I think CBS has a right to do whatever they want and ask for whatever they want and behave how ever they damn well please.
And I’ll stand and cheer every artist that speaks out anyway.
Pats Beagle on his sleek little head.
He’s right. I’ve been to a couple of awards shows in NYC and they run like a well-timed clock. Well, a clock with dozens of stagehands scrambling silently just out of camera range. There are directors and dancers and musicians (the show’s own band) who have to be told when and where to perform. It’s all sort of flexible but there does come a cutoff. They have them scheduled for 3 1/2 hours, and much more than that and you’re talking serious overruns in salaries and equipment.
Would you be the artist who’s willing to be ‘It Ain’t Nothing but the Blues?’
The Tony Awards of 1999 let some honorees and applause for musical numbers ramble on a bit and it caught up with them. This delightful little Broadway revue was the last of the new musicals scheduled to do its bit, and it got pushed out because of time. It was devastating to the cast and to its budget, as shows pay to get on.
Now, I’m not saying that the big nominees will suffer financially, of course, but if winners are allowed to give longer speeches either they’ll get their antiwar segments on the air or their folks will go un-thanked. The band will be forced to pay over the ends of their speeches and we’ll end up with dozens of Elaine Stritches, one after the other. Feh.
If they must protest the war or whatever, I think those who want to should wear a button or ribbon that will say what they want instantly and silently and will not interfere with their alloted time nor expose the–uhm–less articulate folks to widespread derision and parody the next day 
**
But doing it on someone else’s money is cowardly and rude and, IMO ineffective.
These doofuses have the means to get whatever drivel they want out: they could take out ads (and many have) they could buy a half-hour of prime time on one or all of the major networks. They could hire skywriters. Or, to be more sensitive, hire Native Americans to send up smoke signals with their message.
But no. Somehow, these morons have the idea that just because they think they have something to say, everyone wants to them at all times, even when it’s clear that their hosts don’t want them to. I would admire these people for their guts (if not their specific opinions) if they’d say "Fine. I won’t come to the Grammys. You need me more than I need you. (Which is true. What’s an awards show without a bunch of pretentious celebrities preening for the camera?) But if they come under (overstatement alert!) false pretenses, intending to pontificate, they’re just chickenshits who want the best of both worlds: the free glamor and publicity that CBS is giving 'em without following the rules that CBS sets.
I don’t watch the Grammys, but I do (did) watch the Tonys up until the point where it became one drooling moron after another trying to show that they were politically aware. To be frank, when I’m watching an awards show, I don’t give a monkey’s ass how politically aware someone is.
Apparently I’m in the majority as the last two years, the Tonys people have been stomping on these “Every word I say is a precious gem!” prima-donnas in a particularly classy way: When celebrity can’t shut the hell up, they start playing music louder anD LOUDER AND LOUDER until the celeb. shuts up and goes away. It’s really really hard to pontificate when you have to scream to do it. And it makes 'em look look silly (an added bonus!)
And again, as others have said: the freedom of speech ONLY means that congress* can’t abridge your freedom. When you’re on someone’s property, they certainly can control what you’re allowed to say.
**
Exactly. It’s the Chicago Reader’s server. It is in no way an abridgement of my freedom of speech that they’d ban my hairy bitt* in a microsecond if I started a thread about oh, say…“Why Clinton (or Bush) was a fucking asshole for not publishing info about how to use file sharing programs to get recipes on how to make drugs and guidelines to score prostitutes for underage kids: with tips for the reader on how to do both!” in GQ.
Fenris
Not my hairy butt as such, mind you. I’m far to beloved and cute to ban.*
**And if you believe that…
Give the man a prize! I just might be tempted to watch to see some jackass get cutoff for “bucking the system”. I would not have been otherwise tempted in the least. No interest in the Grammys themselves whatsoever. Britney and N’Synch! Oh Boy!
Oh yeah, it isn’t a freedom of speech thing. They can say what they want. CBS can play what they want. Sounds like a free country to me.
:wally
On preview: Fenris, if you ever get banned then the terrorists will have already won.
And, yeah. What you said.
Tonight on FOX
CELEBRITY SOAPBOX
Random minor celebrities will espouse random radical political ideologies and you, the viewer, gets to vote. Winning celbrity gets to sing the National Anthem at a spoting venue of the viewers’ choice.
Amen to that.
I don’t give a fuck what CBS can do. The New York Times is allowed to prevent anyone from running an anti-government editorial if they want but they don’t. And CBS shouldn’t prevent politcal commentary just because they don’t like it. I hope every single artist says something political and fucks up their broadcast big time. Fucking arseholes.
Lib, I would have thought you of all people would recognize that the Grammy organizers have every right to control what goes on on their show. Freedom of the press belongs to the owner of the press. It is hardly the death-knell for free expression when a private enterprise elects to prevent others from using their platform to air political grievances.
