BBC backs down in bigotry row

The BBC has this week yet again found itself embroiled in a controversy over the use of homophobic language. This time the storm of criticism, from both sides, centers round the use of derogatory words in music lyrics.

The depressing and distinctly un-festive Pogues and Kirsty MacColl Christmas song Fairytale of New York has yet again been re-released in the UK this year.

On Monday, BBC Radio 1 made the decision to censor the words "faggot" and "slut" to 'avoid offence'. In a statement the corporation said:

"We are playing an edited version because some members of the audience might find it offensive."

The BBC has been subject to consistent and strong criticism from Stonewall in recent years, in particular for the decision by the BBC governing body not to censure DJ Chris Moyles for his use of the word “gay” as a form of insult.

The decision to change to censure the song was to me this was a sensible and pragmatic move. I am a libertarian so I am not in favor of any kind of ban or compulsory censorship of language, provided that it does not fall into the category of inciting hatred or violence.

In this case I do not think it can fall into that category however I think broadcasters have a responsibility to society and to their audience – both straight and gay – not to allow these types of words to be featured especially where taking them out clearly has no impact on the artistic integrity of the song. If they were worried about integrity they might take out the reference to the NYPD choir which does not, and never has, existed!!

Unfortunately after criticism from some viewers who claim that this decision was “political correctness gone mad”, BBC Radio 1 has backed down. In my opinion, political correctness should not be a dirty term as it has become. It should be about adapting our behavior and language on occasion to take into account the feelings of others. It should be about politeness and respect, but has now been hijacked by those who use it to label any decision that takes into the account of the views of a minority group.

This is a very sad and depressing decision, and one made worse by the baffling statement from Radio 1 Controller Andy Parfitt said the original decision was "wrong" and,

“Radio 1 does not play homophobic lyrics or condone bullying of any kind. It is not always easy to get this right, mindful of our responsibility to our young audience. The unedited version will be played from now on. While we would never condone prejudice of any kind, we know our audiences are smart enough to distinguish between maliciousness and creative freedom. In the context of this song, I do not feel that there is any negative intent behind the use of the words, hence the reversal of the decision.”

Frankly he is completely wrong. The word is used, along with “maggot” and “slut” with a deliberately negative intent in the song. It may not have been used in a specifically homophobic context but it clearly implies that such language is acceptable and a legitimate form of abuse. It may not be equivalent to some of the patently offensive and inciteful lyrics by some reggae artists but it still uses this deeply painful and abusive term, and every time it is played it becomes more accepted. As the Radio 1 management acknowledges this station has a young audience who may not be able to “distinguish between maliciousness and creative freedom” and think this term is in any way acceptable.

I do not always agree with the gay human rights campaigner Peter Tatchell, but on this occasion I believe he has it spot on in a statement he released this week.

“It is shameful that Radio 1 and other radio and TV stations are willing to play Fairytale of New York with the word faggot included, when they would never tolerate the equivalent racist epithets. It shows that they don't take homophobic language as seriously as racist language. What is needed is a consistent policy covering all bigoted insults, so that anti-Semitic, racist, homophobic, anti-Muslim and sexist lyrics are all treated in the same way.”

This is not an easy subject and I am not comfortable with censorship of any kind. However there are cases where although the inclusion of a word is not directly inciting hatred it helps to make its use more acceptable and inspire hatred in society as a whole. It doesn’t seem a big deal to take it out or any real attack on free speech but simply about updating the song to reflect the norms of public discourse and how this has changed since it was originally released. As Tatchell pointed out I very much doubt the BBC would have capitulated to public pressure in the same way over the use of racist or anti-Semitic language.

The original decision was the right one and an admirable one. Now by backing down the BBC has let down its gay and lesbian viewers and listeners, its employees, and the country as a whole by giving in to a viciferous campaign that I suspect was driven more by underlying prejudice than any genuine desire to protect freedom of speech.

Comments

[Mark Proffit]

It is always an interesting debate about the use of words and language.

I always find a way to test if something is offensive or not is to replace the offensive word with another ethnic group say war veterans, women, indigenous people, disabled people, etc.

This incident in the UK reflects an incident in New Zealand where a women used the word gay to mean crappy. She posted on here Bebo site:

"well work sucks, guyfawkes are coming up, and we have to close @ midnight, which is totally gay.. like the frickn management there"

She was fired from her job over this incident (probably not just this however).

As for political correctness in my opinion once a person reaches for the PC argument they have lost all credibility and have no substantive argument.

[Eddy]

Thanks for your thoughts Mark.

I totally agree and read about the incident in New Zealand recently. It's actually very similar to the use of the word by Radio 1 DJ Chris Moyles to describe a ringtone in a derogatory fashion for which the BBC did not apologize.

I also agree that the "political correctness gone mad" argument is used far too often by those who simply want to defend disrespectful or even abusive behavior.

Happy holidays!

[tony]

So what is next Eddy?

Why not have a go censoring The Merchant of Venice - some insulting stuff about Jews in there - surely some of that should be cut, just so no one gets offended.

After all, that is the world you seem to want to live in - a beige existence where no one is ever shocked, challenged or offended.

Why don't we emulate your idol Thomas Bowdler and reduce all art down to something that will not offend anyone.

Censorship is always wrong.

The decision taken by Radio 1 was laughable - it was not in response to viewer complaints, it was some person with clearly far too much time in their hands fretting about the possible offence that has never been caused.

You seem to have little understanding of the context in which the word was used.

The difference between a DJ and a record should be blindingly obvious to anyone.

Chris Moyles is an employee and representative of the BBC.

The Pogues are artists and free to express themselves any way they want.

If the BBC do not like their songs, they should just not play them.

Trying to bleep out a word or two is a ridiculous way to behave.

Oh, and BBC Radio 2 were going to continue playing the song without any alterations.

[Eddy]

Hi Tony

I do sympathize with your point of view given that I am a libertarian, and as such find censorship a very difficult subject to deal with sometimes.

My instinct is that free speech is paramount but I wish it were that simple.

I presume you would accept that lyrics that incite homophobic violence are not acceptable. If not, then you clearly think that anything goes and I respect that stance.

I agree that this use of the word "faggot" is used in a different context but it is still, contrary to what Radio 1 say, used as a term of abuse in the song.

Would the BBC accept similarly abusive derogatory terms for other minority groups on the basis of artistic freedom? I very much doubt it.

I do not think the BBC should be forced to censor this word, I just think it has a responsibility to self-censor to respect its audience who are young and may not be able to make the distinction based on the context. I understand the argument that it's use was in a hibernian dialect meaning something else and not referring to sexuality but i think that will be lost of most listeners.

Do you think it is acceptable for someone to shout "faggot" at someone in the street? What if someone argued that they didn't mean it in a homophobic way, would that be ok?

Although Radio 2 has played it unedited, other broadcasters have decided to take the option of removing it including MTV.

For me this is not about censorship it is about moving on as a society and deciding that certain words and certain actions are unacceptable whatever their context. They should not be banned full stop but those who use them or passively condone them should be critized for doing so.

I struggle with this issue and I appreciate your perspective. I wish i could take a purely libertarian position but I reluctantly felt unable to do so.

Eddy