?

i-bent-my-wookie · February 24, 2003 3:52PM

[quote]Originally posted by Scott:

My BS meter is "off scale high". Maybe it's broken?<hr></blockquote>

??? referring too... ???

br · February 24, 2003 3:54PM

[quote]Originally posted by I-bent-my-wookie:



??? referring too... ???<hr></blockquote>

Anti-american liberal media treason nazi bastards or whatever it is Scott must refer to in every single one of his god damn posts.

groverat · February 24, 2003 4:13PM

I think he's referring to the fact that this is a load of unsubstantiated crap.

curiousuburb · February 24, 2003 4:15PM

actually, i'm guessing the "off scale high/low" which NASA says means loss of signal, has entered the global vocabulary after the Columbia Tragedy

not to be confused with amps that sometimes go to eleven

pscates · February 24, 2003 4:36PM

Here's my take on it: people (especially actors and musicians) have all sorts of ways to let their thoughts be known. It's no secret where many in the entertainment field stand on the situation this country and administration currently faces.

But it's an awards show and instead of making it into something it's not intended to be (a polarizing, unpleasant-to-watch political rally or whatever), just show up, read your lines, present (or accept) your award and be graceful. Afterwards, you get to go before the press and give interviews and post for pics and that's never televised. At that point, feel free to spout off all you want.

But I'm guessing most people, regardless of which side they come down on, don't tune in to shows like this to watch/hear this stuff. Just be gracious and thank your producer/spouse/parents/G*d and wave to the crowd.

Sheryl Crow did it nicely: her guitar strap said "No war" on it. She didn't have to beat people over the head and and make any polarizing statements that might've caused many people to go "ah screw this crap...I hate when award shows turn into this..." and end up flipping the channel.

Last night was - in light of all that's going on in the world - pretty sedate and watchable. I was braced for the worst, but it never came. I was impressed, I must say. I thought it would've been a 3-hour bitch-and-moan fest by the music industry's "best and brightest".

It's not "censorship" as much as "not fücking up an otherwise enjoyable 3 hours of TV".

I wouldn't want to watch an awards show and even see an actor or musician I agree with politically to come out and spout their views, even if I dig them.

There's a time and a place for everything. Live TV often isn't it. Besides, you're not telling us anything new, you know?

Patricia Heaton quietly leaving the American Music Awards last month was 10 times classier (AND more powerful, IMO) than getting on stage and griping about it or shoving her views down everyone's throat.

Sometimes it's just classy to show up an awards show for an award. You'll get PLENTY of chances to make your feelings known about Iraq and Bush at any number of other venues.

But that's just me.

I like my awards shows big on entertainment, light on the other stuff.

brussell · February 24, 2003 4:44PM

That's fine, pscates, but the original poster said that it was the US government that threatened the Grammy's, which would make it a political rather than an entertainment decision.

I'd like to see some evidence that that happened, because if it did, it is truly disgusting. Until I see some evidence, I don't believe it.

pscates · February 24, 2003 5:59PM

The story I heard, BRussell, is that the CBS execs and the producer of the Grammy Awards were the ones who put the word out.

a) I don't even know if it's completely true (BUT, from the lack of rants/statements onstage, I have to wonder.

b) none of the places I read about this mentioned this request coming from the government. I heard, all last Thursday and Friday, that it was more from CBS and the higher-ups there.

And a few even got there statements in, subtly and quickly, in a nice, non-obnoxious manner. That was fine. Nobody soapboxed or lectured, which is what tends to turn viewers off I believe. A guitar strap here, a nice "peace" there, etc. aren't going to hurt anyone.

Besides, if these musicians were really, truly the artists/rebels we like to think they are, do you think ANY of them would succumb to any sort of "government request" to keep their mouths shut? Some of these artists live for speaking their minds and backing various causes and beliefs. It's not like they would've gotten dragged from the stage and executed (that's that other country), so they certainly had the ability to do/say whatever they wanted if they truly felt compelled to. The worst that would've happened to them was a mic cut off and some snarky comments directed at them by Limbaugh and Sean Hannity the next day.

