MTV: Banned Over Baghdad
Tweet This
Share on Facebook
In a leaked memo, MTV Europe have made "recommendations" for some crazy censorship...
Apparently, during these times of hardcore reality tv, the BBC showing uninterrupted bloodshed and war live on CNN, that because of "heightened public sensitivity to representations of war, soldiers, bombing, destruction of buildings and public unrest at home." The ITC (The Independent Television Commission) have created a 'War Time' Programme Code to censor what is seen on TV. According to the memo, Mtv can not "broadcast material which offends against good taste or is offensive to public feeling."
Therefore, MTV Europe is outright banning videos that feature any of the following: "war, soldiers, war planes, bombs, missiles, riots and social unrest, executions and other obviously sensitive material."
Here's some of the list of examples and the ridiculous reasoning in the internal memo:
System of a Down 'Boom!' - anti-war video containing facts and figures about, amongst other things, the projected casualties in the war in Iraq.
Aerosmith 'Don't want to miss a thing - contains footage from the film "Armageddon".
Manic Street Preachers 'So Why So Sad' - contains footage of soldiers being killed and man throwing a hand grenade.
Passengers/U2 'Miss Sarajevo' - contains missiles, guns and buildings being blown up.
Bon Jovi 'This ain't a love song' - contains war scenes and victims in distress.
Iggy Pop 'Corruption' - contains wars, riots, guns and captions "we love guns" and "we love rifles".
Radiohead 'Lucky' - contains war footage including injured children and 'Invasion' - song title may offend.
Outkast 'B.O.B (Bombs over Baghdad)' - song title may offend.
And All B-52s videos.
If you bear in mind the majority of videos use imagery to make anti-war statements and the general public feeling that this war is not what we want, it's very strange that the memo continues..
Under the ITC's rules, we have two main obligations regarding programmes:(a) Not to broadcast material which offends against good taste or is offensive to public feeling.
For example, no programme should contain:
(i) images of war, bombs, missiles, etc that are likely to be seen as insensitive or offensive at this time (see above for further guidance).
(ii) jokes about the war, about bombing Iraqis, about the American, Iraqi or UK troops.
(iii) comments about the war that are likely to be seen as insensitive or offensive.
Read the full memo: here
We plan to investigate this and other forms of censorship much further. If you have seen or have any information please mail it to censorship@drownedinsound.com
DiScuss: is this merely censorship of any pro-peace message? To what extent are government legislations and conflicting interests, affecting the ITC (considering the Culture Secretary selects who the directors are)? When are most of those video's show on Mtv anyway? Why don't the ITC stop sexist/misogynistic imagery? Why don't the ITC ban everything but MOR?
- Thom Yorke turns up at Copenhagen Climate Change Summit
- Fiery Furnace vs. Radiohead 'feud' carries on, Friedberger 'clarifies'
- Fiery Furnaces fellow slags off Radiohead, confuses himself, looks a little silly
- Peter Gabriel to release 'song swap' album with songs of Arcade Fire, Magnetic Fields + more
- No Surprises: Radiohead to carry on releasing albums after all
- Men more likely to download music illegally, but the girls shop around...
- Year 2000 - A Playlist of Songs Wot Soundtracked the Launch of DiS
- Thom Yorke 'denies' Banksy video link-up, or perhaps not...
Radiohead
Aerosmith
Outkast
The B-52's
Sign Up to Post Comments
MTV: Banned Over Baghdad
(i) It is diffilcult to see how the display of a political statement such as "war is a bad idea" or "this drugs policy is wrong" can never be *offensive* within the meaning of the ITC regulations, which in fact have in mind (for example) sexually/racially degrading material - which will not merely 'offend' contrary opinion, but severely and unjustly *harm* some class of people, or some person (but the latter would usually be libellous anyway).
Any other definition of offensive would clearly stiffle all political debate, and possibly even prevent any oblique social comment - so everything from the Super Furry Animals to fucking Rory Bremner would be out the window. A war or national crisis might increase the 'conversersy' generated by a particular statement - but how can it possibly convert it into something which is offensive in the way suggested above?
