Not being “in the demo,†as they say in the media biz, I didn’t hear about AT&T’s censorship of the rock band Pearl Jam until a friend in the social investing world told me about it. If you were not paying attention to the Lollapalooza music festival staged recently in Chicago, you probably didn’t hear about it either. But a whole lot of people have heard about it, and that’s a problem for AT&T.
The facts, as I understand them, are these: AT&T runs a website called Blue Room that offers live music from music festivals, streaming music, movie trailers, sports videos and video game reviews. I can’t tell what the business purpose is, but I suspect that Blue Room is, at least in part, an effort to imbue some coolness to the AT&T brand. As you may know, the phone companies have been trying for more than a decade to get into the entertainment business, with what can be charitably described as mixed results. When I covered media, I occasionally interviewed telecom executives and let’s just say that they are about as charismatic, entrepreurial and show biz-savvy as you’d expect lifelong employees of a regulated utility to be.
In any case, during Lollapalooza, Pearl Jam singer Eddie Vedder altered the lyrics of a Pink Floyd song “Another Brick in the Wall†(now that’s my demo) to say, “George Bush! Leave This World Alone.†This was evidently too much for the delicate sensitivities of the gatekeepers of AT&T’s Blue Room, and so they blocked it out. Also cut out was a line that said, “George Bush! Find yourself another home.†This is the kind of thing that Democratic presidential candidates say on the stump every day. Fortunately, they need not seek approval first from AT&T.
Pearl Jam’s fans noticed the deletions, of course, and contacted the band, which said on its website, “AT&T’s action strikes at the heart of the public’s concerns over the power that corporations have when it comes to determining what the public sees and hears through communications media.†You can read more about the band’s reaction at MTV News.
This is where the story gets interesting.
AT&T first tried to duck responsibility. They attributed the editing to a “subcontractor†and said “this was not a censorship issue—it was a mistake that is completely against our policy.â€
The company also said that the content monitor who removed the anti-Bush comments was there only to deal with profanity—until a group called the Future of Music Coalition pointed out that at least 20 incidents of profanity were not edited from the webcast.
Later, AT&T told Variety that “It’s not our intent to edit political comments in webcasts…unfortunately it has happened in the past in the handful of cases.†Gee, if it’s not their intent, why has it happened? Can’t they run their our website?
Well, the blogosphere has gone nuts over this. Some people checked out the campaign contributions of AT&T’s chairman Randall Stephenson and found he was a big supporter of President Bush. (Ah, that explains everything…) Others used the brouhaha to argue for an idea called “net neutrality†that would limit the ability of AT&T and other Internet service providers to control what flows through the Internet to their customers. AT&T and other ISPs say they would never use their power as gatekeepers to interfere with content—a claim that has considerably less credibility today than it did a couple of weeks ago.
A group called OpenMIC and its executive director Michael Connor said in a press release that:
…since its founding Pearl Jam has reportedly sold more than 60 million records worldwide and is fortunate to be able to demand that AT&T make available an unedited version of the band’s performance on the web.
“Think of all the musical artists and other content providers that don’t have the reputation and resources of Pearl Jam. How will we ever know if the gatekeepers at telecom companies have decided they don’t meet some arbitrary standard of what’s worth broadcasting on the web?†asked Connor.
When the controversy caught the attention of Trillium Asset Management, a socially responsible investment firm with $1 billion under management, including more than 200,000 shares of T, the firm asked AT&T to investigate. Steve Lippman, vice president of social research at Trillium, who brought the issue to my attention, wrote:
As citizens we are alarmed whenever the free marketplace of ideas is impeded by political censorship. As shareholders we are most concerned about the impact such controversy can have on AT&T’s reputation among consumers and its good standing in regulatory and legislative communities.
What’s that they say at AT&T? “Your World. Delivered.”
Well, sort of.
If you haven’t heard this yet it turns out that AT&T actually censored out many groups political statements critical of Bush and the current administration.
http://news.com.com/8301-10784_3-9759184-7.html or listen to the August 17th radio/podcast of Sound Opinions on NPR and you’ll hear the two hosts talk about a few more examples of AT&T’s censorship of comments that were specifically negative of Bush. Sometimes in this day and age you can’t be too paranoid and this may…how did you put it above? Oh yes…(Ah, that explains everything…)…sometimes that does explain everything in today’s climate.
Just another reason for internet freedom.
Someone lean on Apple too – this iPhone business is profiting AT&T handsomely. What good is a phone, no matter how cool, with crappy reception?
