• Welcome to ResetEra 2.0! Guests should now be able to save their dark or light theme preferences, found on the left sidebar.

Canadian radio stations are pulling "Baby, It's Cold Outside" from their holiday playlists

Oct 25, 2017
4,074
0
Choosing to remove a song from a particular playlist is not censorship. They're exercising their free speech in taking a stance on the content in the song. They're not pretending like it doesn't exist or keeping anyone from actually hearing said song, or hiding it. They decided to keep it off of their own playlists for ethical reasons.

Nothing is stopping anybody from playing it in the comfort of their own home or from knowing the song or its history.. or from playing it out in public.
It is censorship. And it is censorship by a government-owned mass broadcaster.

Your definition of censorship is so narrow that you would need a Gestapo-like force to break into your house and burn your LPs and destroy your computer.

Or unless robots wipe your mind, it's not censorship.
 
Oct 25, 2017
10,916
0
USA
It is censorship. And it is censorship by a government-owned mass broadcaster.

Your definition of censorship is so narrow that you would need the Gestapo-like force to break into your house and burn your LPs and destroy your computer.

Or unless the robots wipe your mind, it's not censorship.
This is absurd. Choosing not to play a song because listeners are unhappy with it is not censorship.

Should CBS not be able to exercise their right to remove the song from a playlist? They should just be forced to play it?

I don't understand how any of this is an issue.. or how it classifies as censorship.
 
Oct 25, 2017
4,074
0
This is absurd. Choosing not to play a song because listeners are unhappy with it is not censorship.

Should CBS not be able to exercise their right to remove the song from a playlist? They should just be forced to play it?

I don't understand how any of this is an issue.. or how it classifies as censorship.
The CBC is owned by the government.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_songs_banned_by_the_BBC

It is censorship.
 
Oct 25, 2017
10,916
0
USA
Oct 25, 2017
4,074
0
..I never said it's not owned by the government. I'm saying the action itself is not censorship.
This is pointless. Learn what censorship is.

Learn about the blacklists that turned artists into paupers. People like Pete Seeger who were banned from television for injecting subversion into their music.

Learn about the power of government broadcasters to crush "indecent" works of art.

Your definition of what constitutes censorship is out-of-touch and favors a system where cultural guardians determine what is or is not allowed to be heard in mass.
 
Oct 25, 2017
1,158
0
Canada
The Canadian government doesn't dictate what the CBC plays beyond a Canadian content quota. For this to be censorship according to the traditional definition you're leaning on, the government would have needed to tell them not to play it. Their internal management, that is entirely independent from the government, chose to do it. If the government were directly involved, you'd have a point.
 
This is pointless. Learn what censorship is.

Learn about the blacklists that turned artists into paupers. People like Pete Seeger who were banned from television for injecting subversion into their music.

Learn about the power of government broadcasters to crush "indecent" works of art.

Your definition of what constitutes censorship is out-of-touch and favors a system where cultural guardians determine what is or is not allowed to be heard in mass.
It's not censorship. The government hasn't banned the song. You can still buy, listen, and hear it in public. To say it's censored is a misuse of the word censor.

A lot of y'all "THIS IS CENSORSHIP" people don't know what censorship is. Go to China or North Korea and educate yourselves.
 
Oct 29, 2017
752
0
I get the implications in the song on a surface level being a turn off, but this is kind of ridiculous to me.

It does seem to me like society at large has been dumbed down to the point where nuance is no longer a thing, and critical thinking, and analysis are no longer applied to popular media.

I think the best response instead of hiding the song from people is to actually educate them on its meaning. Or god forbid people actually do the work themselves. But no, everything has to be safe and sanitized. Can’t have anything challenging anymore.

I think this is why we often have such huge divides when it comes to critic and audience reactions to media.
 
Oct 25, 2017
4,074
0
It's not censorship. The government hasn't banned the song. You can still buy, listen, and hear it in public. To say it's censored is a misuse of the word censor.
It 100% is not misused. Banning something or pulling it off the radio for being indecent or immoral is censorship. It is even more egregious when the decision is influenced by the government.
 
Oct 25, 2017
10,916
0
USA
This is pointless. Learn what censorship is.

Learn about the blacklists that turned artists into paupers. People like Pete Seeger who were banned from television for injecting subversion into their music.

Learn about the power of government broadcasters to crush "indecent" works of art.

