Censorship On The Rise?
August 23, 2005 5:11 AM   Subscribe

MTV CENSORED for Taking a Political Stand - As if attempting to shut down PBS for not "towing the party line" wasn't enough, MTV is now being censored for running this ad (PowerPoint). Censoring Printed Material is also on the rise as in the case of Norman Finkelstein's book, as well as the ongoing and strange saga of Ernst Zundel. All of this just makes me wonder - what they are so afraid of?
posted by GrooveJedi (35 comments total)

This post was deleted for the following reason: smells like a hoax



 
Just out of curiosity, were those actual shots from 9/11, or digital manipulations?
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 5:21 AM on August 23, 2005


"The government intervened and pulled it off the air." What part of "the government?" How?

"Unlike print, broadcast media both radio and television must pay and be approved by the Federal Communications Commission, (FCC) to receive a license."

But MTV is a cable channel, so it doesn't.

I don't believe it.
posted by grouse at 5:29 AM on August 23, 2005


What the shit? Poorly-written, holocaust-denying, homophobic kooky link farm site on the front page?
posted by sohcahtoa at 5:31 AM on August 23, 2005


Hey thanks for shooting the messenger, buddy! Much appreciated!

Anyone have anything to say about the ad being pulled?
posted by GrooveJedi at 5:35 AM on August 23, 2005


Can any MeFi residents confirm whether this is just yet-another viral marketing attempt or was the ad, in fact, censored (i.e. did you see the ad with your *own* eyes the one time it was supposedly aired) ? I did a Google News search (they do index ~4500 news sources) and it came up with bupkis.
posted by hrbrmstr at 5:35 AM on August 23, 2005


I distrust any source that puts "Holocaust denial" in scare quotes, and cites Ernst Zundel as an example of a victim of censorship.
posted by mcwetboy at 5:38 AM on August 23, 2005


I, too, am a tad skeptical about the MTV ad. As grouse points out, MTV is a cable channel and not subject to FCC license approval. And, while the point of the ad (uniting to fight AIDS and poverty) is a good one, I have a hard time believing MTV would juxtapoze those needs against the backdrop of 9-11. Their promotions people are way too sharp to do that.
~insert escape door for use when someone proves it's a real ad~
posted by Thorzdad at 5:39 AM on August 23, 2005


Anyone have anything to say about the ad being pulled?

Some schizophrenic on the Internet said The Government censored it, so that's good enough for me. Obviously it really happened and everyone who questions the reliability of this report is with THEM!

Documentation is for suckers who are afraid to panic.
posted by Mayor Curley at 5:39 AM on August 23, 2005


If Ernst Zunderl's story is not censorship, what would you call it?
posted by GrooveJedi at 5:40 AM on August 23, 2005


Here is the last item on the website which is apparently the only source for the "MTV ad censored" claim:

The German Holocaust is one of eight holocausts during the twentieth century, neither the largest, deadliest nor longest. The largest goes to the 100 million, predominantly Christians, killed for Communism in Russia between 1916 through Stalin's reign. The longest started in 1946 and continues today in Palestine with unwavering US support.
posted by Eyebeams at 5:45 AM on August 23, 2005


Neo-Nazi propaganda. Hate literature. I suspect, however, that someone with GrooveJedi's posting history wouldn't have a problem with that.
posted by mcwetboy at 5:47 AM on August 23, 2005


GrooveJedi, sounds like you're out to prove a point. In that regard, careful with Zundel. Holocaust denial is pretty fringe and reeks of antisemitism. Surely there are more mainline examples of recent censorship?
posted by moonbird at 5:47 AM on August 23, 2005


Yeah, I call bullshit. I took a look at the MTV website, and there wasn't anything mentioned. (Jesus fuck, what a vapid site! You will lose 15 IQ points at best; at the worst, you'll feel terribly, terribly old.)

Too bad, really. While I detest anything having to do with censorship, I really, really wanted to watch Dios explain how it was not only on the up-and-up but perfectly okay. Sigh.
posted by John of Michigan at 5:48 AM on August 23, 2005


These look like print ads. They'd be too high res to be readable on TV. BTW, here's a PDF version for the PowerPointless.
posted by zsazsa at 5:48 AM on August 23, 2005


Certainly the image of the WTC on fire is a profanity, but maybe the White House has trademarked it as part of the "fight them over in Iraq so we don't have to fight them over here" marketing campaign. Using the image for such crass purposes as highlighting poverty in America is just not in the spirit of how the trademark is to be used.
posted by three blind mice at 5:50 AM on August 23, 2005


I too searched but the only "confirmation" is through links that go back to the story as posted. The ad itself looks like a viable PSA for print media--but because of the sensitivity of the deaths from the attacks on the WTC, I can see why Viacom would not run it on MTV.

Here's a little blip that makes me think that the censorship--that is, government suppression--did not happen. The death totals are expressed in European notation rather than US notation and the numbers are lower than commonly expressed in America.

Many people confuse a corporation's decision not to run something with censorship, an official governmental act that happens quite infrequently. Not that the party in power doesn't influence what makes it to the people, but corporations are all too willing to gag themselves without much provocation.

Finally, the posted material loses all credibility when it tries to tie the putative MTV censorship with the batshit loony holocaust deniers, whose cases are related to the MTV event how?

Reminds me of the meme that says that the Pentagon wasn't struck by a plane. Pure guano.
posted by beelzbubba at 5:50 AM on August 23, 2005


cites Ernst Zundel as an example of a victim of censorship.

