-
Get involved.
We want your input!
Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.
After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.
After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/
Thanks in advance and have fun!
RadioDiscussions Administrators
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
NBC Censors West Remarks from West Coast Feed
- Thread starter dampier
- Start date
H
HomerJay
Guest
> No freedom of speech for people on NBC. Agree or disagree,
> nobody on the west coast gets to hear Kanye's remarks.
>
Good for NBC. It's their show, not his. If that loser wants to spew his ignorance and hate, let him do it on his albums or his stage show. This isn't a "freedom of speech" issue.
What a low-class display in an otherwise laudable attempt to do a good deed.
> nobody on the west coast gets to hear Kanye's remarks.
>
Good for NBC. It's their show, not his. If that loser wants to spew his ignorance and hate, let him do it on his albums or his stage show. This isn't a "freedom of speech" issue.
What a low-class display in an otherwise laudable attempt to do a good deed.
K
KMRichards
Guest
> > No freedom of speech for people on NBC. Agree or
> disagree,
> > nobody on the west coast gets to hear Kanye's remarks.
> >
> Good for NBC. It's their show, not his. If that loser wants
> to spew his ignorance and hate, let him do it on his albums
> or his stage show. This isn't a "freedom of speech" issue.
Furthermore, "freedom of speech" does not apply to commercial enterprises. Only the government is required by the Constitution to provide that freedom.
The original poster has fallen into the common misconception that "freedom of speech" applies across all platforms, both publicly- and privately-owned.<P ID="signature">______________
</P>
> disagree,
> > nobody on the west coast gets to hear Kanye's remarks.
> >
> Good for NBC. It's their show, not his. If that loser wants
> to spew his ignorance and hate, let him do it on his albums
> or his stage show. This isn't a "freedom of speech" issue.
Furthermore, "freedom of speech" does not apply to commercial enterprises. Only the government is required by the Constitution to provide that freedom.
The original poster has fallen into the common misconception that "freedom of speech" applies across all platforms, both publicly- and privately-owned.<P ID="signature">______________
</P>
D
doc9464
Guest
> Furthermore, "freedom of speech" does not apply to
> commercial enterprises. Only the government is required by
> the Constitution to provide that freedom.
>
> The original poster has fallen into the common misconception
> that "freedom of speech" applies across all platforms, both
> publicly- and privately-owned.
The moderator is obtuse in missing the point that Mr. West, despite his justifiable response to the Bush administration, did not say anything worthy of censorship. Michael Moore was not censored when he spoke about Bush's record.
The truth comes in many forms, and Kanje West did not say anything that one many would disagree with (which is fine) but was not obscene or worthy of FCC involvement. Has dissent become grounds for censorship? I think not.
NBC, like many media organiztions, displayed the cowardice many corporate media organizations have shown in their lack of response to the many failures and misdeeds of the Bush Administration. They only got rid of the comments to avoid retribution from his supporters and maybe the administration. my 0.02
> commercial enterprises. Only the government is required by
> the Constitution to provide that freedom.
>
> The original poster has fallen into the common misconception
> that "freedom of speech" applies across all platforms, both
> publicly- and privately-owned.
The moderator is obtuse in missing the point that Mr. West, despite his justifiable response to the Bush administration, did not say anything worthy of censorship. Michael Moore was not censored when he spoke about Bush's record.
The truth comes in many forms, and Kanje West did not say anything that one many would disagree with (which is fine) but was not obscene or worthy of FCC involvement. Has dissent become grounds for censorship? I think not.
NBC, like many media organiztions, displayed the cowardice many corporate media organizations have shown in their lack of response to the many failures and misdeeds of the Bush Administration. They only got rid of the comments to avoid retribution from his supporters and maybe the administration. my 0.02
> Furthermore, "freedom of speech" does not apply to
> commercial enterprises. Only the government is required by
> the Constitution to provide that freedom.
>
> The original poster has fallen into the common misconception
> that "freedom of speech" applies across all platforms, both
> publicly- and privately-owned.
That's totally unimportant.
What's important is that NBC decided that viewers couldn't somehow handle a contrary or outspoken view by one participant on a show. NBC felt is had to protect us from the raw human emotion and controversy that can come from it. People occasionally get so frustrated they fly off the handle. The show host artfully handled the matter with some decorum in pointing this out, end of drama.
Hell, NBC could have had a rep come on the show at the end and distance themselves from the remarks and even disagree with them. That would have been more effective for the live viewers who were offended instead of waiting for a paper press release a few hours after the fact.
To save us all, NBC simply stripped it out as if nothing at all happened. Viewers are apparently not equipped to handle the risks that come with live TV, at least according to NBC.
The impact? You can count on one hand the number of moron viewers who saw it and would respond: "ah... well Kanye cinched it for me, I am not donating a thing to hurricane relief because of this guy and I'm not watching Law & Order anymore either!"
In other words... it was another corporate cave-in from the same media department that brought you, "censor 60 Minutes' cigarette reports" and "turn over those documents so the Time Warner CEO doesn't go to jail or get fined."