Your definition of what constitutes censorship is out-of-touch and favors a system where cultural guardians determine what is or is not allowed to be heard in mass.
They're responding to their listeners.. many who voiced they don't want to hear the content of the song. It's not like this is a direct command from the government. They pulled it due to ethical complaints from people who tune in.

And.. you're acting like they just crushed the career of an up and coming new artist. This song has celebrated fame and success for decades.

Again, do you think CBS should not be able to remove the song from their playlists in this context?

The implications here are really bizarre.
 
Oct 25, 2017
1,158
0
Canada
It 100% is not misused. Banning something or pulling it off the radio for being indecent or immoral is censorship. It is even more egregious when the decision is influenced by the government.
Considering you have a gross misunderstanding of how the CBC is governed, you're doing a disservice to the point you're making. You're basically painting the CBC (and the BBC and all similar broadcasters with hands-off content governance by association) as government propaganda machines, which is absurd.
 
It 100% is not misused. Banning something or pulling it off the radio for being indecent or immoral is censorship. It is even more egregious when the decision is influenced by the government.
It's not influenced by the government.

You are wrong.

It's not banned. Removing content doesn't mean it's banned. Being removed from 1 source isn't censorship.

Educate yourself.
 
Oct 25, 2017
10,916
0
USA
Considering you have a gross misunderstanding of how the CBC is governed, you're doing a disservice to the point you're making. You're basically painting the CBC (and the BBC and all similar broadcasters with hands-off content governance by association) as government propaganda machines, which is absurd.
Yeah. It's coming from really fucking weird fear mongering talking points. And I've asked the same question like three times and it keeps getting ignored.
No. It is censorship.
You're not making a compelling argument for this at all.
 
Oct 25, 2017
4,074
0
Yeah. It's a really fucking weird fear mongering argument. And I've asked the same question like three times and it keeps getting ignored.

You're not making a compelling argument for this at all.
I made my arguments already. The narrowness of your definition of censorship allows for bureaucrats to run rough-shod over great works of art.

From a google search...

"the suppression or prohibition of any parts of books, films, news, etc. that are considered obscene, politically unacceptable, or a threat to security."

The ACLU essentially says the same thing.

Drilling censorship as a whole down to something being illegal to consume, think about, or make is frankly a scary belief if it is held when the power of the internet, mass media, etc over the beliefs and cultural output of individuals is so large.
 
Oct 25, 2017
910
0
Canada
CBC can remove the song, I just don't like that they did.

Moves like this only make the left look to socially Liberal in the eyes of many conservatives. I'm not a fan of when stuff like these happens. Even though it's a non-partisan decision, it will be painted as "snowflake libs" at the CBC did this.
 
Oct 25, 2017
1,319
0
It is censorship. And it is censorship by a government-owned mass broadcaster.

Your definition of censorship is so narrow that you would need a Gestapo-like force to break into your house and burn your LPs and destroy your computer.

Or unless robots wipe your mind, it's not censorship.
So like, anytime a song falls off the Top 100 or whatever and a station stops playing it, is that censorship?

Like, literally nothing is being "censored" here. You can still buy the song and listen to it as much as you want, if you would like.

If anything, speaking of issues of censorship and freedom of speech and the like, if anything the irony is the idea that they should be forced to air it and not allowed to do what they want would be what's infringing on their freedom of speech.

'Cause you don't exactly seem to be allowing for scenarios where they're allowed to make those type of decisions since they're apparently "censorship" by default, and so what? Should they be stuck airing it in perpetuity or something? Do they not have any freedom over what they do or don't air at all? The implications there if anything are way more troubling and you're not kinda sweeping over them as if they're nothing at all when nonetheless the irony is here that you would be the one restricting their freedom of speech.
 
Nov 1, 2017
2,274
0
Nothing is perfect and sometimes it goes too far, it's still vastly better than the time before people cared about this stuff.
Stuff like this gives being PC a bad name. The over reaching and over sensitivity to every little thing, makes the real issues ignored as people just blow away folks as being "too sensitive" or "mad about everything"
 
Oct 25, 2017
4,074
0
So like, anytime a song falls off the Top 100 or whatever and a station stops playing it, is that censorship?

Like, literally nothing is being "censored" here. You can still buy the song and listen to it as much as you want, if you would like.

