'Money For Nothing' banned from Canadian radio
Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ... 21 Next
BartSimpson @ Thu Jan 13, 2011 1:29 pm
Gunnair Gunnair:
EyeBrock EyeBrock:
Well, if that Lt Cdr on yer avatar is you then yea, I'm a pup!
woof...
woof...
Commander and it ain't me.
80's hits on a CD... unbelievable...
Had you said you wore out your Sony Walkman, well, that would have been different.
And you with your Victrola were quite the hit aboard the Niobel, I'm sure.
EyeBrock @ Thu Jan 13, 2011 1:35 pm
Yea, yer right. Fishead ranks.....Cdr it is...!
FieryVulpine @ Thu Jan 13, 2011 1:48 pm
This may come out of left field but does this mean the Weird Al parody is banned because it's offensive to hillbillies? 
Gunnair @ Thu Jan 13, 2011 4:35 pm
$1:
Canada, the world’s most easily offended country
You may have noticed the global snort of derision when it became known that Money For Nothing, a 25-year-old Dire Straits song written by Mark Knopfler and Sting, has been ruled too offensive for Canadian radio play.
What’s interesting, apart from the simple lunacy of suddenly banning a tune that’s 25 years old and has already been played about a billion times, is the reason: A radio station in St. John’s received a complaint.
That’s all it takes in Canada: One person to take offense.
A week ago we learned that the entire city council of London, Ontario had been ordered to take sensitivity training after a friend of one of the councillors posted a saucy song on his Facebook page. The council member quickly took it down, but “at least one person who saw it … complained,” according to the London Free Press.
On Wednesday Graeme Hamilton reported that Montreal chef Martin Picard had withdrawn from plans to host a gala dinner at Ottawa’s annual Winterlude festival next month, after the National Capital Commission told him to drop any thought of including foie gras on the menu (which with Picard was a certainty). The reason: the always tremulous NCC was afraid animal rights protesters might turn up and disrupt the fun. After all, some obscure local group of animal rights weenies “mounted an eight-person protest against Mr. Picard in December.”
Eight people.
Minority rights are fine and all, but when did it become the practice that, in a country of 34 million people, a single person could overrule all the others simply by declaring they were offended?
National Post
.
Read more: http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/201 ... z1Axg0jxRq
You may have noticed the global snort of derision when it became known that Money For Nothing, a 25-year-old Dire Straits song written by Mark Knopfler and Sting, has been ruled too offensive for Canadian radio play.
What’s interesting, apart from the simple lunacy of suddenly banning a tune that’s 25 years old and has already been played about a billion times, is the reason: A radio station in St. John’s received a complaint.
That’s all it takes in Canada: One person to take offense.
A week ago we learned that the entire city council of London, Ontario had been ordered to take sensitivity training after a friend of one of the councillors posted a saucy song on his Facebook page. The council member quickly took it down, but “at least one person who saw it … complained,” according to the London Free Press.
On Wednesday Graeme Hamilton reported that Montreal chef Martin Picard had withdrawn from plans to host a gala dinner at Ottawa’s annual Winterlude festival next month, after the National Capital Commission told him to drop any thought of including foie gras on the menu (which with Picard was a certainty). The reason: the always tremulous NCC was afraid animal rights protesters might turn up and disrupt the fun. After all, some obscure local group of animal rights weenies “mounted an eight-person protest against Mr. Picard in December.”
Eight people.
Minority rights are fine and all, but when did it become the practice that, in a country of 34 million people, a single person could overrule all the others simply by declaring they were offended?
National Post
.
Read more: http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/201 ... z1Axg0jxRq
Refreshed @ Thu Jan 13, 2011 6:40 pm
Do any of you have a problem with hearing swear words "shit, fuck, etc" or any other inappropriate or otherwise hateful words "nigger, chink, cute" on daytime TV or radio? (Pardon my language.)
Personally I have no problem with swearing, because it's the hate words that annoy me, but it's either all acceptable, or none of it is. Society needs to be consistent with this kind of thing.
Gunnair @ Thu Jan 13, 2011 6:43 pm
Refreshed Refreshed:
Do any of you have a problem with hearing swear words "shit, fuck, etc" or any other inappropriate or otherwise hateful words "nigger, chink, cute" on daytime TV or radio? (Pardon my language.)
Personally I have no problem with swearing, because it's the hate words that annoy me, but it's either all acceptable, or none of it is. Society needs to be consistent with this kind of thing.
Personally I have no problem with swearing, because it's the hate words that annoy me, but it's either all acceptable, or none of it is. Society needs to be consistent with this kind of thing.
Context, really. I don't like nigger, but frankly, I dislike it more when parts of society cherry pick the negative strength of its negative social relevance. Like faggot. I have several friends who are gay that use it quite often. Alright for them, but not alright for others.
Refreshed @ Thu Jan 13, 2011 7:00 pm
Gunnair Gunnair:
Context, really. I don't like nigger, but frankly, I dislike it more when parts of society cherry pick the negative strength of its negative social relevance. Like faggot. I have several friends who are gay that use it quite often. Alright for them, but not alright for others.
