Escaping the Echo Chamber

[elengil]

And I am refusing to use the term because it is grossly inaccurate.

[Alatar]

This may seem like a stretch, but I feel like this is similar in ways to Laura Ingalls Wilder being removed from the childrens book award for having opinions congruent with her time. Would people be in favour of removing her books from public libraries? In many ways, radio stations are like public libraries, and removing songs from rotation is the same as censorship surely?

[elengil]

If a radio was the only place to hear a song I may be more inclined to agree, but that hasn't been the case for some time. No, not playing a song on your radio station is not tantamount to censorship.

eta: Until a radio station starts receiving FCC fines for playing the song, I cannot consider it 'banned'. It is the station's choice what to play.

[Alatar]

To rephrase the question so that its not about the semantics of the words "censorship" and "banning", would you see an equivalence in removing songs from radio and removing books from libraries? You can still buy the books. You can still hear the songs. But something fundamental has changed.

[yovargas]

The better comparison would be to a bookstore deciding not to sell a book, since bookstores and radio stations are both private entities.

[Alatar]

Then lets take that example. What if all book stores felt under pressure to remove Laura Ingalls Wilders books off the shelves? Or Tom Sawyer and Huckleberry Finn?

Would that be acceptable? Or lets say they didn't feel under pressure. They just unilaterally decided that depictions of racism had no place on their shelves in an enlightened world?

What if Theatres felt they couldn't perform Showboat, or South Pacific? TV Networks would no longer show Gone with the Wind?

[elengil]

would you see an equivalence in removing songs from radio and removing books from libraries?

I'm not sure I would. What library has every book in existence to begin with? If it was removed from the Library of Congress or something, I could see that being a problem. But just any given average library? They still have to pick and choose what they carry - they only have so much room. They only have so much budget.

I see a difference between a private entity choosing what - of a nearly unlimited selection of possibilities - they will and won't play, or carry, or offer -
And someone interfering with someone else's ability to access that same content.

A radio station can decide not to play any song for any reason. That isn't censorship, that isn't being banned.
If "radio" was a conglomerate that decided what songs got made to begin with, that might be censorship.
If you, a private radio owner, were being legally prevented from playing the song, that I would have definite problems with.


But consider what else happened just recently: Tumblr decided to no longer host any content of an overtly adult nature. Basically, they removed porn from Tumblr pages, and they can do that because they are a private company and can decide what content they will or will not host.
But no one is running around talking about porn being banned now.

That is exactly the same thing.

Some radio stations - probably not even all of them! - decided to no longer play a song. That is not the equivalent of that song being banned, because that song is still easily and mostly freely accessible.

Tumblr decides to no longer allow adult content. That is not equivalent to porn being banned because porn is, largely, still easily and mostly freely accessible.

A book by its nature is already not necessarily 'freely' accessible. A song is a few minutes long, porn is a simple as an image. A book takes more involvement from the consumer to enjoy it. No matter what form it is presented in, it takes time to consume it. So we already don't have largely unlimited and free access to books. We have libraries that carry an already excessively limited selection of books, and if you happen to live in a jurisdiction where it is paid out of taxes it is largely free to you. But not everyone has a local library or library card, and books largely are not freely accessible on another platform. I can't get any movie ever made on Netflix - but that still isn't censorship, even if they remove a movie that was previously available. Not censorship.

However, books and music and movies as well are already highly 'censored' in a way, in that most is produced by a small selection of companies who control almost all content. While there are options to self-publish, these will not receive any kind of publisher-backed advertisement or promotion to reach wide audiences.

The censorship I worry about is not when a radio station refuses to play a specific song because of that song's real or perceived content. Rather, I worry about when the general public is denied entire swaths of potential content because the few gatekeepers of that content refuses to consider the work. The censorship I worry about is if (or when) the FCC decides what a station is allowed or not allowed to play (beeping for swear-words aside). When the FCC becomes the sole arbiter of what the public is allowed to access. When the FCC starts to ban content on youtube and such, then we have a problem.

Radio station not playing a song? That's called every single day that radio stations decide what to play and what not to play. That isn't even news.

[yovargas]

Radio station not playing a song? That's called every single day that radio stations decide what to play and what not to play. That isn't even news.

