26 February 2013
CENSORSHIP: Before the Grammys, CBS censored the apparel of celebrities invited to the show by issuing a ‘wardrobe advisory,’ stating apparel must be decent according to CBS standards.
By Isabel De La Garza, Senior Writer
The National Association of Recording Arts and Sciences (NARAS), the parent organization of the Grammy Music Awards, has often been accused of censorship, especially in the 1990s. It was during this time period that Mike Greene, former president of NARAS, actually took a stand against censorship of the program, but he acknowledged that CBS is the only entity that gets final jurisdiction over what it broadcasts. He often encouraged artists to perform their songs the way they had originally written them, even if expletives in their lyrics were censored on the broadcast. Greene, however, is long gone from his position as president and CBS has continued to try to censor the Grammys.
Before the Grammys, the broadcasting network issued a ‘wardrobe advisory’ explaining that all clothing must “adhere to Network policy concerning wardrobe,” which means that “buttocks and female breasts [must be] adequately covered.” It also advised guests to “be sure the genital region is adequately covered so that there is no visible ‘puffy’ bare skin exposure.” Additionally “any organized cause visibly spelled out [on apparel or accessories]” was also banned. For the first time, CBS attempted to censor the wardrobe of participants in the Grammys. The Grammys, known for its provocative performances and its revealing red carpet attire, was previously censored for expletives, not apparel. According to CBS, celebrities not meeting the wardrobe advisory would not be shown on camera.
The warning triggered a mixed response from stars. Many joked and laughed off the warning since they had not previously worn garments that violate the current rules to former Grammy celebrations. Some, like Katy Perry, ignored the advisory which warned against “bare sides or under curvature of the breasts,” and wore an otherwise-conservative plunging neck-line dress. Others–like Rihanna, who is generally seen wearing more revealing clothing–wore very conservative outfits. Still others managed to meet the standards while still pushing the limits. For example, Deadmau5 simply censored the first letter of an expletive on his hat, to cooperate with CBS’s stipulation that “obscenity or partially seen obscenity on wardrobe is unacceptable.” Jennifer Lopez met clothing standards with her dress, which completely covered her chest and bottom, but bared most of her legs.
Since the show is broadcasted to a wide audience, it is understandable that CBS wishes to keep “obscenity” and “vulgarity” to a minimum. The fact that CBS sends out warnings and bleeps a majority of the words spoken during rap performances is a testament to its steadfast enforcement of its rules. It has every right to keep its broadcasting standards because it is technically providing a service by allowing the Grammys to be aired on its station.
Its rules, however, can be and are seen as censorship, a stifling of creativity and free speech. Its actions are doubly seen as censorship because they ban symbolic speech such as cause awareness pins and accessories in addition to language and apparel. It is likely that CBS does not want to be associated with certain images and causes, which is also understandable. It is a large broadcasting network, with an American audience, that generally leans towards a centrist outlook on most things. CBS could lose viewership because of “obscenity” on the Grammys. It is already receiving a lot of flack over the Jack White F-bomb controversy.
Then what about the NARAS? If it is against censorship to at least some degree, why not fight CBS? There are multiple reasons for this. One is that it may have the same worries as CBS: losing viewership. Also, it is more than likely that the NARAS has a contract to broadcast the Grammys on CBS, in which case it does not want to violate that contract. Although it’s somewhat hypocritical to try to stick to standards that NARAS does not agree with, it may be putting up with it long enough to renegotiate for a different time or new terms. While highly unlikely, NARAS may wish to move the show to another channel, perhaps a cable channel, in order to keep the Grammys uncensored. The show may lose some viewers, but it will keep the Grammys uncensored, and it will definitely please the anti-censorship viewers.