Apple and AT&T are made for each other. Apple has been a real shit too lately.
Motown, also what about those Russian researchers that back engineered an I-Phone and found that it has a backdoor that the government can use at will without a warrant to download all your personal info and your call records as well? The reason AT&T is the only provider is that the owner of AT&T has made sure his company, which is run by a Bush crony has the only access to use this phone on. Remember AT&T is also part of the group of phone providers that illegally allowed our government to access calls and info on AMERICAN CITIZENS without warrants.
They are all in bed together on this. People with unlimited funds and a penchant for abusing power without forthought to consequences for doing so are in control of our corporations and our country. This is what happens when corporate America is allowed to have any influence at all in our governmental matters. Donations from corporate entities and anyone working for said entities earning more than 100,000 US dollars a year MUST be prohibited. That is the only way to take back our country and our freedom from corporate America. This will give the little guys a chance to run the show as no more big money means no more media control and biased coverage at the expense of democracy in it’s true form. No corporate leader involvment in politics means no more issues with the rich robber barons and their minions. End all lobbying as well as it is just a bunch of corporate leeches begging for their views to be made gospel in our government by using money and power to achieve their ends. And our people , the environment and our economy always end up suffering for the corporate fools blind idiocy.
…and contacted the band, which said on its website, “AT&T’s action strikes at the heart of the public’s concerns over the power that corporations have when it comes to determining what the public sees and hears through communications media.†I don’t think anyone in that band is smart enough to come up with a statement like this. Has-been group anyway.
“Your world, delivered to any illegal unconstitutional agencies the Bushies set up to spy on you.”
What good is a phone service when you can’t cancel it? I won’t buy an iPhone simply because AT&T is the provider.
What good is anti-trust legislation that allows a company to buy its parts back? Over the last 10 years, SBC, formerly AT&T, has acquired 5 of the 7 ‘Baby Bells’ it formerly owned. Ma Bell is apparently hell-bent on a family reunion.
What good is a $10 DSL program that you can’t access or register for? Yahoo, its recent acquisition, published a little news ditty about this $10 DSL service ‘quietly’ rolled out by AT&T. Within a day, the article had not been archived but completely disappeared.
Oh, my, it appears AT&T even censors itself…
Hey who paid for the concert? Ohhhh yeah AT&T that’s right… Last time I checked they had a right to do whatever they want with the video they capture of the performance they paid for. There would be no uproar if pro war sentiments were edited out. That’s a fact…
Jack…
And all you folks working for AT&T or using their (i)phones, you are supporting a corrupt telecom that censors political content in support of the most corrupt president the United States has ever seen. Seems like a good time for taking a day off or canceling a subscription if you want to save the country.
Does this mean the phone company killed Kennedy?
http://trilliuminvest.com/pages/news/news_detail.aspx?ArticleID=585&status=CurrentIssue&Page=HotNews
Thumbs-upped it on StumbleUpon. Thanks for this.
AT&T shareholders might not like free speech but they cannot stop it. Nor can any corporation stop it. Free speech will always be here. It goes back a long, long way. Free speech is here to stay. Jesus spoke out, Martin Luther spoke out, Ghandi spoke out, our founding fathers spoke out. Who can stop it?
AT&T can really “Reach Out And Touch Someone”, not, when it really matters. As a fellow employee, I am ashamed of that lost ability to
really connect to the public and mean it.
My sister worked for At&t & bellsouth when they split she had a lot of stock in A.T&T,and Bellsouth,30yrs she bought stock for her old days,She lost the A.T&T stock. now I have no use for A.T&T.I hope they go down again and never come back. These post here makes me hate them more.South Central Bell proved to be a bad company to.My sister is old now she could use this money,It was her savings. A.T&T–I hope you FAIL.John Allen.
While I despise the sentiment AT&T is putting on display here, the internet is not a public service any longer now that the Federal Government has bowed out of administering the network. You buy the product, AT&T sells you the product. They will do what they may with the content they own and sell you.
That it is provided in some form or manner by resources that may intrinsic to the public good, as the airwaves have a precedent for, the pro-business climate of today by no means guarantees that it happens that way.
Look at how satellite services have ultimately been made possible by virtue of the US taxpayer, and how they are connected to cable, satellite radio and more, but who is regulating public interest in those areas? The FCC? Fat chance.