Not my favourite guy, but he was deported on a security certificate. That's bullshit.
posted by dreamsign at 5:54 AM on August 23, 2005


Also from that website - a claim that there were no Iraqi troops in Kuwait in 1990 (or at least, not on the Saudi border) - the U.S. tricked the saudis into supporting the first Iraq war.

http://www.couplescompany.com/Features/Politics/2004/ChristianExtremists.htm

And a retelling of the story that Netanyahu was warned before 9/11 to stay away from the Twin Towers.

http://www.couplescompany.com/Features/Politics/london.htm

I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that the story about the MTV ad being censored is less than reliable.
posted by Eyebeams at 5:57 AM on August 23, 2005


I'm suspicious that the only record of the supposed ad is a PowerPoint presentation. Wouldn't the advertisement have been preserved as a video file?
posted by sotonohito at 5:59 AM on August 23, 2005


Yeah, that's not a TV ad. It would be unreadable at NTSC resolution (hell, it's unreadable at the resolution of the PDF), and it's the wrong aspect ratio.
posted by mr_roboto at 5:59 AM on August 23, 2005


I wonder... if this thread will get deleted, will it be added to GrooveJedi's list of censored things?
posted by crunchland at 6:00 AM on August 23, 2005


Yeah, the website/article is a *wee* bit slanted, but that ad fucking floored me: it's pretty much everything I felt after 9/11 and got my ass verbally kicked for expressing, and it's taken THIS long to (almost) make mainstream media?

I too would like more information on who exactly pulled this ad and why--it seems people afraid of losing money are more likely culprits than the government. And why PowerPoint?

What the shit? Poorly-written, holocaust-denying, homophobic kooky link farm site on the front page?
posted by sohcahtoa at 5:31 AM PST on August 23 [!]


Dude, simmer down. Think clearly, now tell me: HOW was the article homophobic & holocaust-denying? The article at the very least let me in on some iffy situations I need to research more--Great post, GrooveJedi!
posted by ibeji at 6:01 AM on August 23, 2005


I found this link from News24, I don't read them at all. I mined it from this search.

Looking at some of the results I think this has been propagated via email, and somebody picked it up and just ran with it. Not very convincing.
posted by gsb at 6:02 AM on August 23, 2005


Mcwetboy - thank you. Your post and link explain a lot.
posted by Eyebeams at 6:05 AM on August 23, 2005


Wow, it doesn't even matter anymore how real the ad is--everyone's response to it is teaching me volumes.
posted by ibeji at 6:06 AM on August 23, 2005


LOL at Ibeji.

Sorry, but it DOES matter.
posted by Eyebeams at 6:10 AM on August 23, 2005


Previously on MetaFilter, GrooveJedi has argued that Ariel Sharon created Hamas, that the WTC was brought down by controlled demolition and it's related to an Israeli shipping company breaking its lease (see also here and many other points in that thread where controlled demolition = Israeli conspiracy theory), and lots of other fun things. He's unabashedly anti-Israeli, which isn't the same as anti-Semitism, to be sure, but, you know, the credulous response to conspiracy theories and that Zundel thing isn't helping his credibility.

Now, I think these opinions are nutty, but, make no mistake, GrooveJedi has a right to express them. And the best response to opposing, offensive or just plain nutty views is not to try to silence them, but to point them out, challenge them, criticize them, and/or laugh uproariously at them, as appropriate.

HOW was the article homophobic & holocaust-denying?

Because it made martyrs of homophobes and Holocaust deniers. QED.

Wow, it doesn't even matter anymore how real the ad is--everyone's response to it is teaching me volumes.

The trustworthiness of your sources matters. Otherwise you could cite your crazy aunt in your physics paper.
posted by mcwetboy at 6:12 AM on August 23, 2005


It's a doggie-dog world, and sometimes you just gotta tow the line, for all intensive purposes.
posted by Turtles all the way down at 6:17 AM on August 23, 2005


"... for all intensive purposes."

Ahem.
posted by grabbingsand at 6:27 AM on August 23, 2005


The credibility of this site is seriously in question in my mind:
Americans do not know enough to mistrust the issuer of our money. They have been trained to trust those who issue their dollars. The coins and bills they hold contain the now lost motto, "IN GOD WE TRUST." But like the bracelets in Gaza City, the dollar was once made of precious metals. It was worthy of trust. If we practiced "In God We Trust," we would do as the man in Gaza City does.
posted by boo_radley at 6:28 AM on August 23, 2005


To GrooveJedi - Do you have any other sources or support for this story, yes or no?
posted by Eyebeams at 6:29 AM on August 23, 2005


Dog eat dog?

*pileonfilter*
posted by cavalier at 6:29 AM on August 23, 2005


This is just a hoax, and not even a good one.
posted by caddis at 6:31 AM on August 23, 2005


"Wow, it doesn't even matter anymore how real the ad is--everyone's response to it is teaching me volumes.

The trustworthiness of your sources matters. Otherwise you could cite your crazy aunt in your physics paper.
posted by mcwetboy at 6:12 AM PST on August 23 [!]"

mcwetboy, I absolutely agree. I don't think anyone is saying the source is trustworthy; the existence of such a site and how people of different politics react to it *is* in fact telling me a lot about the media, people and what we are willing (or want) to believe. Everyone should definitely question GrooveJedi & his motives, but do it a convincing, intelligent manner (as you did in your last post). If anyone has more info on either side of the fence, have at it--this shit is fascinating ;-)
posted by ibeji at 6:34 AM on August 23, 2005


Uh, I'm pretty sure Turtles is making fun of someone else, guys.
posted by mr_roboto at 6:34 AM on August 23, 2005


« Older The Politics of Dance   |   Crazy is Funnier than Fiction Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments