Asian satellite TV network Star, which claims it reaches more than 300 million viewers in 53 countries, might have been responsible for censoring the words "gay" and "lesbian" during the acceptance speeches of Milk writer Dustin Lance Black (Best Original Screenplay) and lead actor Sean Penn (Best Actor) in recorded broadcasts throughout Asia. (The speeches were however shown in full during live broadcasts on Monday morning.)
Star's Hong Kong-based spokeswoman, Jannie Poon, was quoted as saying in an Associated Press report that although she was not "immediately aware" that the speeches had been censored, the company has "a responsibility to take the sensitivities and guidelines of all our markets into consideration."
Star is owned by Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation which also owns US's Fox News.
The AP report, which has been carried by dozens of news outlets and web sites around the world, originated in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia on Wednesday. Pang Khee Teik, artistic director of the Annexe Gallery, posted a 'Note' on his Facebook profile on Tuesday night asking his friends to join him in writing to the media to protest the Malaysian cable operator Astro's censorship of the awards. Astro is a subscription TV service which carries the Star World channel.
The censorship has "sent a message to all Malaysians that gays and lesbians are still shameful things to be censored from the public's ears," Pang wrote.
"As a gay man, I am truly offended."
"This act of censorship defeated the very victory won by these two men. The two moments of silence rang out like the gun shots that killed Harvey Milk."
Entertainment web site indieWIRE quoted Black as saying when told of his and Penn's speeches being censored by Star: "I think whenever something like that happens, it's indicative of where a significant problem lies."
The network did not respond to Fridae's request for details and comment about the network's censorship policy given that it telecasts a variety of American drama series of which an increasing number are featuring gay and lesbian storyline and characters.
Separately, viewers in Singapore who watched the repeat telecast on free-to-air Channel 5 reported that entire chunks from Black's and Penn's speeches referencing the former's growing up gay years and gay marriage rights respectively were cut (See box below.)
In China, Internet chatter has it that state broadcaster CCTV (China Central Television) had cut Sean Penn's speech while Black's speech was not shown at all. Observers however also pointed out the three and a half hour-long show was condensed into two hours.
"For those who saw the signs of hatred as our cars drove in tonight, I think that it is a good time for those who voted for the ban against gay marriage to sit and reflect, and anticipate their great shame, and the shame in their grandchildren's eyes if they continue that way of support. We've got to have equal rights for everyone." - Sean Penn (Winner, Best Actor) |
"When I was 13 years old, my beautiful mother and my father moved me from a conservative Mormon home in San Antonio, Texas to California, and I heard the story of Harvey Milk. And it gave me hope. It gave me the hope to live my life. It gave me the hope one day I could live my life openly as who I am and then maybe even I could even fall in love and one day get married. "I wanna thank my mom, who has always loved me for who I am even when there was pressure not to. But most of all, if Harvey had not been taken from us 30 years ago, I think he'd want me to say to all of the gay and lesbian kids out there tonight who have been told that they are less than by their churches, by the government or by their families, that you are beautiful, wonderful creatures of value and that no matter what anyone tells you, God does love you and that very soon, I promise you, you will have equal rights federally, across this great nation of ours," he said to thunderous applause. "Thank you. Thank you. And thank you, God, for giving us Harvey Milk." - Dustin Lance Black (Winner, Best Original Screenplay) |
Pang Khee Teik's letter to media outlets in Malaysia:
I want to thank Astro for screening this year's Oscars, which gave us the very heartwarming wins by the screenwriter and the lead actor of the movie "Milk". Congratulations too to the movie "Milk", about the first openly gay man elected to public office in California who was then assassinated, for winning Best Original Screenplay and Best Actor. The acceptance speeches by screenwriter Justin Lance Black and actor Sean Penn were both moving, bold and timely. They spoke up about the need for equal rights, to love, to share this land, and to be heard. This year, the Oscars celebrated the kind of diversity that the arts is able to champion; it's the kind of diversity that desperately needs championing in a world so overwhelmed by racism, war, and hatred.
This is part of Justin's speech:
"When I was 13 years old, my beautiful mother and my father moved me from a conservative Mormon home in San Antonio, Texas to California, and I heard the story of Harvey Milk. And it gave me hope. It gave me the hope to live my life. It gave me the hope one day I could live my life openly as who I am and then maybe even I could even fall in love and one day get married. I wanna I wanna thank my mom, who has always loved me for who I am even when there was pressure not to. But most of all, if Harvey had not been taken from us 30 years ago, I think he'd want me to say to all of the gay and lesbian kids out there tonight who have been told that they are less than by their churches, by the government or by their families, that you are beautiful, wonderful creatures of value and that no matter what anyone tells you, God does love you and that very soon, I promise you, you will have equal rights federally, across this great nation of ours. Thank you. Thank you. And thank you, God, for giving us Harvey Milk."