(ii) Given that MTV does not commission or produce the videos it shows, and everyone is aware of this fact, there is no possibility of "bias" on its part by continuing to show them. This remains the case if, say (and the situation is no-where near this extreme), 90% of the videos broadcast *do* make a 'political' statement: so long as the choice in making the statement is that of the artists, and MTV does not change its policy in selecting the videos in their favour, it has completely fulfilled its neutrality oblication under the ITC guidelines. Do MTV's lawyers suppose that if BBC News films a selection of opinions from people in the street, and the are numerically split 90/10 in favour of a particular viewpoint, the BBC is required to manipulate the footage to make the divide appear 50/50? Of course they are not - this would be a distortion of the facts; indeed (ironically) when MTV edits out the voices of artists who take an 'anti-war' stance they are actually *manipulating* the true picture. The true picture being that not *all* bands and musicians are prepared to acquiesce the war, and that out of those who hold an opinion strong enough to speak out, most are opposed to Britain's foreign policy. Thus, those groups who have been denied air-time that they (without the 'political' statement) would otherwise have been given, may themselves have a valid complaint to the Commission against MTV's censorship policy on the ground of bias [ie against the anti-war mnovement and in favour of acquiescence]!
Any other definition of offensive would clearly stiffle all political debate, and possibly even prevent any oblique social comment - so everything from the Super Furry Animals to fucking Rory Bremner would be out the window. A war or national crisis might increase the 'conversersy' generated by a particular statement - but how can it possibly convert it into something which is offensive in the way suggested above?
(ii) Given that MTV does not commission or produce the videos it shows, and everyone is aware of this fact, there is no possibility of "bias" on its part by continuing to show them. This remains the case if, say (and the situation is no-where near this extreme), 90% of the videos broadcast *do* make a 'political' statement: so long as the choice in making the statement is that of the artists, and MTV does not change its policy in selecting the videos in their favour, it has completely fulfilled its neutrality oblication under the ITC guidelines. Do MTV's lawyers suppose that if BBC News films a selection of opinions from people in the street, and the are numerically split 90/10 in favour of a particular viewpoint, the BBC is required to manipulate the footage to make the divide appear 50/50? Of course they are not - this would be a distortion of the facts; indeed (ironically) when MTV edits out the voices of artists who take an 'anti-war' stance they are actually *manipulating* the true picture. The true picture being that not *all* bands and musicians are prepared to acquiesce the war, and that out of those who hold an opinion strong enough to speak out, most are opposed to Britain's foreign policy. Thus, those groups who have been denied air-time that they (without the 'political' statement) would otherwise have been given, may themselves have a valid complaint to the Commission against MTV's censorship policy on the ground of bias [ie against the anti-war mnovement and in favour of acquiescence]!
Re: MTV: Banned Over Baghdad
Good points, well made.
What I'd really like to come out of this debate is what exactly can we, on mass, write to the ITC, showing them the error of their ways and their "attack on our freedom" as Dictator Bush would say.
Think this just needs to be put very simply, succintly and the kind of thing people can forward around, write to their MP about, and in the long-run, affect the way the media can and can't distort.
Think I'm making sense.
Sean
What I'd really like to come out of this debate is what exactly can we, on mass, write to the ITC, showing them the error of their ways and their "attack on our freedom" as Dictator Bush would say.
Think this just needs to be put very simply, succintly and the kind of thing people can forward around, write to their MP about, and in the long-run, affect the way the media can and can't distort.
Think I'm making sense.
Sean
MTV: Banned Over Baghdad
this is stupid, it is just banning bands that are singing about important things happening in the world today. Thats what music is all about,most bands sing about things that are relevant to people, and war is one of them. If bands that sing about relevant subjects are all banned, then all we'd be left with is manufactured pop groups that sing about rubbish
Re: MTV: Banned Over Baghdad
I really wanted to see that System video but it gets banned for being to graphic. It's a pro-peace video for God's sake!
Re: MTV: Banned Over Baghdad
MTV is a commerical channel and can choose not to show whatever videos it likes, as it already does all the time anyway.
MTV: Banned Over Baghdad
I think you're missing the point. It's insensitive to show pro-peace material(/propoganda?) because the war is now in full swing, and so it's insulting to those who are fighting it for us (to protect us from the people they're fighting), and to their friends and families, to protest that the job they are doing on our behalf, at great risk, is not actually necessary. As the death toll sadly increases, it is quite simply disrespectful to those involved to argue that they died for no reason.
And, by the way, the latest poll (for The Sunday Times) says that 56% of the UK population back Tony Blair and the decision he and the other MPs made earlier this week to go to war, so assuming the poll is accurate, pro-peace messages are against the feelings of the majority of the public.
And, by the way, the latest poll (for The Sunday Times) says that 56% of the UK population back Tony Blair and the decision he and the other MPs made earlier this week to go to war, so assuming the poll is accurate, pro-peace messages are against the feelings of the majority of the public.