Context does mean a lot, agreed. I think when we hear strangers say it we think the worst. When we hear a gay person say it, we think they're gay too so they couldn't possibly mean it in a "bad way." Just like the awful word "nigger." Blacks can get away with saying it but whites cannot, another double-standard I wish didn't exist. As much as I disagree with it, I think they're using the same mentality. I think another thing too is historically these words stung, so some members (not all) the these communities adopted these terms in a sarcastic/ironic sense to show others they're not bothered by it, then it catches on.
In this song it's being used as an insult, so obviously they don't mean it as a harmless term of endearment.
I'm not saying I agree with the ban, but let's be consistent, and allow ANY word to be uttered in front of children on daytime TV and radio.
Gunnair @ Thu Jan 13, 2011 7:03 pm
Refreshed Refreshed:
Gunnair Gunnair:
Context, really. I don't like nigger, but frankly, I dislike it more when parts of society cherry pick the negative strength of its negative social relevance. Like faggot. I have several friends who are gay that use it quite often. Alright for them, but not alright for others.
Context does mean a lot, agreed. I think when we hear strangers say it we think the worst. When we hear a gay person say it, we think they're gay too so they couldn't possibly mean it in a "bad way." Just like the awful word "nigger." Blacks can get away with saying it but whites cannot, another double-standard I wish didn't exist. As much as I disagree with it, I think they're using the same mentality. I think another thing too is historically these words stung, so some members (not all) the these communities adopted these terms in a sarcastic/ironic sense to show others they're not bothered by it, then it catches on.
In this song it's being used as an insult, so obviously they don't mean it as a harmless term of endearment.
I'm not saying I agree with the ban, but let's be consistent, and allow ANY word to be uttered in front of children on daytime TV and radio.
The odd thing is, some racial slurs like 'Paddy' Wagon have no negative conotations where as 'Indian giver' or 'fuzzy-wuzzy' are taboo. Short answer is, it's still open season on WASPs.
I tell you though, the one that really really pisses me off is when Natives call me white. If I called one red, I'd get a look like I'd just farted in church.
xerxes @ Thu Jan 13, 2011 7:06 pm
bootlegga bootlegga:
xerxes xerxes:
Weird. I've heard Killing in the Name of by Rage unedited on the radio (though not on the CBC mind you), so whats the problem CBC?
This is the Canadian Broadcast Standards Council stating this, not the CBC.
Whoops. Still, I stand by my point.
Refreshed @ Thu Jan 13, 2011 7:17 pm
xerxes xerxes:
bootlegga bootlegga:
xerxes xerxes:
Weird. I've heard Killing in the Name of by Rage unedited on the radio (though not on the CBC mind you), so whats the problem CBC?
This is the Canadian Broadcast Standards Council stating this, not the CBC.
Whoops. Still, I stand by my point.
That two wrongs make a right?
raydan @ Thu Jan 13, 2011 7:19 pm
I got looked up for fun what I got called outside of Québec, Frog.
Never really bothered me, the French got called that because they ate frog legs. Seems before the French, the Dutch had that name because they mainly lived in swamps.
I also found out that the French called the English "Rosbif".
...Just so it's clear, I do eat frog legs, but it's been a while.
Laura Adams @ Thu Jan 13, 2011 7:22 pm
Gunnair Gunnair:
Canadian_Mind Canadian_Mind:
Gunnair Gunnair:
What a load of pussies female genitalia lady parts un-penises non-male gender all gender genitalia all parts people inhabitants of the universe faggots we have become.
Fixed you fixing my fix, never know who might take offence tot he concept of genitalia being referenced to in a sentence.
Don't want to offend the other species.
Or the Aliens.
Somebody had to do it.
Zipperfish @ Thu Jan 13, 2011 7:23 pm
Refreshed Refreshed:
Do any of you have a problem with hearing swear words "shit, fuck, etc" or any other inappropriate or otherwise hateful words "nigger, chink, cute" on daytime TV or radio? (Pardon my language.)
Personally I have no problem with swearing, because it's the hate words that annoy me, but it's either all acceptable, or none of it is. Society needs to be consistent with this kind of thing.
Personally I have no problem with swearing, because it's the hate words that annoy me, but it's either all acceptable, or none of it is. Society needs to be consistent with this kind of thing.
All or nothing? That's a ridiculous argument. Consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds, to paraphrase Ralph Waldo Emerson. If this song had been about fag-bashing or something like that, I could be persuaded that it shouldn't be played. But we're talking about Mark Knopfler here--a bona fide artist and songwriter. The reference to "faggot" is made by a character in one of his songs and reflects reality.
Refreshed @ Thu Jan 13, 2011 7:27 pm
Zipperfish Zipperfish:
All or nothing? That's a ridiculous argument. Consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds, to paraphrase Ralph Waldo Emerson. If this song had been about fag-bashing or something like that, I could be persuaded that it shouldn't be played. But we're talking about Mark Knopfler here--a bona fide artist and songwriter. The reference to "faggot" is made by a character in one of his songs and reflects reality.
I have different ways of describing it... hypocrisy, double-standard...
ShepherdsDog @ Thu Jan 13, 2011 7:27 pm
It was a slam of an unenlightened blue collar opinion.
The little faggot with the earring and the makeup
Yeah, buddy, that's his own hair
That little faggot got his own jet airplane
That little faggot he's a millionaire
Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ... 21 Next