If anything, speaking of issues of censorship and freedom of speech and the like, if anything the irony is the idea that they should be forced to air it and not allowed to do what they want would be what's infringing on their freedom of speech.

'Cause you don't exactly seem to be allowing for scenarios where they're allowed to make those type of decisions since they're apparently "censorship" by default, and so what? Should they be stuck airing it in perpetuity or something? Do they not have any freedom over what they do or don't air at all? The implications there if anything are way more troubling and you're not kinda sweeping over them as if they're nothing at all when nonetheless the irony is here that you would be the one restricting their freedom of speech.
These aren’t falling out of the rotation due to a lack of popularity. It’s due to a recommendation from a board which finds content objectionable.
 
Oct 25, 2017
2,749
0
London
Stuff like this gives being PC a bad name. The over reaching and over sensitivity to every little thing, makes the real issues ignored as people just blow away folks as being "too sensitive" or "mad about everything"
I don't think the song should be banned, it's a silly musical number that's obviously lighthearted. But if it wasn't this then they would make something up about Christmas being banned anyway.
 
Oct 26, 2017
223
0
"the suppression or prohibition of any parts of books, films, news, etc. that are considered obscene, politically unacceptable, or a threat to security."

The ACLU essentially says the same thing.
No, they absolutely do not. You are reading it incorrectly. A radio station choosing not to play a song (whether owned by the government or not) is not an act of suppression nor prohibition. It is not destroying copies of the song and outlawing it being played (suppression,) nor is it banning the sale of the song (prohibition.) They simply have decided not to air it on their station. It simply does not meet the definition of censorship, period.

You can still disagree with their decision; that's a perfectly valid stance to take. But you cannot be upset when people rightfully refute your insistence that it is censorship.
 
Oct 26, 2017
223
0
I suppose I should state that I'm not necessarily in favour of CBC's decision, but I understand why the song can be seen as problematic. It's likely easier to just stop playing the song than to offend people who may not like its implications. Those that still wish to listen to it, myself included, are free to do so via a multitude of other avenues.

It does seem to me like society at large has been dumbed down to the point where nuance is no longer a thing, and critical thinking, and analysis are no longer applied to popular media.

I think the best response instead of hiding the song from people is to actually educate them on its meaning. Or god forbid people actually do the work themselves. But no, everything has to be safe and sanitized. Can’t have anything challenging anymore.
First off, there's nothing "challenging" about Baby It's Cold Outside. It's a pop song about a guy telling a woman that's it's too cold for her to leave, in the hopes she stays and sleeps with him.

At the time, a song like this was perfectly normal. I'm certainly not saying anyone who enjoys it is a date rapist or something of that nature. That's absurd. But times have changed, so it's easy to see why some may take umbrage (or even offense) at the song in 2018.

But it shouldn't be up to the CBC to "educate" everyone about the song, why it's a product of its time, and how it's a classic that should be enjoyed with some caveats in mind etc etc etc every time it's played. That's a silly expectation. It's much easier (and more logical) to simply not play it anymore.
 
Oct 25, 2017
10,916
0
USA
I made my arguments already. The narrowness of your definition of censorship allows for bureaucrats to run rough-shod over great works of art.

From a google search...

"the suppression or prohibition of any parts of books, films, news, etc. that are considered obscene, politically unacceptable, or a threat to security."

The ACLU essentially says the same thing.

Drilling censorship as a whole down to something being illegal to consume, think about, or make is frankly a scary belief if it is held when the power of the internet, mass media, etc over the beliefs and cultural output of individuals is so large.
What the fuck is being suppressed, prohibited or censored? Literally nothing is changing other than a radio station removing a song from rotation because of their listeners' complaints.

Meanwhile, you're implying free speech should be violated so that ratio stations are forced to play songs against their will, which actually does paint the dystopian picture you described earlier.
 
Last edited:
Oct 26, 2017
3,647
0
Threads like this always bring out the "philosophical free speech" people who conflate every form & act of censorship into one monolithic concept and misconstrue them in ways that imply a singular entity choosing not to platform a specific piece of media is the same as a government body prohibiting - often through force, up to and including violence - its entire populace access to said piece of media.

Excuse me if I don't give a shit
 
Last edited:
Oct 25, 2017
4,074
0
No, they absolutely do not. You are reading it incorrectly. A radio station choosing not to play a song (whether owned by the government or not) is not an act of suppression nor prohibition. It is not destroying copies of the song and outlawing it being played (suppression,) nor is it banning the sale of the song (prohibition.) They simply have decided not to air it on their station. It simply does not meet the definition of censorship, period.