And this is Sean's:
"For those who saw the signs of hatred as our cars drove in tonight, I think that it is a good time for those who voted for the ban against gay marriage to sit and reflect, and anticipate their great shame, and the shame in their grandchildren's eyes if they continue that way of support. We've got to have equal rights for everyone," said Penn.
However, if you caught the Oscars on Astro, you would have noticed something so bizarre almost to be ironic. The words "gay" and "lesbian" have been censored from both these speeches. For me, this act of censorship defeated the very victory won by these two men. The two moments of silence rang out like the gun shots that killed Harvey Milk.
We live in a time when understanding is needed, when artists need to be bold in addressing the manifold injustices of the world. Hence, such a movie had to be made, such acceptance speeches to be uttered. But by its act of censorship, Astro has sent a message to all Malaysians that gays and lesbians are still shameful things to be censored from the public's ears. As a gay man, I am truly offended. After all these years of contributing to the country through my work, of helping people regardless of their orientation, being proud of who I am and helping others be proud of who they are, I can assure you that the only thing wrong is how much hate gays have to endure simply for the way we love.
What is Astro trying to achieve with the censoring of the words "gay" and "lesbian"? Do they think these words will promote homosexuality? Let me assure you that homosexuality cannot be promoted, it just happens. Just as a person's sexuality becomes apparent to him or her when the hormones kick in in the teen years; you don't need sex promoted to you by the TV, your body does its own promotion.
Meanwhile, words like "terrorist", "rapist" and "murderer" gets passed and nobody gets their panties knotted over how these words might promote terrorism, rapes and murders. On the other hand, words like "gays" and "lesbians" that describe people among us who happen love the same sex get treated like it is a crime to even mention in public. Is Astro promoting hate over love? Just what kind of society does Astro want to be creating? One where people can talk about terrorism but not love?
You want to know what breeds social ills? It is the kind of insecurity and low self esteem that results from such continual shaming through the media, that then leads to machismo, violence, bullying, and other superficial ways with which men employ to compensate for their insecurity.
Does Astro not know that many of its own staff are gay? I won't name them, but trust me, I know many of them (and I congratulate Astro for smartly tapping into such a pool of talents). But is Astro now ashamed of its many talented gay and lesbian staff?
And does Astro not know too that a huge number of its viewers are gay and lesbian? Otherwise, why bother to screen "Brothers & Sisters", "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy", "Six Feet Under" and other popular TV series that show how gays and lesbians are not only part of society but play vital roles in shaping that society for the better? Is Astro ashamed of its gay and lesbian viewers? And if this is some national guideline, then Astro needs to question it if it hopes to be fair to its viewers.
Stop censoring the words that describe who I am. I am a Malaysian. I work hard for the right to be here, and I work hard for the right to love, just like everyone else. Thank you.
讀者回應
This shows how much is yet to be done.
More PR bullshit.
If this was indeed the case, then they would:
- not report any Jewish news throughout the Middle East (except Isreal).
- not report womens' rights issues in India or the Middle East.
- not report gay issues throughout the bible belt of the US.
- not report fundamentalist muslim issues in countries where the majority of people ar enot muslim.
- not report bullfighting and whaling news throughout most of the 1st world countries...
Censoring the word "gay" is exactly as censoring the word "asian".
Think about it.
Rupert Murdoch's so-called new organizations play to the Far Right, which is viciously anti-gay. That an associated company seeks to censor the Gay victory that "Milk" represented, is sadly no surpirse.
The rationalization that censorship is used to satisfy the sensabilities of viewers has no merit. Accurate reporting means giving people facts and letting them decide. Harvey Milk was killed because of the very bigoted "sensitivities" which Star is protecting.
No traditional culture offers gay people dignity or equal rights (not even Thailand). Gay people are not treated as normal. People with uneducated and ignorant ideas about gay people need facts. Thanks Star for ensuring homophobia remains strong. Unbiased reporting huh?
No, it isn't. One is a sexual orientation, one is an ethnicity.
http://www.startv.com/corporate/contact_us.htm
And here's the text of the letter:
Hi. I'd like to understand why all references to homosexuality were apparently censored out of Star's broadcast of the recent Academy Awards. This story has run in the news portals 365gay.com and fridae.com
today, and if it is true, it is inexcusable. Here are links to the stories:
http://www.fridae.com/newsfeatures/article.php?articleid=2409&viewarticle=1
http://www.365gay.com/news/gay-asians-criticize-oscar-censorship/
There are several reasons why this was simply wrong, and defending it on the grounds of so-called market sensitivities was illogical and unjustified.