To be fair to Al's point, it's not every day that radio stops playing, or bookstores stop selling, previously common and popular content because the content is no longer seen as appropriate. That is fairly rare and is surely worth discussing.

[elengil]

Then lets take that example. What if all book stores felt under pressure to remove Laura Ingalls Wilders books off the shelves? Or Tom Sawyer and Huckleberry Finn?

Would that be acceptable? Or lets say they didn't feel under pressure. They just unilaterally decided that depictions of racism had no place on their shelves in an enlightened world?

What if Theatres felt they couldn't perform Showboat, or South Pacific? TV Networks would no longer show Gone with the Wind?

We already have banned books. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_b ... overnments Search for "United States" - there are several books that have been banned in various cities or the US as a whole in our history. In high school we had banned books week where books that had been banned somewhere were put on a special shelf to encourage people to read them. If you want to start a 'banned song list' and encourage people to listen to them, that is absolutely your right to do so, and likely you will receive much support for such an endeavor.

When the government decides what you can't consume is when it becomes censorship. When private entities decide what they will not provide, that's called individual rights.

[elengil]

Radio station not playing a song? That's called every single day that radio stations decide what to play and what not to play. That isn't even news.

To be fair to Al's point, it's not every day that radio stops playing, or bookstores stop selling, previously common and popular content because the content is no longer seen as appropriate. That is fairly rare and is surely worth discussing.

I am not really dismissing that point, I was more trying to make the larger point that simply not playing any given song is what radio stations do. Yes, when it happens as a result of social changes or pressures and it becomes a big 'to-do' that "this specific" song is not being played for "this specific" reason it is worth discussing. Indeed it is being discussed! I am just trying to point out that the act of not playing a song is not itself censorship or tantamount to a song being 'banned', whatever the reason for the choice.

[Alatar]

Which is why I tried to steer away from the semantics about the word choice, and talk about the actual issue...

[elengil]

Which is why I tried to steer away from the semantics about the word choice, and talk about the actual issue...

I feel I'm doing that. Do you disagree?

[Alatar]

Well, I feel you're still talking about banning and censorship as absolutes. I'm referring to societal pressure to limit access to something based on perceived (or real) content. And whether that is a good thing or not. (Obviously I think not)

[elengil]

Well, I feel you're still talking about banning and censorship as absolutes. I'm referring to societal pressure to limit access to something based on perceived (or real) content. And whether that is a good thing or not. (Obviously I think not)

And I kinda feel you must have glossed over much of what I wrote to come away with that opinion.

I do not feel that private entities choosing what content to offer is any kind of limitation of access to said content. That content is still easily and, largely, freely available to the public, whether any given radio station chooses to play it or not. It sounds as if one radio station actually chose not to play the song despite public support for the song, so I disagree this is entirely about public pressure to limit access.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

If a bookstore chose not to sellHuckleberry Finn that would certainly be their choice, but in making that choice they would surely take into consideration the fact that it is a book of major cultural and artistic importance. Radio stations deciding whether or not to play the song in question could also take into account the level of cultural and artistic importance of the song. Your mileage may vary, but in my opinion the two aren't even worth comparing as to their levels of cultural or artistic importance.

[yovargas]

A good point, V-man. Another big difference between books and radio songs is that books can include introductions to explain and clarify and examine things like cultural context. A song you hear while walking around the mall can't really do that.

[Túrin Turambar]

This. Also, a radio station can only play one song at a time, so they need to decide what to play and what to exclude to fill any given timeslot. A better comparison, to me, would be between a library refusing to carry a book and a music streaming service or digital music store refusing to sell a song.

I'm simply not too worried that some radio stations have decided that the objectionable content in a particular song outweighs its artistic merit and therefore decide to use their limited 24 hours in a day to play something else.

[Frelga]

What I find disturbing is that there are no radio stations left playing the music from 40s and 50s on the dial around here. The "oldies" start in the 1970s, which I find insulting on the personal level. Does that count as censorship?

[elengil]

You have to go AM stations to get those up in this area, but they do still play them. I know this because my uncle still listens to them

The "oldies" start in the 1970s, which I find insulting on the personal level.

Agreed!

[Frelga]

The one AM radio station that bills itself as oldies is 60s and 70s. I want my Sinatra!