You can still disagree with their decision; that's a perfectly valid stance to take. But you cannot be upset when people rightfully refute your insistence that it is censorship.
It is censorship. It’s why the people who decide on objectionable material are called “censors.”
 
Oct 29, 2017
752
0
I suppose I should state that I'm not necessarily in favour of CBC's decision, but I understand why the song can be seen as problematic. It's likely easier to just stop playing the song than to offend people who may not like its implications. Those that still wish to listen to it, myself included, are free to do so via a multitude of other avenues.



First off, there's nothing "challenging" about Baby It's Cold Outside. It's a pop song about a guy telling a woman that's it's too cold for her to leave, in the hopes she stays and sleeps with him.

At the time, a song like this was perfectly normal. I'm certainly not saying anyone who enjoys it is a date rapist or something of that nature. That's absurd. But times have changed, so it's easy to see why some may take umbrage (or even offense) at the song in 2018.

But it shouldn't be up to the CBC to "educate" everyone about the song, why it's a product of its time, and how it's a classic that should be enjoyed with some caveats in mind etc etc etc every time it's played. That's a silly expectation. It's much easier (and more logical) to simply not play it anymore.
You say it’s not challenging, but apparently it is when the masses dont seem to understand what the song is even about. When I say challenging I mean it in terms of lyrical content and the way it makes someone feel. If you have that kind of reaction to something, maybe it’s worth looking into more, trying to understand what it is. Knee jerk reactions to something that can be misconstrued isn’t good for anybody. Context, and nuance is everything. But no, I guess it’s easier to just cater to people’s complaints and not play it all. This is what I was talking about with dumbing things down. And I agree, they shouldn’t have to educate people, but the people themselves would rather sit in their own innoffensive bubbles, free from anything that challenges their way of thinking.
 
Oct 25, 2017
4,074
0
What the fuck is being suppressed, prohibited or censored? Literally nothing is changing other than a radio station removing a song from rotation because of their listeners' complaints.

Meanwhile, you're implying free speech should be violated so that ratio stations are forced to play songs against their will, which actually does paint the dystopian picture you described earlier.
I am not implying they should be forced to play something. I am saying in this instance they are censoring material they deem objectionable. I believe this is censorship as I would believe radio stations pulling songs with marijuana or LSD references in the 1970s were censoring and limiting the marketability of morally objectionable work.

State-owned and monopolistic corporate radio networks pulling songs are committing censorship if they are doing so as a means of eliminating objectionable material.
 
Oct 25, 2017
10,916
0
USA
I am not implying they should be forced to play something. I am saying in this instance they are censoring material they deem objectionable. I believe this is censorship as I would believe radio stations pulling songs with marijuana or LSD references in the 1970s were censoring and limiting the marketability of morally objectionable work.

State-owned and monopolistic corporate radio networks pulling songs are committing censorship.
By your own provided definition, this is not censorship. You just made my point for me. There is literally no suppression or prohibition.

And you refuse to answer whether CBS should have the right to remove a song from their own radio playlist.
 
Nov 2, 2017
147
0
You say it’s not challenging, but apparently it is when the masses dont seem to understand what the song is even about.
What the song is about is a guy who is told No and then proceeds to keep pushing and pushing because he can't take no for an answer. That's not a misinterpretation, it's literally the basis of the song. And "but despite a clear verbal no, it's clear to the guy that she doesn't really mean it" is just a way to clean up saying "c'mon, she said no but she didn't really mean no".
 
Oct 25, 2017
4,074
0
By your own definition provided, this is not censorship. You just made my point for me. There is literally no suppression or prohibition.
I’m not sure how pulling a work from a mass broadcast playlist due to the objectionable nature of the material as reviewed and recommended by a state owned board is not suppression, but I’m done going down this rabbit-hole.

Pulling music from radio playlists has historically been the means by which music has been censored in the West for a good period of time. It’s also the way by which the works of communists and civil rights dissidents were denied marketability by the state and corporate world.

Your definition is different than mine. I also consider warning labels which prevent wide distribution of works like the parental warning labels milder forms of censorship because they are a means to force artists to conform to the ideological whims of a few bureaucrats.

