A Hit Song on YouTube, Unnameable on the Radio(nytimes.com)
nytimes.com
A Hit Song on YouTube, Unnameable on the Radio
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/30/business/media/30link.html?_r=1&src=twr
31 comments
Sometimes the shock value is gone but it really has to do with context.
The song is rather light and poppy but the way 'fuck you' is put in there is meant to be offensive and that is when the shock value still exists.
If you stub your toe and curse it really isn't shocking but when you fight with someone and start yelling expletives it can be shocking and offensive. However I don't see context based censorship happening anytime soon and it is easier just to police a list of banned words and let the new media shine otherwise.
The song is rather light and poppy but the way 'fuck you' is put in there is meant to be offensive and that is when the shock value still exists.
If you stub your toe and curse it really isn't shocking but when you fight with someone and start yelling expletives it can be shocking and offensive. However I don't see context based censorship happening anytime soon and it is easier just to police a list of banned words and let the new media shine otherwise.
I think you have to censor for kids - eg don't play it uncensored in public places.
For a good laugh though checkout "Uzi Lover":
Lyrics - "C@nt! B@tch! C@nt! B@tch! Motherf@cker!" - "Shove it up her motherf@cking ass and fry it"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1sxZ4tsp8gc
(From 'The Day Today' spoof TV series)
For a good laugh though checkout "Uzi Lover":
Lyrics - "C@nt! B@tch! C@nt! B@tch! Motherf@cker!" - "Shove it up her motherf@cking ass and fry it"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1sxZ4tsp8gc
(From 'The Day Today' spoof TV series)
Ignoring what one considers appropriate for children, I personally just find them to be incredibly ugly sounding words, and I generally don't enjoy being around people who can't speak without using them. So regardless of what the FCC will choose to censor, I for one just wouldn't listen to a radio station that made a habit of broadcasting it.
Sure, but it's not like censoring radio and television will keep children from hearing and/or using them. In fact, I'd wager to say they don't even play a role. Back when I was a little kid, swearwords came from older children, and were often far worse than the ones mentioned here.
I'm with you on not finding people who can't speak without using swearwords to be intolerable, but when used to express emotion (such as in this song), I don't mind it at all.
I'm with you on not finding people who can't speak without using swearwords to be intolerable, but when used to express emotion (such as in this song), I don't mind it at all.
> In fact, I'd wager to say they don't even play a role.
As someone wearing black tight skinny jeans, I'd go one step further and say that it plays a very important role: by being 'taboo,' curse words enable adolescent rebellion, and cause kids to use them _more_.
See also smoking, drinking, and drugs.
As someone wearing black tight skinny jeans, I'd go one step further and say that it plays a very important role: by being 'taboo,' curse words enable adolescent rebellion, and cause kids to use them _more_.
See also smoking, drinking, and drugs.
We need words whose underlying connotation is 'not allowed to say this'. So censoring 'fuck' doesn't indicate a dislike for it -- but a respect for its special role.
It's like not listening to a favorite song so much that it becomes commonplace to your ears.
You don't want to steal from children their first chance to shock someone with a 'fuck you', do you? Think of the children!
It's like not listening to a favorite song so much that it becomes commonplace to your ears.
You don't want to steal from children their first chance to shock someone with a 'fuck you', do you? Think of the children!
In a wonderful illustration of the article's thesis, the song is also unnameable in the New York Times -- even as a matter of record. Fortunately Wikipedia has no such inhibition, so historians won't need to guess at the song title. :)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Profanity
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Profanity
They should have printed the word. It's critical to understanding the story.
This is the same mistake they made when Cheney said "Fuck yourself." They danced around the word, calling it, "An obscene phrase to describe what he thought Mr. Leahy should do." Readers can only clearly judge the offensiveness of the phrases by seeing them written.
The Washington Post decided to print the word in the Cheney case. I bet they'd seriously consider printing the song title, if they don't decide that pop culture and radio freedom are less newsworthy than vice presidential asides.