Big deal. Nobody's ever died from either of those things.

Most probably just thought "hey, I'm just happy to be here...gonna play ball and not cause a fuss".

I think money, publicity (particularly negative), the admonishments of agents and record label execs probably - at least to younger, more naive and inexperienced artists - trump whatever notions they might entertain of getting on stage and "telling it like it is". I would've expected a Springsteen or Raitt to perhaps make some remarks over Nelly or Ashanti, you know? But they really didn't.

And, as evidenced by Mr. Durst, sometimes you should just shut up if you're not up to the task.

I have a hard time believing that a) The Man DEMANDED everyone to "keep a lid on it" and b) if "a" were true, that many of the artists would've actually played along.

Being TOLD by the government and being ASKED by a TV network are light years away in the minds of many, I would think.

drewprops · February 24, 2003 6:14PM

It would be the executives in charge looking out for the better interests of:

A. Ratings and,

B. Their artists.

Groverat's "switch off" scenario is real. I'd flip it off in a second. I know actors and performers and enjoy listening to their blather as much as I enjoy scraping my eyeballs with my toothbrush. Middle America would switch channels.

The other half of the equation is protecting their artists from lasting political clouds...as performed marvelously during the Vietnam War by Jane Fondle...erm, Fonda. She still carries with her the everlasting stench of poseur activism.

i-bent-my-wookie · February 24, 2003 6:14PM

I found a reference to the events of the topic. It seems it was Cheryl Crow that was asked by CBS execs to 'keep it neutral'. I couldnt find a reference to it on cnn, but Ive heard them on occasion quote internet news sources on their broadcasts such as <a href="http://www.drudgereport.com"; target="_blank">the drudge</a> and even a joke story on <a href="http://www.onion.com"; target="_blank">the onion</a> because it made fun of someone famous.

<a href="http://www.drudgereport.com/cbs.htm"; target="_blank">First article</a>

<a href="http://www.drudgereport.com/crow.htm"; target="_blank">Second article</a>

[ 02-24-2003: Message edited by: I-bent-my-wookie ]

turns out cbs came and said "do what you like" (to quote digital underground).

but thats because they already have the nerve implants so they can be remote controlled by CIA operatives hiding in the bushes... they are a sneaky bunch. <img src="graemlins/surprised.gif" border="0" alt="[surprised]" />

[ 02-24-2003: Message edited by: I-bent-my-wookie ]

groverat · February 24, 2003 6:45PM

They are, indeed, a sneaky bunch.

buonrotto · February 24, 2003 7:12PM

Even if these "requests" were from the federal government, they couldn't do anything about it if someone decided to go on a rant. I have no patience for celebrities in politics, doesn't matter whose side they're on. Knowing how priviledged they are, I always see them as snobs and also not expert enough to take their opinions with the gravity I take even Dan Quayle's.

pscates · February 24, 2003 7:36PM

Mr. Rotto nails it.

If Ms. Crow got singled out, it was probably because of how outspoken she was at the American Music Awards last month? Even though I don't agree with her on this particular issue, she sure looks luscious saying it.

41 never looked so good. And when she straps on a bass and wiggles her hips a little, her vixen rating goes through the roof.

i-bent-my-wookie · February 24, 2003 7:40PM

[quote]Originally posted by pscates:

Mr. Rotto nails it.

If Ms. Crow got singled out, it was probably because of how outspoken she was at the American Music Awards last month? Even though I don't agree with her on this particular issue, she sure looks luscious saying it.

41 never looked so good. And when she straps on a bass and wiggles her hips a little, her vixen rating goes through the roof.

<hr></blockquote>

Your right pscates, we are overlooking the bigger issue of Cheryl's hips. Now thats a issue Id like to get into

jeffyboy · February 24, 2003 11:05PM

Sheryl Crow and Kid Rock have a pretty cool song out now. "Picture" I think?

She looks really dressed down pretty in the video. The lighting shows off those liquidy eyes.

Jeff

Censorship and the Grammys. Is the US a free Country?

Comments