Someone like Pete Seeger being pulled off a radio playlist because he was a communist who sang about unions is still censorship even if you can buy his works at niche record stores from labels with limited distribution.

Edit: Also, it wasn’t my own definition. It was a simplistic definition pulled from Google. I completely disagree with you on this point.
 
Oct 25, 2017
10,916
0
USA
I’m not sure how pulling a work from a mass broadcast playlist due to the objectionable nature of the material as reviewed and recommended by a state owned board is not suppression, but I’m done going down this rabbit-hole.

Pulling music from radio playlists has historically been the means by which music has been censored in the West for a good period of time. It’s also the way by which the works of communists and civil rights dissidents were denied marketability by the state and corporate world.

Your definition is different than mine. I also consider warning labels which prevent wide distribution of works like the parental warning labels milder forms of censorship because they are a means to force artists to conform to the ideological whims of a few bureaucrats.

Someone like Pete Seeger being pulled off a radio playlist because he was a communist who sang about unions is still censorship even if you can buy his works at niche record stores from labels with limited distribution.

Edit: Also, it wasn’t my own definition. It was a simplistic definition pulled from Google. I completely disagree with you on this point.
Their decision was based off of everyday citizens who voiced concerns. Again, according to the definition you provided, this is absolutely not censorship.

You can't just keep repeating "but it's because it's objectionable!" as your rebuttal and stick your head in the sand when people carefully break down how this particular example has nothing to do with the definition you provided.

No. Removing a song from a playlist is not suppression. It's exercising basic free speech rights.
 
Last edited:

Caz

Community Resettler
Member
Oct 25, 2017
2,793
0
Canada
I'd go one step further and ban all Christmas music in Canada from being played.

Retail is already hell for workers this time of year, there's no need to torture them with "Grandma Got Run Over By a Reindeer" and "Christmas Shoes" on loop.
Somewhat sarcastic. Most Christmas music is bad.
 
Oct 25, 2017
469
0
God yes please



This is the GOAT of xmas songs, but yeah. Whenver you hear it played now, certain words are blanked out. Minnesota Public Radio absolutely loves this song and they play it like 5 times a day after Thanksgiving.
I've never heard it censored, was driving yesterday and it was still uncensored on the radio.
 
Dec 24, 2017
4,764
0
Your definition of censorship is so narrow that you would need a Gestapo-like force to break into your house and burn your LPs and destroy your computer.
One could say your definition is so broad that the station choosing not to play any song is censorship. Every artist they choose not to play is being censored.
 
Oct 25, 2017
4,074
0
One could say your definition is so broad that the station choosing not to play any song is censorship. Every artist they choose not to play is being censored.
Songs that are not played because of objectionable material are in my opinion being censored.

I feel the same way about a radio broadcast network like Entercom deciding not bleep out Howard Stern or remove anti-war songs from their distributed playlists during the Iraq War.
 
Oct 25, 2017
10,916
0
USA
Songs that are not played because of objectionable material are in my opinion being censored.

I feel the same way about a radio broadcast network like Entercom deciding not bleep out Howard Stern or remove anti-war songs from their distributed playlists during the Iraq War.
It's not a matter of opinion when the definition of censorship doesn't match with the context established in the OP. It's not censorship.
 
Oct 27, 2017
192
0
Tn, USA
What the song is about is a guy who is told No and then proceeds to keep pushing and pushing because he can't take no for an answer. That's not a misinterpretation, it's literally the basis of the song. And "but despite a clear verbal no, it's clear to the guy that she doesn't really mean it" is just a way to clean up saying "c'mon, she said no but she didn't really mean no".
Why do you keep pushing that one single interpretation? The guy is only using words. He isn't physically stopping her from leaving, he isn't pushing her towards the bed, he isn't keeping her purse from her. They clearly have an ongoing relationship and this is a part of their routine. Everything about the creation of the actual song, the way it was used, and the intent behind it is playful and consensual. You have to jump through hoops to come up with a sexual assault interpretation by assigning malicious intent to the male and stripping all agency from the female, making her into someone who literally has no desire to be there and no ability to leave.

It is a good tool to use to highlight consent, context, and social dynamics (of the time, anyway) and how they can be misinterpreted, but certainly nothing about the classic versions of this song merit being pulled from the air (the Tom Jones version with a woman in a cage though....yikes).