Two of the most important awards, Best Actor and Best Screenplay, went to the film Milk, a biopic of the gay US politician Harvey Milk. Milk was assassinated largely because of his sexual identity. Yet Lance Dustin Black's and Sean Penn's acceptance speeches, both of which highlighted the struggle for LGBT civil equality, were censored. How could a contemporary news agency continue to promulgate the mindset that being gay is so terrible that it should be rendered completely unspeakable, in this day and age?
Sexual orientation is an innate human trait, not a mental illness, a fetish, or a lifestyle choice. This is borne out by a growing body of research, most notably by the Karolinska Institutet in Sweden. The limbic system of the brain appears to play a major role, and if this is true, it eliminates the possibility of it being a conscious choice. That region of the brain is not subject to shaping by environmental forces. It's as hardwired as the human brain gets.
Even if it were a choice, though, deleting all references to such a significant population is shameful. The new prime minister of Iceland is a lesbian, and the mayors of Paris and Berlin are gay men. Does this mean Star also cannot report on these individuals?
Whether viewers like or understand homosexuality, the reality of the situation is that it is now at the forefront of worldwide social and legal discourse. Many countries and territories have moved to provide marriage equality and other civil rights protections. The topic is in the news constantly. Star looks foolish and anachronistic by trying to avoid all references to one of the most important issues in contemporary social history. As a news organization, it is not Star's position to judge, but to report the facts as they are.
Finally, in today's difficult business climate, being perceived as homophobic is detrimental. The upcoming international book fair in Dubai is under heavy criticism, and several of its most important authors (led by Margaret Atwood) are withdrawing, because of the festival's decision to ban a book with references to homosexuality. There have been numerous articles recently on businesses and educational institutions unwilling to do business in Singapore because of its government's behind-the-times stance on sodomy laws and antigay policies. There is no place for this attitude today. By these actions, Star harms its own credibility and contributes to the harm of countless LGBT people throughout Asia.
Sincerely,
Sterlinglush
Hong Kong
or is it actually the lasting effect of western imperialism with their own standard of morality still leaving an effect on homosexual bigotry? and now r we the supossedly the backward community? hey shinen, can u discuss this please?
because the government's censorship regulations/laws vary from one asian country to another, the same hollywood movie is re-edited differently for each asian country. that's one of the reasons why hollywood movie studios use region codes from 0 to 8.
I agree with Pang when he said, "This act of censorship defeated the very victory won by these two men. The two moments of silence rang out like the gun shots that killed Harvey Milk."
Why am I even surprised?
That we Asians are herd-followers who are just not as 'enlightened' as the Western audience???
A load of utter crap! I've been to Western countries & have met even more conservative...
n racist- people. Just who is that smart@ss b@stard who gets to decide Asians are all conformist lambs incapable of thinking for themselves??!!!
As an Asian I take very BIG offense @ their
smarty-pants attitude. Pfft.
Come on TV people, we're not stupid. If we can't find anything regarding our sexuality on your channels, we'll just boycott it and look for the information elsewhere, like youTube or read it up on fridae.com.
and Fridae decided to delete my post of links to the described speeches on youtube :)
P.S. Do the Chinese know that one of their Olympic gold medals was given to an out and proud gay Australian diver?
Since Star Media is a part of Fox News, it most likely adopts the bad habits of its right-wing American -or is it Australian?- Master. Enuf said.
In Asia, local politicians competing for business investment in the region fall over themselves to attract such morons, compromising on what little shred of dignity we have left. Of course, those who suffered the most are Asian gays/lesbians. Fascist westerners imposing their world view on other cultures are bad enough, but Asians with faux-Western pretensions mimicking them & stifling their very own people are even more awful.
I think it's on the other Oscar story.. I clicked on them.
Does the Church or the State blame gay people for Anything bad, whether that's a 'decline in moral standards' or 'promiscuous sexuality'? No. Are gay men and women seen as some kind of sexual predators on young people? No. Are they seen as some threat to society and the sanctity of the family unit? No. Should I add any more examples? "NO!"
You get my point... Gay people, events or activities are wholly and fairly presented by the media, and by The Powers That Be, as merely a part of general society here. They/we deserve, and generally get, an equal share of attention or interest as any other section of society.
And, if some people dislike gay people (for whatever reason), it is, of course, entirely their civil and human right to - yet to say such things is akin to saying: "I don't like Black people", or "Those Jews are responsible for the ills of society." In other words, sensible, mature adults do not think such way, or express such sentiments.