> commercial enterprises. Only the government is required by
> the Constitution to provide that freedom.
>
> The original poster has fallen into the common misconception
> that "freedom of speech" applies across all platforms, both
> publicly- and privately-owned.
That's totally unimportant.
What's important is that NBC decided that viewers couldn't somehow handle a contrary or outspoken view by one participant on a show. NBC felt is had to protect us from the raw human emotion and controversy that can come from it. People occasionally get so frustrated they fly off the handle. The show host artfully handled the matter with some decorum in pointing this out, end of drama.
Hell, NBC could have had a rep come on the show at the end and distance themselves from the remarks and even disagree with them. That would have been more effective for the live viewers who were offended instead of waiting for a paper press release a few hours after the fact.
To save us all, NBC simply stripped it out as if nothing at all happened. Viewers are apparently not equipped to handle the risks that come with live TV, at least according to NBC.
The impact? You can count on one hand the number of moron viewers who saw it and would respond: "ah... well Kanye cinched it for me, I am not donating a thing to hurricane relief because of this guy and I'm not watching Law & Order anymore either!"
In other words... it was another corporate cave-in from the same media department that brought you, "censor 60 Minutes' cigarette reports" and "turn over those documents so the Time Warner CEO doesn't go to jail or get fined."
K
KMRichards
Guest
You missed my point, actually.
> The moderator is obtuse in missing the point that Mr. West,
> despite his justifiable response to the Bush administration,
> did not say anything worthy of censorship. Michael Moore was
> not censored when he spoke about Bush's record.
No, I do recognize your point. I am disagreeing with the poster saying that it is a "freedom of speech" issue. The Constitution does not protect anyone from the bad decisions by media organizations to censor or not censor.
In other words, feel free to criticize NBC for its decision. But do not use protected freedom of speech as an argument, because it does not apply to a non-government organization.<P ID="signature">______________
</P>
> The moderator is obtuse in missing the point that Mr. West,
> despite his justifiable response to the Bush administration,
> did not say anything worthy of censorship. Michael Moore was
> not censored when he spoke about Bush's record.
No, I do recognize your point. I am disagreeing with the poster saying that it is a "freedom of speech" issue. The Constitution does not protect anyone from the bad decisions by media organizations to censor or not censor.
In other words, feel free to criticize NBC for its decision. But do not use protected freedom of speech as an argument, because it does not apply to a non-government organization.<P ID="signature">______________
</P>
H
HomerJay
Guest
> > Furthermore, "freedom of speech" does not apply to
> > commercial enterprises. Only the government is required
> by
> > the Constitution to provide that freedom.
> >
> > The original poster has fallen into the common
> misconception
> > that "freedom of speech" applies across all platforms,
> both
> > publicly- and privately-owned.
>
> That's totally unimportant.
No, actually it's quite relevant to the original point.
>
> What's important is that NBC decided that viewers couldn't
> somehow handle a contrary or outspoken view by one
> participant on a show.
No, NBC decided what they wanted to include as part of a program airing under their banners.
>NBC felt is had to protect us from
> the raw human emotion and controversy that can come from it.
> People occasionally get so frustrated they fly off the
> handle. The show host artfully handled the matter with some
> decorum in pointing this out, end of drama.
And NBC edited it out of subsequent airings. END of drama.
>
> Hell, NBC could have had a rep come on the show at the end
> and distance themselves from the remarks and even disagree
> with them. That would have been more effective for the live
> viewers who were offended instead of waiting for a paper
> press release a few hours after the fact.
>
> To save us all, NBC simply stripped it out as if nothing at
> all happened. Viewers are apparently not equipped to handle
> the risks that come with live TV, at least according to NBC.
According to whom? NBC had a purpose and a message to the show, and they chose to put that out on the west coast airing. If Mr. West wishes to spew his philosophy, he's more than welcome to look for an accomodating outlet. He deviated from what he agreed to do on the NBC special.
>
> The impact? You can count on one hand the number of moron
> viewers who saw it and would respond: "ah... well Kanye
> cinched it for me, I am not donating a thing to hurricane
> relief because of this guy and I'm not watching Law & Order
> anymore either!"
>
> In other words... it was another corporate cave-in from the
> same media department that brought you, "censor 60 Minutes'
> cigarette reports" and "turn over those documents so the
> Time Warner CEO doesn't go to jail or get fined."
>
Oh yes, the great evil corporations. Heaven forbid they have the ability to air what they choose.
> > commercial enterprises. Only the government is required
> by
> > the Constitution to provide that freedom.
> >
> > The original poster has fallen into the common
> misconception
> > that "freedom of speech" applies across all platforms,
> both
> > publicly- and privately-owned.
>
> That's totally unimportant.
No, actually it's quite relevant to the original point.
>
> What's important is that NBC decided that viewers couldn't
> somehow handle a contrary or outspoken view by one
> participant on a show.
No, NBC decided what they wanted to include as part of a program airing under their banners.
>NBC felt is had to protect us from
> the raw human emotion and controversy that can come from it.
