The use of 'faggot' in Money for Nothing is a known issue, so let's not let a synthetic censorship row obscure the real issue
So, it's finally happened: the people of Canada will never again be terrorised by Dire Straits. Money for Nothing ? yes, that Money for Nothing; the song of inescapable refrain, haunted by the spectre of Sting wailing that he wants his, he wants his, he wants his M-T-veeeee ? has been "banned" by the CSBC. Specifically, it's been "banned" because it repeats the word "faggot" three separate times.
The CSBC's ruling has attracted a lot of speechifying. It's being repeated, frequently, that the Dire Straits song is "social commentary", that it's sung in the voice of an unsympathetic narrator, that the ban constitutes "censorship", that "faggot is now an unacceptable word, but that's not the point", and ? most puzzlingly ? that the song is being "banned" because "one person complained". The assumption, of course, is that this "one person" must be an isolated crackpot, and not representative of the listening public. It's an easy assumption to make. But it's wrong. Also wrong? As is the much-reported notion that the song is being "banned" in the first place.
Money for Nothing's use of the homophobic slur has been controversial since it was released in 1985. In one interview, Mark Knopfler mentioned receiving "an objection from the editor of a gay newspaper in London". The critic Robert Christgau took particular exception to the "word Knopfler has somehow gotten on the radio with no static from the PMRC", writing, "I mean, why not 'little n? with the spitcurl' instead of 'little faggot with the earring', Mark?"
So, it's not as if "faggot" has just now become offensive; Dire Straits has been aware of the problem for 25 years. In fact, the only strange thing about this scenario is the choice of radio stations to play an unedited version of the song, when there have been several radio edits made precisely to prevent this sort of issue arising. One edit replaces the slur with the word "mother". And while you could once see the unedited video on M-T-Veeee, some stations have aired a version that cuts the offending verse entirely. The verse is also cut from Dire Straits' "best of" compilation, entitled ? wait for it ? Money for Nothing.
All the CSBC requires is that radio stations play the edited versions. After all, if Knopfler's portrait of a working stiff is so very insightful, it shouldn't rely on a single profanity in order to work. Despite all the shouting, the CSBC is instituting a common measure, applied to everything from Radiohead's Creep to Kanye West's Monster: play it all you want, but with the bad words cut out or changed. This is hardly controversial.
What is controversial is the idea that "faggot" being a bad word is new. Granted, the slur is less acceptable now than it was in 1985; 25 years of activism have accomplished something, even if it's only a widespread recognition of the fact that "faggot" is a word specifically intended to hurt and dehumanise gay people, not an all-purpose insult that sounds adorable coming from Molly Ringwald in Sixteen Candles. But there are still some people who believe their right to say "faggot" ? ironically, in character; or as a "social commentary" on the fact that poor people are sometimes jealous of rock stars ? supersedes anyone else's right or desire not to hear it. This is an obnoxious position, to say the least.
Still, one wonders if we gain anything by erasing history. When certain publishers removed the "n? word" from Mark Twain's The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, there was a widespread outcry ? and it was based on some very solid grounds. Yes, the word appears many times; yes, the word is unambiguously racist. But erasing evidence of racism from Mark Twain's work, while valorising Twain himself, is hypocritical: sanitising history makes it impossible for us to learn from our mistakes, or even to know that we've made them.
But comparing pop music to Mark Twain is a little off-base. Money for Nothing is not taught in schools, and editing the song for radio doesn't make the unedited versions disappear. Still, if you'd ever wondered whether 80s cheese could provide you with a teachable moment, here it is: there was a time when men could be overtly homophobic on-air, without receiving all that much in the way of pushback ? because not enough people knew that it was wrong. And that attitude, hopefully, is becoming as dated as the phrase "colour TV" ("Were there other kinds of TVs, Grandpa?") and ? shocker ? the time when MTV actually played music.
Source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/jan/18/direstraits-popandrock
Road trips TV ratings Economic policy Environmental sustainability United Nations Highlands
No comments:
Post a Comment