Our battles against prejudice and inequality are far from finished - yet there are enough victories and successful moral, political and cultural skirmishes won and behind us to say: Hey, We're Here, Accept It/Us!
I hope that Whoever the policy makers are in various Asian countries can also mature, grow up, and realise that society has MUCH bigger problems than, for example, any 'need' to cut an Oscar speech and its 'dangerous' raising of The Gay Issue...
Why Oscars repeat blanked out gay plea
I THANK Miss Pamela Koh for her online letter on Thursday, 'Oscars TV cut: First you see it, then you don't', on the encore telecast of the 81st Annual Academy Awards aired on Monday.
We wish to clarify that the programme was edited for the encore telecast in accordance to the Media Development Authority (MDA) Programme Code - specifically, the relevant guidelines relating to the treatment and portrayal of homosexual themes and issues. The code explicitly disallows content that sympathises with, promotes or normalises such a lifestyle from being broadcast.
Dustin Lance Black, whose script for Milk won the award for original screenplay, and Sean Penn who played the slain gay rights leader in the same movie, both made a passionate plea for same-sex marriage rights in their acceptance speeches. The encore telecast of the 81st Annual Academy Awards on Channel 5 would have been in serious breach of the MDA Programme Code if such controversial content was not editorially managed.
We thank Miss Koh for the opportunity to clarify on her concerns.
David Christie
Senior Manager (Censorship)
Network Programming & Promotions Channel 5
MediaCorp
==========================
David Christie said:
"Even a cooking show can be dangerous... A guy could say something like, 'I'm cooking this for my boyfriend tonight.' We die, you know! What that one remark does is normalise gay lifestyle."
http://www.fridae.com/newsfeatures/article.php?articleid=2244&viewarticle=1
If that's correct, it would be interesting to see if STAR've been fined by any other country, or whether it is the enforcement of the homophobic MDA "code" that is shaping the channel's decisions across Asia.
Note those words...sympathises...normalises.
We often hear that society can sympathise even with the worst of criminals on circumstances of crime being committed, but here it's not even dished out in crumbs for gay people, who only seek acceptance and the freedom to live and love? Geez. We have a supposedly democratic equal for all and all for one governing system that blatantly broadcast that it can and it will discriminate against a group of people that it so targets. Simple-Singapore discriminates against gay people and it pride itself as so-period; so much so that it even legalised anal and oral sex ( a domain of gay sex) for its st8 citizens but it remains illegal for gays. Brilliant.
There are no 2 ways about it. Singapore is essentially a 3rd world social system bent on forcing everyone to accept its ways, or risk being sued, sued, sued. zzz... Yawn.
While we may disagree on some issues, but we must allow ones to express their opinions intellectually and openly.
It's a shame that in the 21st. century we still must yield to ignorant religious fundamentalists and conservatives.
This appears to be how the "code" is being enforced by the MDA, as we've seen in justifications by them and by their victims, but from what Kellen posted a long while back, it's not what the code actually says.
If I remember rightly, while lumping gays together with bestiality and incest, it used the words "promote" and "glamorise"; nothing mentioned about "normalising" or "sympathising". These are very different terms.
Of course it's not actually possible to "promote" something inherent like homo- (or hetero-)sexuality, but even if it were, I think technically, for a programme to breach the code, it would have to be actively encouraging straight people to go out and try "being gay". Showing the mere existence of gay people or characters living their lives is just a reflection of a sizeable section of the community, not "promoting or glamorising"
TV channels/cable operators should challenge incorrect decisions by the MDA, in the Courts.
Gay citizens may want to look at challenging the code itself as unconstitutional.
Still it is great progress and the news that he ws a gay character will seep out without jhelp from Star TV, but imagine the shock if lots of straight guys go to see this film without knowing the plot... why did Star TV not warn them? - just joking seriously.
I suggest that all of you, like me, write to the followings with proper reasonings instead of acting like a bunch of queenies in a beauty pageant :
lee_hsien_loong@pmo.gov.sg
goh_chok_tong@pmo.gov.sg
lee_kuan_yew@pmo.gov.sg
lee_boon_yang@mica.gov.sg
Write properly and respectfully if you want to be taken seriously. And I suggest that only Singaporeans write in to reflect our true feelings.
Singapore is the only developed nation I know of that has homophobia (irrational fear/hatred of homosexuals ) specifically enshrined in it's broadcasting code of practice. In a quite offensive way too. THEY are singling US out. Imagine how any other minority group would react across the world.