This is the same mistake they made when Cheney said "Fuck yourself." They danced around the word, calling it, "An obscene phrase to describe what he thought Mr. Leahy should do." Readers can only clearly judge the offensiveness of the phrases by seeing them written.
The Washington Post decided to print the word in the Cheney case. I bet they'd seriously consider printing the song title, if they don't decide that pop culture and radio freedom are less newsworthy than vice presidential asides.
You can also look over the NYTimes archives for an inconsistent treatment of the word that has replaced 'fuck' as the ultimate obscenity -- the 'n-word'. Sometimes when it's part of the story, they quote it; other times (and increasingly in recent years), they use indirect euphemisms, as I have here.
Youtube Song Link http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CAV0XrbEwNc&has_verified=...
"This video contains content from WMG. It is no longer available in your country."
Not a great track IMHO. If it wasn't called "fuck you" I don't expect many people would care about it.
And really why is this on HN?
And really why is this on HN?
I agree that it's very middle of the road, but people like that.
As to why this is on HN? If you don't think it should be here, click "flag" just below the headline.
As to why this is on HN? If you don't think it should be here, click "flag" just below the headline.
It's on HN because someone submitted it, and other users have subsequently upvoted it enough for it to make the main page.
It's not a novel name - Lily Allen, for example http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yFE6qQ3ySXE&ob=av3n
Personally, though I'm not generally one for profanity I quite like it. I'd be unhappy to hear it playing in public though.
Personally, though I'm not generally one for profanity I quite like it. I'd be unhappy to hear it playing in public though.
This is going to happen more and more as media moves online.
Are the FTC going to try and prevent Youtube from hosting this kind of content? Or have we broken the stranglehold of government censorship?
Are the FTC going to try and prevent Youtube from hosting this kind of content? Or have we broken the stranglehold of government censorship?
I would not think the FTC would try to do such a thing. Its more a reflection on how held back our radio and TV content really is.
The one isn't necessarily mutually exclusive with the other: media has been held back, but that won't necessarily stop the FTC (or some other part of the government) from getting involved in other media.
I hope you're right that the FTC won't, but I don't believe it.
I hope you're right that the FTC won't, but I don't believe it.
I tend to agree.
The question, then, is whether TV companies will use this as an excuse to pressure the FTC into letting them use the same content.
The question, then, is whether TV companies will use this as an excuse to pressure the FTC into letting them use the same content.
Have a listen to http://www.abc.net.au/triplej/ (Live feed: http://abc.net.au/streaming/triplej/triplej.m3u )
An Australian government funded (no advertising at all) radio station with no limits on content or language.
An Australian government funded (no advertising at all) radio station with no limits on content or language.
Back in college, I used to help out with a friend's radio show. It was a late night heavy metal show, once a week. One of the songs we liked to play was by a thrash band called "Overkill", a song entitled "Fuck You" [1].
The funny thing was that while we were allowed to play the song itself, we were not allowed to announce its name.
[1] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tAkaN3-v01A
The funny thing was that while we were allowed to play the song itself, we were not allowed to announce its name.
[1] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tAkaN3-v01A
Whatever. I really like this song. And not 'cos it's named "Fuck you" (i am not native and can't hear this easily), but 'cos of nice music and funny voice =)
I always love reading these types of stories. The NYT has taken the art of dancing around obvious vulgarity to another level.
IMO, this is another nail in the coffin for FM radio, this song is very playable on Sirius/XM.
Some of Sirius' content is still censored. Hits 1 (their Top 40 channeL) definitely is, and I'm guessing some of their other contemporary channels are as well. The R&B / Hip Hop channels are not.
Correct, but they do this to create "family friendly" stations. Other stations play the same songs uncensored. This is different than being forced to censor/edit songs because of FCC rules.
The song, and the video are great by the way, and the distribution a perfect example of why the internet works so well. It's also great to sing along to. Loudly.
Edit. This song has had some fun 'remixes' too, check out Dirty Dancing: http://vimeo.com/14363611