> People occasionally get so frustrated they fly off the
> handle. The show host artfully handled the matter with some
> decorum in pointing this out, end of drama.
And NBC edited it out of subsequent airings. END of drama.
>
> Hell, NBC could have had a rep come on the show at the end
> and distance themselves from the remarks and even disagree
> with them. That would have been more effective for the live
> viewers who were offended instead of waiting for a paper
> press release a few hours after the fact.
>
> To save us all, NBC simply stripped it out as if nothing at
> all happened. Viewers are apparently not equipped to handle
> the risks that come with live TV, at least according to NBC.
According to whom? NBC had a purpose and a message to the show, and they chose to put that out on the west coast airing. If Mr. West wishes to spew his philosophy, he's more than welcome to look for an accomodating outlet. He deviated from what he agreed to do on the NBC special.
>
> The impact? You can count on one hand the number of moron
> viewers who saw it and would respond: "ah... well Kanye
> cinched it for me, I am not donating a thing to hurricane
> relief because of this guy and I'm not watching Law & Order
> anymore either!"
>
> In other words... it was another corporate cave-in from the
> same media department that brought you, "censor 60 Minutes'
> cigarette reports" and "turn over those documents so the
> Time Warner CEO doesn't go to jail or get fined."
>
Oh yes, the great evil corporations. Heaven forbid they have the ability to air what they choose.
H
HomerJay
Guest
> > Furthermore, "freedom of speech" does not apply to
> > commercial enterprises. Only the government is required
> by
> > the Constitution to provide that freedom.
> >
> > The original poster has fallen into the common
> misconception
> > that "freedom of speech" applies across all platforms,
> both
> > publicly- and privately-owned.
>
> The moderator is obtuse in missing the point that Mr. West,
> despite his justifiable response to the Bush administration,
> did not say anything worthy of censorship. Michael Moore was
> not censored when he spoke about Bush's record.
> The truth comes in many forms, and Kanje West did not say
> anything that one many would disagree with (which is fine)
> but was not obscene or worthy of FCC involvement. Has
> dissent become grounds for censorship? I think not.
>
> NBC, like many media organiztions, displayed the cowardice
> many corporate media organizations have shown in their lack
> of response to the many failures and misdeeds of the Bush
> Administration. They only got rid of the comments to avoid
> retribution from his supporters and maybe the
> administration. my 0.02
>
"Censorship" is perfectly within the rights of every media outlet. Only the government is prohibited from prior restraint via "censorship." Every newspaper, every news channel, every magazine determines which stories and content are included and which are not. NBC diplayed not one bit of cowardice--Mr. West chose to try to hijack a special to spew his own views, and the prodicers of said program felt what he did was not in keeping with their vision, so they cut it.
> > commercial enterprises. Only the government is required
> by
> > the Constitution to provide that freedom.
> >
> > The original poster has fallen into the common
> misconception
> > that "freedom of speech" applies across all platforms,
> both
> > publicly- and privately-owned.
>
> The moderator is obtuse in missing the point that Mr. West,
> despite his justifiable response to the Bush administration,
> did not say anything worthy of censorship. Michael Moore was
> not censored when he spoke about Bush's record.
> The truth comes in many forms, and Kanje West did not say
> anything that one many would disagree with (which is fine)
> but was not obscene or worthy of FCC involvement. Has
> dissent become grounds for censorship? I think not.
>
> NBC, like many media organiztions, displayed the cowardice
> many corporate media organizations have shown in their lack
> of response to the many failures and misdeeds of the Bush
> Administration. They only got rid of the comments to avoid
> retribution from his supporters and maybe the
> administration. my 0.02
>
"Censorship" is perfectly within the rights of every media outlet. Only the government is prohibited from prior restraint via "censorship." Every newspaper, every news channel, every magazine determines which stories and content are included and which are not. NBC diplayed not one bit of cowardice--Mr. West chose to try to hijack a special to spew his own views, and the prodicers of said program felt what he did was not in keeping with their vision, so they cut it.
M
mrpariot
Guest
> No freedom of speech for people on NBC. Agree or disagree,
> nobody on the west coast gets to hear Kanye's remarks.
>
Kanye West's remarks were representative of more than just one person, I am sure. But as to whether or not it is censorship, it comes down to what is situationally appropriate -- and during a fund-raiser for victims of ANYTHING, it is NOT appropriate to espouse your racial or political point of view.
Relief efforts should not be about the color of someone's skin or their political bent. Mr. West, as he's done before, tried to take the spotlight away from the REAL issue by going somewhere he didn't belong in that moment.
> nobody on the west coast gets to hear Kanye's remarks.
>
Kanye West's remarks were representative of more than just one person, I am sure. But as to whether or not it is censorship, it comes down to what is situationally appropriate -- and during a fund-raiser for victims of ANYTHING, it is NOT appropriate to espouse your racial or political point of view.
Relief efforts should not be about the color of someone's skin or their political bent. Mr. West, as he's done before, tried to take the spotlight away from the REAL issue by going somewhere he didn't belong in that moment.
- Status
- This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.