rdmcandie wrote:
After years of pandering to the homosexuals of canada, and giving them what they want. Tth Gay agenda has finally taken its first attack on our society.
http://ca.news.yahoo.com/dire-straits-money-nothing-censored-broadcast-panel-rules-20110112-175448-551.html
Quote:
OTTAWA - The 1980s song "Money for Nothing" by the British rock band Dire Straits has been deemed unacceptable for play on Canadian radio.
In a ruling released Wednesday, the Canadian Broadcast Standards Council says the song contravenes the human rights clauses of the Canadian Association of Broadcasters' Code of Ethics and Equitable Portrayal Code.
A listener to radio station CHOZ-FM in St. John's, N.L., complained last year that the song includes the word "******" in its lyrics and is discriminatory to gays.
The broadcaster argued that the song had been played countless times since its release decades ago and has won music industry awards.
A CBSC panel concluded that the word "******," even if once acceptable, has evolved to become unacceptable in most circumstances.
The panel noted that "Money for Nothing" would be acceptable for broadcast if suitably edited.
Not only have they stolen one of my favorite songs to work to. They have also stolen a word I use daily. Now how am I supposed to identify a bundle of sticks with one easy word, while listening to the sweet sounds of Money for Nothing. It is appalling.
I know I'm late to the party on this but...
You do realize that on release and for most of the next couple years radio stations in the US and Canada at least played a radio edit with that word removed. The stations actually had two choices on the promo disc, one with the word replaced with a punch in of "queenie" (really not much difference) and one that just faded the vocal to leave the questionable word blank. Generally speaking, standard stations used the "queenie" edit and nationally syndicated shows used the faded one just to play it safe. All Warner will do is dip into the archives and dig out the "queenie" version and rush a digital rip to the stations then this argument could start all over with the exact same basis. If that doesn't fly with the Standards Council, they'll flip to the faded edit.
You are getting bent out of shape over nothing. Your
must not be disturbed work routine will not be challenged by the absence of the overplayed hit. In fact, it will probably be the exact same version stations played 25 years ago. That should sit even better with your routine. All will be back as it was when it was.
Oh...think about it for a minute. Warner and Knopfler knew this song was questionable for airplay on release in '85. Mark did the vocal punch-in and Warner sent it out three different ways to stations. Pinning "gay agenda" to this is more than just a massive stretch, it's absurd. The song was never clear cut radio-friendly fodder in its album form.
What annoys me from an American perspective is that when a song reaches the commercial stature of this or say AOR staples: Money, Who Are You or Jet Airliner (there are tons more), the song's "classic" status somehow grants the stations immunity from the rules that independent radio stations have to abide by. There have been many cases where small stations have been fined harshly or briefly knocked off the air for jocks forgetting to queue up the radio edit instead of the album version, even in the case of truly honest mistakes. It's called "cost-effective enforcement".
For the record, there are a good number of tracks that were kept off the airwaves (or beeped, which everyone hated) over the years for using the same word. Why should Money for Nothing or any of the other AOR staples that cross the line for that matter receive special treatment and allow radio stations an exemption? Either apply the rules evenly or get rid of them.
It's not like the FCC has done much more than harass small stations, rubber stamp corporate mergers that violate their own current rules and let the corporations dictate to them what they will do for the last 25 years or so anyway.