Re: MTV: Banned Over Baghdad
Quote: "it's insulting to those who are fighting it for us (to protect us from the people they're fighting), and to their friends and families, to protest that the job they are doing on our behalf, at great risk, is not actually necessary"
I think you've totally missed the point of pro-peace messages. Do you think that mothers like sending their kids out to die? Do you think communities should be pleased that their members could die or be horribly maimed by war?
When I say "stop the war" I'm asking the people who are their risking their lives to come back, because I don't want them hurt. I don't want ANYONE hurt, which is why I'm against the war. Just because they are willing to fight and protect us doesn't mean we should send them, especially when many people don't believe that we are actually in danger.
What is more insulting to those brave people is the suggestion that they should be sent even though it ISN'T necessary. Do you think its right to abuse their courage by making them fight to secure our oil supply? I certainly don't think so.
If someone is risking their life for you, you don't just say "great job, keep it up" you try to figure out a way, ANY WAY, to make is so they don't have to risk their life any more. To do otherwise is callous and manipulative. Now that the war is in full swing, and people are out there dying, we need to insist that they be allowed to return!
I think you've totally missed the point of pro-peace messages. Do you think that mothers like sending their kids out to die? Do you think communities should be pleased that their members could die or be horribly maimed by war?
When I say "stop the war" I'm asking the people who are their risking their lives to come back, because I don't want them hurt. I don't want ANYONE hurt, which is why I'm against the war. Just because they are willing to fight and protect us doesn't mean we should send them, especially when many people don't believe that we are actually in danger.
What is more insulting to those brave people is the suggestion that they should be sent even though it ISN'T necessary. Do you think its right to abuse their courage by making them fight to secure our oil supply? I certainly don't think so.
If someone is risking their life for you, you don't just say "great job, keep it up" you try to figure out a way, ANY WAY, to make is so they don't have to risk their life any more. To do otherwise is callous and manipulative. Now that the war is in full swing, and people are out there dying, we need to insist that they be allowed to return!
Re: MTV: Banned Over Baghdad
The Sunday Times is not a newspaper read by the majority of the public.
Re: MTV: Banned Over Baghdad
Jesus wept.
Re: one problem
The only thing is, and i'm probably wrong about this, but i thought it was MTV Europe's controllers - rather than the ITC - who imposed this ban. The internal memo that the article links to seems to be from an MTV chap; references to the ITC programming code were made to justify (in a very unconvincing way, as I've already gone on about) the measure. I had a look at the ITC website and a can't find any reference to a special 'war-time' code, or a press-release warning broadcasters about how they should cover the war - which is a bit of a relief.
But whoever has taken this decision it still fucking awful - being a scary restriction of artistic freedom, especially in the case of the SoaD video, the only crime of which is to be opposed to war. MTV may be a commerical station, but it certainly fucking isn't given its broadcasting licence to take a political stand by filtering out dissenting material.
But whoever has taken this decision it still fucking awful - being a scary restriction of artistic freedom, especially in the case of the SoaD video, the only crime of which is to be opposed to war. MTV may be a commerical station, but it certainly fucking isn't given its broadcasting licence to take a political stand by filtering out dissenting material.
Re: MTV: Banned Over Baghdad
Sure, no-one is doubting that MTV can choose which videos it whiches to show - whether on the basis of commercial concerns, artistic merit, even pure caprice on its part - it doen't have to be fair in a general sense. But I'm suggesting that if it is to comply with the ITC rules, it can't introduce a *political* criteria into its selection policy.
Section 3.1 of the Commission's code states:
"The Broadcasting Act requires the ITC to do all that it can to secure 'that due impartiality is preserved on the part of the person providing the service as respects matters of political or industrial controversy or relating to current public policy'..."
It goes on to say, and i think this is critical: "...The provision that due impartiality must be preserved 'on the part of the person providing the service' is also significant. Subject to the safeguards contained in this Code, the provision allows for individual contributors to put forward what may be a personal or subjective view, or for such views to be reflected in a programme. It is for each licensee, acting through the executives who commission and schedule programmes, to ensure the service they provide deals fairly with matters of political or industrial controversy, or current public policy."
I reckon that if the 'licencee' (ie MTV) alters its schedule so that it filters out only those videos that display the particular opinion that it wishes to suppress, then it is woefully failing in its impartiality obligation.