Rich, you’re full of crap:
“Hey who paid for the concert? Ohhhh yeah AT&T that’s right… Last time I checked they had a right to do whatever they want with the video they capture of the performance they paid for. There would be no uproar if pro war sentiments were edited out. That’s a fact…
Jack… ”
1)Remember the Dixie Chicks? Yea, thought you did. 2)You must be authoritarian/corporatist minded…well, let’s wait and see what happens when down the road something you agree with is censored/edited/belittled. Full censorship starts with stuff like this, and if you can’t comprehend the intangible fabric that makes us America, maybe you should move to China to see what you’re inviting with “they own it, soooo.” That’s CRAP.
“Does this mean the phone company killed Kennedy?”
Yes, with the help of Karl Rove who helped orchestrate the murder as part of an 8th grade civics project.
AT&T’s support for criminal republicans like Bush is one reason I dropped AT&T and will never go back.
Well, you could split hairs all day long with this free speech argument: who owned the signposts the original proponents of free speech posted their fliers on over 200 years ago? Was it public property? I’m guessing it was, but imagine for a minute that it was private property. What then? At what point does free speech become paid-for speech?
Was the Dixie Chicks playing to a UK crowd pleasing them with Bush bashing actually free speech? A crowd that paid dearly for the privilege of hearing those words? It wasn’t like the Dixie Chicks were standing on a street corner playing, not that they didn’t get railroaded by the country music industry for daring to speak their minds. But they prevailed in the end anyway, and that is where free speech wins, because as long as public sentiment is behind them they have support. That’s cold comfort when they were getting cut from all those country music station play lists. I don’t even want to guess at the financial loss the Dixie Chicks experienced from that exercise in Constitutional Rights.
Free speech is only a problem when the government begins censoring content, is the inference here that AT&T is representing government interests? In today’s corporatocracy I think the answer is yes.
But that’s what you get when you elect Republicans, how many times do we have to do this dance before the American Public gets this through their thick skulls?
this is not censorship by any means. att has a product to sell and they can decide for themselves what gets said and not said on website they own.
free speech is an idea put fourth by the government- if the government deleted the music then that would be censorship. this is a company deciding what is best for the product they own. i am sure if another person said something stupid about bill clinton or obama then att would do the same as they did with pearl jam.
why is my comments awaiting moderation… that is censorship (according to you above.)
As much as people like to see conspiracies in all things political or jack booted thought police behind every act of censorship one should never discount the ever present possibility of incompetence.
Chuck you are ignorant.
This statement “… this is not censorship by any means. att has a product to sell and they can decide for themselves what gets said and not said on website they own.” is completely wrong.
You don’t seem to even understand the law or what free speech actually is, so why are you commenting?
All you foools loving at&t and defending them, get a clue. You and people like you have a very limited amount of time left on this planet. You folks gotta go, corporations gotta go or be transformed into public trusts of sorts. And hey Cjhuck even though your waiting for moderation your post is still seen douchey. Get a life a clue and pull your head out of the corporate ass before it’s too late. last chance, fix your issues or leave the planet in a box, you make the choice to follow the darkness and defend their minions? Then you deserve the Karma that comes your way.
ATT didn’t organize and/or pay for the concert. It was a Lollapalooza concert (read the article) that they rebroadcast. When they transmit the concert over the web, a reasonable person assumes that they will transmit the WHOLE thing–otherwise, they are giving a false portrayal of an event. If ATT transmits a presidential debate and edits out one side, do you say, “Duhhh, they paid for it, they can do whatever they want…”? If you can’t understand the issue, don’t comment, dumbass.
Cut the neocom-collusive baby Bells, including ATT, off at the bills and save substantial costs by substituting disposable cell phones for land lines. It also thwarts Bushist Big Brotherism!
This is not a free speech issue, people. The right to free speech only applies to the government. Why don’t you actually read the First Amendment. “Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech.” It doesn’t say “AT&T or any other private company shall sit back and take it up the rump when someone says something they don’t like when they clearly have the power on their own website to do what they feel like with something that they paid for.” If Pearl Jam had gone on stage and did a new song about how AT&T was an insanely corrupt company whose officers should all die horrible deaths, and AT&T deleted that, would we still have this fuss? When they put a movie on a national TV network, sometimes the network cuts out scenes so that the movie will fit into its time slot, but no one screams about NBC and its parent company, General Electric, trying to stifle the “free speech” of the director. Or maybe they would if the particular scenes were somewhat political…
Al Gore is on the Apple board and Steve Jobs was reported to have, behind-the-scenes, supported the campaign to stop Bush from getting re-elected.