in the 1980's under the reign of Ronald Reagan, the United States saw the rise of inflation, poverty, and crack convictions, but thats not all: in the social sphere there was also a recurrence of the spike in public debate about racey content in media and its effect on society that we tend to see every few years or so. Particularly, with musicians and groups such as Prince, Frank Zappa, Dead Kennedy's, Twisted Sister and Black Sabbath becoming increasingly popular, parents, educators, and congressmen alike were beginning to question: can music have adverse effects on the minds of children and consumers?
This question occurred particularly to Tipper Gore, activist, photographer and wife of then-senator Al Gore when she had heard her 11 year old daughter Karenna listening to Prince's "Darling Nikki", a more than suggestive song with less than subtle lyrics. With 3 other women among a group known as the "Washington Wives", Tipper co-founded the Parents Music Resource Center, creating awareness for the music that she and others found to be "occult", "promoting violence", "sexually explicit" or otherwise inappropriate for children.
In my search for why we hate Tipper Gore, I found video essay upon video essay referring to her as "the original anti-woke karen" and even asked a couple people who responded that she basically just wanted to put a gag on the music industry because it wasn't raising her kids properly.
In a series of debates with members of various bands and even in congress she argued, among other things, that gratuitous violence desensitises the populace and therefore contributes to the increase in adolescent violence. The musicians voiced their concerns that demonising their music is not the answer, that violence often results from a mental illness in an individual, not a gorey movie they might watch with their friends. Many bands released songs concerning their hatred of Tipper and the PMRC's bid for censorship and their infringement on free speech, folk rock musician John Denver even comparing the attack on so-called "porn music" to Nazi book burnings. The PMRC on multiple occasions tended to use colorful language to describe the allegedly heinous music, clutching their pearls as they painted a picture of satanic musicians encouraging children to stir up violence and lead riots, then follow the riots up with acts which utterly disgrace the sanctity of marriage. Simply put, people like me who like their music loud and raunchy weren't happy with the flak they were getting from these congressmans' wives.
But what was the goal of the Washington Wives? What was this maniacal plan to vanquish the explicit music industry which caused so many musicians to dig their heels in and bark and scratch and bite the dangerous hand of censorship?
well, they wanted... warning labels on the music and movies to notify parents of their content. In Tipper's own words:
"I would like to see an industry initiative where the industry takes responsibility for providing consumer information to parents and others who are concerned about sadistic, sexual and savage scenes in some of these movies which are available to children. The answer is consumer information."
Something found among many of these debates is that the musicians feel they have "put Tipper in her place" when all they've really done is affirm her point. Case in point: Frank Zappa, when attempting to point out the absurdity of 'censoring' gorey movies said that he had watched one such movie after taking it home with his kids and it wasn't bad, adding, after being asked if he (as someone going into the home movie industry) would ever produce such a movie, that it "wasn't his idea of entertainment". Not only is this hardly an argument against the idea that gore in movies is desensitising, he unknowingly proved on the spot the importance of consumer information and parental involvement. He watched a movie with his children because he understood its content and felt it was not inappropriate, he then specified that he has an idea of entertainment and insinuated he wouldn't like to watch some of the aforementioned objectionable content. The same sticker he tries to argue against seems, to me, very useful in the discernment of "your kind of entertainment".
Even though Tipper seemed to become the target of anti-censorship campaigns, a shocking number of songs cussing her out or decrying censorship, Tipper never actually had any involvement in any category of censorship campaign- she didn't even so much as aim to forbid stores from selling to minors, the sticker simply served so that children young enough that their parents still bought their music had a bit more insight into what they were buying. She said it herself: as a strong supporter of the first amendment, her purpose wasn't to put a "gag" on music, but to keep it safe for
younger listeners by providing parents with information about the
content of the songs. Any solid arguments against the movement, such as ones which argued that certain people in the coalition FOR labeling DID want regulation on music, hardly apply to Tipper in any respect.
If anything, Tipper did more to boost the explicit music industry than ever with many bands seeing their peak after releasing disses on her or finally slapping that coveted Parental Advisory sticker on their track. This was not an "unfortunate side effect" either, Tipper's aim was industry responsibility to educate the consumer, and even if this resulted in adult consumers gravitating towards the evil sticker, well, the consumer was educated before they did so.
To conclude, the world has not been kind to Tipper Gore, treating her activism as a demagogic attack on free speech when at worst it was simply not the most relevant issue at the time. The PMRC aimed to make a friendly sticker to warn parents of the seven dirty words, and for whatever reason we've rewritten the calm, collected arguments from a concerned parent and activist, backed up by peer reviewed studies, into an attention-seeking senator's wife personally attempting to duct-tape the mouth of your local nirvana cover band. Most heinously of all, it has greatly overshadowed the other activism Ms Gore has participated in;
- She represented the Clinton administration in the Washington, D.C. AIDS Walk in 1993 as one of the highest-ranking public officials ever to participate.
- She co-chaired the National Mental Health Association's Child Mental Health Interest Group, and in 1999, hosted the first White House Conference on Mental Health,
- and she has continued this activism even in the years following her second-ladyship.
No comments:
Post a Comment