Unless anyone else in Asia apart from Singapore has fined STAR channels for showing gay characters, it's not unreasonable to think that that might have influenced their decision to censor the gay words from the Oscar speeches across the whole of Asia. As someone below mentioned, even Malaysia allowed the speeches in full on a local channel.
You're right, it might be helpful if Singaporeans wrote in about it. But I don't think that they are the only ones entitled to be miffed.
And I am baffled by why the 180 degree turn from praises a few years back.
I don't think SG is singled out; simply a lot of people on Fridae have a connection with SG, so more people comment on those articles. I have close and much valued connections, straight and gay, but I also comment on articles about other countries. Post 37 also gives an explanation. I don't think any other modern, developed nation government is so offensive and discriminatory towards homosexuals, and I think people expect better of an educated and successful country like Singapore.
The broadcasting code that was posted looks like it could easily have been drafted by a fundamentalist. It is specifically designed to prevent prejudiced people becoming less prejudiced against gays, under the rationale of the myth that homosexuality is somehow "catching". The role of television is to "entertain, educate and inform". But in Singapore, if it involves learning that gay people are just like everyone else, it's forced to be cut. And gay people need to see unstereotyped versions of themselves on screen as much as any other group in society, it helps them to know that they are not alone, they are not the only gay person in the world, and that it's not the end of the world, which is a feeling that many grow up with.
Don't get me wrong, there is a lot to appreciate about SG and its achievements, and I still do, but we are dealing here with the gay perspective. The decision on 377A was profoundly objectionable, incomprehensible, and totally unacceptable. Not repealing was almost the same as endorsing, and gave the fundamentalists everything they wanted; and apparent promises that it would not be used (if I remember correctly) seem to have been modified.
It was also an act of blatant discrimination from decent people who know better, who know about or have experienced other types of discrimination themselves. A principled stand against prejudice in a diverse society was what was needed, (not forgetting the right to privacy), but for some reason was not delivered. Such decisions don't take place in a vacuum, and naturally it affects how many gay people, and others, feel.
And what was this comment "repealing would have sent the wrong message"? What message would that be? That gay people are valued and equal members of the community? The message that was sent, despite some placating words, once you got it, was the reverse.
Clean and boring. Thats the perception about the country from many people overseas. Singapore knows it and yet it perpetuates it. That's pathetic.
Interestingly, in the eyes of Singapore's anti-gay laws, this loser kampong tart is nothing more than a delusional self styled crusade criminal waiting to be thrown into jail, the moment she opens up her trash bin orifice (hello, this is how it's spelt loser..lol).
So, someone who bites its own kind and defend an erroneous administration that persecute its own kind to claim patriotism-is this a mentally brain dead zombie case or a hypocritical SM loser looking for political crumbs to hopefully run for office one day as a fundamental right winged religious bigot who takes it up its trash tunnels with glee. Yucks! I'm sure this loser recycles the straws used for drinking thru its nose. Damn- Double yucks!!!
I applaud your factual observation & eloquence. Brilliant as usual. Too bad it will, without skipping a deadbeat, be lost on one fundamental brain dead zombie, who must elbow in the last word. Just u wait.
Post #40 bearobson
Exactly! Sadly, that's not all. When we see the kind of expired rotten cherry quality(zzz, who else but gymwhorebod) who self-persist in "representing" Singapore as its icing on the national cake to defend everything sacrilegious, it's truly a monumental disgrace to all the good logical people in that country & makes one wonder if they truly deserve the government they elect.
con'td... (below)
"Oh Post ... So snd so ... so brilliant. Oh Post so and so, bravo .... Oh yawn zzzzz . " Don't you have a brain of your own and have your own opinions ???
Anyway, havce you googled "Lushun, The Story of Ah Q" yet ?? Do you know how Ah Q died in the end and what is the moral of the story ???.
steveuk is trained lawyer. I respect him for his views. However, certain issues are best tackled differently. I believe in change at a slower pace to be sustainable that's all.... but I wonder why I waste my time even explaining to you jammyboi, knowing in the end you will use your other orific to attack me.
Post #40 bearobson, that tidily sums it up.
I'm surprised you' re not Singaporean though, you know a lot more about the country than even native Singaporeans do :) Then again, what politicians do in Singapore is none of our business- Singapore's their country, let them run it as they see fit. From what I know most Singaporeans with backbone & a brain have long left for greener pastures. If the Singapore govt wants to maintain their vanity & existing status quo that's fine by me; the only people they will hurt eventually will not be me, nor other PLUs...we have brains, we have hands & legs, we can move away.
No,they will hurt only themselves.
So...just leave it be & don't interfere in their affairs lest you lower yr standards to their level during the fight.
請先登入再使用此功能。