Section 3.1 of the Commission's code states:
"The Broadcasting Act requires the ITC to do all that it can to secure 'that due impartiality is preserved on the part of the person providing the service as respects matters of political or industrial controversy or relating to current public policy'..."
It goes on to say, and i think this is critical: "...The provision that due impartiality must be preserved 'on the part of the person providing the service' is also significant. Subject to the safeguards contained in this Code, the provision allows for individual contributors to put forward what may be a personal or subjective view, or for such views to be reflected in a programme. It is for each licensee, acting through the executives who commission and schedule programmes, to ensure the service they provide deals fairly with matters of political or industrial controversy, or current public policy."
I reckon that if the 'licencee' (ie MTV) alters its schedule so that it filters out only those videos that display the particular opinion that it wishes to suppress, then it is woefully failing in its impartiality obligation.
Re: MTV: Banned Over Baghdad
Quote: "Do you think that mothers like sending their kids out to die?"
No, so that's why the coalition is doing what it is doing, so the millions of Iraqi mothers won't have to do that forever more.
Qyote: "Do you think communities should be pleased that their members could die or be horribly maimed..."
No, which why the coalition have gone in - to ensure that Iraqi communities won't have their members being killed or horribly maimed by Saddam's evil regime.
Quote: "I don't want ANYONE hurt, which is why I'm against the war."
Er, but millions of people were and still are being hurt in Iraq, which is why the war (more like an invasion really) is happening. It's for the good of the country in the longterm. You really have to see the bigger picture, y'know.
Quote: "Just because they are willing to fight and protect us doesn't mean we should send them, especially when many people don't believe that we are actually in danger."
Erm, it's the Iraqi people who are in grave danger. The risk for us here is obviously far less.
Quote: "What is more insulting to those brave people is the suggestion that they should be sent even though it ISN'T necessary."
But it is! Saddam is not co-operating with UN resolutions, nor international laws. The UN has proven it's ineffectiveness in actually taking any substantial action. It's sad that the job (of giving real freedom to Iraq) wasn't completed back in the 90s, but this is the intention now and has every chance of happening.
Quote: "Do you think its right to abuse their courage by making them fight to secure our oil supply?"
That's obviously one of the reasons why the war is happening, but what people seem to forget is that countries like France and Russia who said they would veto any new UN resolution on disarming Iraq, have signed oil contracts with Saddam, so of course it's in their interest to keep him in power, so their oil supply remains. The US and the rest of the coalition want to secure access to the oil, but for the whole world, not just the countries that Saddam dispises.
Quote: "Now that the war is in full swing, and people are out there dying, we need to insist that they be allowed to return!"
Yes, they should be allowed return when the job that they gave their own full consent to do, has been done. Coming back right now would be the stupidest thing, because it would make a joke of them going out there in the first place and of those who have already been injured or have died. However, if the relatively small amount of casualties has been for the cause of freeing 20-25 million Iraqi from the evil regime ruling over them, I would imagine those related to them would be a little more understanding.
No, so that's why the coalition is doing what it is doing, so the millions of Iraqi mothers won't have to do that forever more.
Qyote: "Do you think communities should be pleased that their members could die or be horribly maimed..."
No, which why the coalition have gone in - to ensure that Iraqi communities won't have their members being killed or horribly maimed by Saddam's evil regime.
Quote: "I don't want ANYONE hurt, which is why I'm against the war."
Er, but millions of people were and still are being hurt in Iraq, which is why the war (more like an invasion really) is happening. It's for the good of the country in the longterm. You really have to see the bigger picture, y'know.
Quote: "Just because they are willing to fight and protect us doesn't mean we should send them, especially when many people don't believe that we are actually in danger."
Erm, it's the Iraqi people who are in grave danger. The risk for us here is obviously far less.
Quote: "What is more insulting to those brave people is the suggestion that they should be sent even though it ISN'T necessary."
But it is! Saddam is not co-operating with UN resolutions, nor international laws. The UN has proven it's ineffectiveness in actually taking any substantial action. It's sad that the job (of giving real freedom to Iraq) wasn't completed back in the 90s, but this is the intention now and has every chance of happening.
Quote: "Do you think its right to abuse their courage by making them fight to secure our oil supply?"
That's obviously one of the reasons why the war is happening, but what people seem to forget is that countries like France and Russia who said they would veto any new UN resolution on disarming Iraq, have signed oil contracts with Saddam, so of course it's in their interest to keep him in power, so their oil supply remains. The US and the rest of the coalition want to secure access to the oil, but for the whole world, not just the countries that Saddam dispises.
