Recently, the Canadian Broadcast Standards Council inflamed music lovers across Canada with its decision that the song Money for Nothing by British rock band Dire Straits (from their 1985 album Brothers in Arms) contravened the Human Rights Clauses of the Canadian Association of Broadcasters’ (CAB) Code of Ethics and Equitable Portrayal Code.
Apparently, a year ago, one listener heard the original version of song on St. John’s, Nfld.’s radio CHOZ-FM. That unedited version contains three mentions of the word ‘faggot’ and the listener complained that it was discriminatory toward gay people. Based on that one person’s complaint, the CBSC deemed the song unacceptable for broadcast and that the radio station was in violation of the codes of ethics.
Money for Nothing was Billboard’s No. 1 single from Sept. 21 to Oct. 5, 1985 and won the 1986 Grammy for Record of the Year and the 1986 American Music Award for Record of the Year.
The irony of this whole thing, so the story goes, is that when songwriter Mark Knopfler wrote the offensive word into the song he did so to make a point against the people who used the word seriously. In fact, the whole song is loaded with the irony of rock singers earning big money for doing next to nothing while the average Joe drudges through a 9-5 day job. It was never written as an anti-gay song. It’s the opposite, mocking those who use a gay slur.
OK, so they can edit the word out. But why? There is fundamental danger in editing text, whether lyrics or literature, to fit the comfort zone of today’s sensitivities. The act of editing sanitizes history. It discards the proof of the context in which it was written.
It’s wrong that just one person can create all this brouhaha over a hugely successful rock classic. There are many contemporary songs with equally inflammatory words. Are they slated for the ban list on the grunt of just one listener?
Scary thought.
-The Chilliwack Progress