If you want a politics-infused awards show, you are free to start one. If people like that better than the pablum at the Grammys, you will get higher ratings, more advertising dollars, and can justifiably shout “neener neener” at the Grammy people all day long. If they don’t, then you won’t and can’t. Either way, the market will render its judgment.
This has nothing to do with what CBS does or doesn’t like. It has everything to do with catering to audience expectations.
The NYT op-ed page, unsuprisingly, caters to people who like to read various opinions on world affairs. Preventing political commentary on the op-ed page would pretty much defeat the purpose of that page, and the Times would lose readers – and revenue – as a result. The Times doesn’t provide an op-ed page out of the goodness of its heart; it provides the op-ed page because it’s part of what its readership wishes to buy.
The Grammy awards cater to people who like listening to watered-down top 40 crap. The Grammy people clearly think that a politics-heavy show would take away from what their audience is tuning in for, namely shitty popular music, and that thus they will lose a chunk of their audience, and thus ratings, and thus advertising moolah. That decision, though arguable, is entirely justifiable.
On a side note, anyone think that Richard Gere’s lack of Oscar nomination has anything to do with his “Free Tibet” obsession?
Personally, I think he’s got a snowball’s chance in hell of ever being nominated again.
Sometimes you should just gracefully accept your award and sit down.
Better idea: model this on the new ABC show. Call it “Am I Stupid or Not?”
Panel consists of Michael Kinsley, Bill Kristol, Christopher Hitchens and Dennis Miller (if time travel is ever perfected, swap in a young William F. Buckley somewhere in there). Celebrity goes out, makes brief political statement. Panel proceeds to tear statement apart. Panel votes on stupidity of statement. Next celebrity comes up.
I’d watch it.
Now back on to the topic. The OP is correct. Not allowing the participants to use the stage as an anti-war demonstration is a form of censorship. Censorship is quite common in the television industry and it should really come as little surprise to the OPer. It is neither illegal nor unethical.
If Madonna wants to say “fuck” 45 times on the Late Show, CBS will censor it by either not airing it at all or by airing it with bleeps. If Elvis wants to gyrate his pelvis, NBC is well within its rights to only air footage from his torso up. And if Vanessa Redgrave wants to use the platform of an awards show to spew on about her political cause, you can expect to be taken to a commercial break.
The networks have no obligation, either legally or ethically, to air everything that is said on one of their programs in the name of “free speech.” Quite the contrary. They are under an OBLIGATION, imposed by the FCC and enforced by a hefty fine or a loss of their license, to edit out offensive material.
Sure they do. Try sending in an editorial explaining in detail how you’ve heard from the moon-men that Bush and Clinton are both evil clone twins of Dolly Parton’s brother and see how far you get.
I assume they’ve even pulled regular columnists’ columns if they truly oppsed the content (most papers have, abeit rarely)
Do you know how many crackpot letters and home-made editorials they must get a day? (I don’t, but I’d guess it’s in the thousands). They prevent a ton of people from being heard.
Once again: freedom of speech/the press has NOTHING to do with giving people a platform to speak, it has to do with forbidding government from stopping someone from speaking.
Fenris
And once again, I am not arguing the networks right to do it, I am simply calling them tools for doing it.
Dewey wrote:
You would have thought rightly. But I didn’t say anything about the Grammy organizers or their rights.
Lib: Yeah, but you agreed with Diogenes’ sentiment. Given the context, it sure as heck sounds like you’re agreeing that private-sector actions can represent a reduction in the availability of free expression, and that this is in toto a bad thing. Maybe I’m reading too much into your “amen;” I’m just surprised – I’d have thought you’d be arguing that we are more free because we let property owners do with their fora as they see fit.
I think that CBS has guaranteed that there will be a number of political statements made during the Grammys and these statements will take a number of forms, some vocal, and some visual.
Dewey
Despite whatever you might think it “sounds like”, I agreed with the sentiment that I expressed agreement with, namely, that “the rumors of free expression in America are greatly exaggerated”. It was a one line reply to a one line post. Stop being such a dickhead. Please. If at all possible.
FWIW, Lib, you’re overreacting. I had exactly the same reaction as Dewey. When I read your comment I wondered if someone had gotten your password.
Fenris
Just a suggestion: All those who are offended by CBS’ stance should boycott CBS’ programming.
Also, if the performing artists – and I use this term loosely – are really pissed off, they can always refuse to attend the show and not accept their Grammys.
Frankly, I agree with Diogenes’ assessment of the Grammy Awards. I have not watched this shameful show since A Taste of Honey won a Grammy over Elvis Costello. The whole thing is a waste of time.
Damn you, Truth Seeker, they about threw me out of here for breaking out in laughter. 