Quote: "Now that the war is in full swing, and people are out there dying, we need to insist that they be allowed to return!"
Yes, they should be allowed return when the job that they gave their own full consent to do, has been done. Coming back right now would be the stupidest thing, because it would make a joke of them going out there in the first place and of those who have already been injured or have died. However, if the relatively small amount of casualties has been for the cause of freeing 20-25 million Iraqi from the evil regime ruling over them, I would imagine those related to them would be a little more understanding.
Re: MTV: Banned Over Baghdad
This has nothing to do with politics though. It's simply sensitivity to those with friends/families involved in the removal of the Iraqi leadership, to not upset or worry them. It's not that MTV is pro or even anti-war, nor trying to promote or suppress a particular political opinion. I'm sure that any video claiming war was a good thing would be banned over the period too.
Re: Claims that it's about oil
See here for more info on the real oil politics involved in the war:
http://straitstimes.asia1.com.sg/columnist/0,1886,16,00.html
Quite sad really that France and Russia were against giving freedom to Iraq in order to keep their own interests boyant, and goes to show that anyone who thinks it's quite as simple as Bush and Blair being the only villains have got it very wrong.
http://straitstimes.asia1.com.sg/columnist/0,1886,16,00.html
Quite sad really that France and Russia were against giving freedom to Iraq in order to keep their own interests boyant, and goes to show that anyone who thinks it's quite as simple as Bush and Blair being the only villains have got it very wrong.
Re: MTV: Banned Over Baghdad
So what? The poll was carried out by an independent company - ICM, not the newspaper themselves. They merely comissioned it.
See http://www.icmresearch.co.uk/reviews/2003/guardian-bombingiraq15-march-2003.htm.
See http://www.icmresearch.co.uk/reviews/2003/guardian-bombingiraq15-march-2003.htm.
Re: MTV: Banned Over Baghdad
Oh, and no newspaper is read by the majority of the public, silly. The biggest readership of any of them in the UK is no more than five million.
Re: MTV: Banned Over Baghdad
Pro-shocking people into being anti-war, morelike.
Re: MTV: Banned Over Baghdad
I hear what you are saying, and I don't mean to imply that I support the actions of Saddam.
However, all the problems you make light of MAY have democratic solutions, as opposed to violent solutions. War is no time to stop talking about democratic solutions. If none exist, then so be it, because we are already at war, but if the possibility arises for another solution, it would be cheating our soldiers not to take it instead of war.
Thats what this issue is about, whether or not people should even be allowed to discuss pro-peace alternatives in light of the fact that we are currently at war. I think the answer is an emphatic YES. If you agree with the war, then you are already getting what you want. If you value peace at all, then you should be glad to seek any opprotunity for peace that you can. Discussion is how these ideas come about.
peace,
sam
However, all the problems you make light of MAY have democratic solutions, as opposed to violent solutions. War is no time to stop talking about democratic solutions. If none exist, then so be it, because we are already at war, but if the possibility arises for another solution, it would be cheating our soldiers not to take it instead of war.
Thats what this issue is about, whether or not people should even be allowed to discuss pro-peace alternatives in light of the fact that we are currently at war. I think the answer is an emphatic YES. If you agree with the war, then you are already getting what you want. If you value peace at all, then you should be glad to seek any opprotunity for peace that you can. Discussion is how these ideas come about.
peace,
sam
Re: MTV: Banned Over Baghdad
uh-huh. The fact that our foreign policy on Iraq (or rather our policy towards America's foreign policy on Iraq) is such a complex issue with no simple binary answers (most people are neither 'with' Saddam *nor* Bush - and there is nothing inconsistent in this), is all the more reason to give the various opinions and discussions on the subject exposure.
And allowing public dissent to the war the Govenrment is pursuing, given it has such obvious implications for the lives of so many people and for the future of world peace and security, is such an important principle that it must override concerns about Army wives being upset by war-related material.
And allowing public dissent to the war the Govenrment is pursuing, given it has such obvious implications for the lives of so many people and for the future of world peace and security, is such an important principle that it must override concerns about Army wives being upset by war-related material.
Sign Up to Post Comments
Add your comment
Reply
Spotifriday #32 - This Week on DiS as a playlist
Spotifriday #31 - This Week on DiS as a playlist
In Photos: Is Tropical @ Nation of Shopkeepers, Leeds
In Photos: Johnny Foreigner @ The Harley, Sheffield
Last.fm
SoundCloud
MySpace
Friendster
RSS
Comments
- Post a new comment on this article