Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Why Did Fox Censor Sally Field's Emmy Speech?

By Jodie Evans, Women's Media Center. Posted September 18, 2007.


Was it because she used the expletive "goddamn" or because of her anti-war sentiments?
Advertisement

Sunday night at the Emmy Awards, Sally Field, in accepting her honor for best performance in a dramatic series, gave the best performance as a real-life thinking mother who found herself in the privileged position of being center stage with an audience of millions. Before the Fox Network cut off her speech, she attempted to squeeze in a few words about the war in Iraq. What American viewers did not hear her say was: " ... if the mothers ruled the world there would be no goddamn wars in the first place."

Why did the Fox Network censor her words? Was it because of the use of the mild expletive "goddamn"? The awards show censors were definitely on the alert last night to make sure no offensive expletives slipped by. But the producers used a clumsy process of "bleeping" out the words, cutting away from the speaker to wide shots, and excising not only the offending words but whole sentences, thereby effectively silencing a number of speakers. The network that served as the Bush Administration's house organ in the lead-up to the Iraq war -- and is currently trying to spin support for a war against Iran -- must have relished the excuse to block Sally's particular message. Canadian television's airing of the Emmys included her speech uncensored.

In her series Brothers and Sisters, there is an emblematic moment between Field and one of her sons who chooses the military. She referred to this scene earlier in her acceptance speech: "At the heart of [her character] Nora Walker, she is a mother," Field said. "May they be seen, may their work be valued and raised ... especially the mothers who stand with an open heart and wait -- wait for their children to come home from danger, from harm's way and from war." As the music began to swell, signaling she should wrap-up her remarks, she exclaimed, "I'm not finished. I have to finish talking ... if the mothers ruled the world there would be no god . . ." The rest was silenced. Afterwards, informed that she had been cut off, she seemed to take it well: "I've been there before," she said. "If [mothers] ruled the world we wouldn't be sending our children off to be slaughtered. I shouldn't have said the 'god' before the damn."

As she made her speech, some of world's outstanding women leaders, including four Nobel laureates, had just concluded a meeting in Rhinebeck, New York. Sally Field was scheduled to attend the conference titled Women, Power and Peace, organized by activist playwright Eve Ensler and the Omega Institute. The three-day gathering concentrated on "the necessity for women to stand up for what we have always known: that while conflict may be inevitable, war is not; and while disagreement can foster understanding and growth, violence does not." What the Fox censor highlighted was the mainstream media's reluctance to give airtime to antiwar voices. In a notable exception, Cindy Sheehan's pleas to speak with President George Bush about the irretrievable loss of her son temporarily broke through the soundproof wall erected by broadcasters who feed off the Washington elite. But we don't hear much from all the other mothers who have stood firm against the war in Iraq and, indeed, against war in general. We hear all the time from policy analysts, military commanders, and commentators for whom the war in Iraq is an issue for debate.

Even though her words were censored in the moment, the controversy caused by Fox's actions turned Sally Field's message into the headline from the Emmy Awards, instead of a footnote, and opened a much needed conversation that allows mothers, who tend to think first and foremost of the human costs of war, to speak and be heard.

Digg!

See more stories tagged with: war, fox, censor, sally field, emmy

Jodie Evans is a co-founder of Codepink: Women For Peace and a Women's Media Center board member.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Media and Technology! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
A Bigger Question
Posted by: NorCaMod on Sep 18, 2007 5:56 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
To me, a bigger question is: Why do celebrities think we want to hear them spout political rhetoric at awards shows? I don't care which side you're on, I want to hear about your film or career or sexlife...but keep yoour political views to yourself.

They like to argue that it's their "First Amendment rights" to say whatever they want whenever they want just like anyone else. OK, then do it just like everyone else...on blogs or letters to the editor. The rest of us don't have this huge platform and quasi captive audience to bore and piss off.

So Sally or Sean or Susan or Charlton or whoever....keep your politics where they belong....in the bar.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: A Bigger Question Posted by: leafsong1
» RE: A Bigger Question Posted by: Jeff Hoffman
» RE: A Bigger Question Posted by: fluffmuffinmom
» RE: A Non Question Posted by: pizzmoe
» RE: The biggest Question Posted by: LeftCoastProgressive
» RE: A Bigger Question Posted by: opeluboy
» RE: A Bigger Question Posted by: oldumbo
Flying nun is still flying
Posted by: rocketman on Sep 18, 2007 6:24 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Having seen that, I assumed that her language was a bit stongger..but considering the outrage every time an off colored comment is made these days..no one want to take a chance..

Considering the violence and nudity that appears on the media nowadays I can hardly see the uproar over a few colorful words..

I dont think anyone is really interested in Sally Fields view on the war and it would have been a footnote as the author noted( glad she is standing up and delivering the message)..

maybe she's smarter than we think - a few off colored words = alot of press!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I'm all for freedom of speech but...
Posted by: Moira61 on Sep 19, 2007 12:53 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
these celebrities are just after the publicity, that's all there is to it. Every time I hear one of them getting on the news for mouthing some profanity I have to think, gimme a break. Look what this has done for Kathy Griffin's career lately. Maybe she's tired of being on the D list and is trying to move up a notch.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Fox was the one that created the publicity
Posted by: ReallyBearish on Sep 19, 2007 2:14 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The comment would have been given some brief applause in some quarters, annoyance in others, and then been quickly forgotten. By cutting out the remark, the network gave it much stronger legs to stand on. Not smart.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Smart enough Posted by: leafsong1
It was not GD, it was GWH...
Posted by: NumberSix on Sep 19, 2007 3:06 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Come on, do the math: What alleged news organization (hack-cough-gag-wheeze-vomit) is really the mouthpiece of the Bush Crime Family?

If she'd said "GD Democrats", or "Effing liberals", it would've slid past at warp factor 50. Faux would've feigned humility later.

Whatever it takes to further the party politic, Faux is there....with lies in living color.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: It was not GD, it was GWH... Posted by: Ky Lake Dave
» RE: It was not GD, it was GWH... Posted by: Ky Lake Dave
» Why bother? Posted by: johngary66
Thank you...
Posted by: opeluboy on Sep 19, 2007 5:48 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...Fox. And I really mean it. Without your clumsy attempt to censor free speech, Field's comments would have passed most of us by.

Keep up the good work!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Thank you... Posted by: VZEQICVA
Huh?
Posted by: opeluboy on Sep 19, 2007 5:49 PM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
A bigger question than what?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Women can be just as drunk on power as men
Posted by: davesilvan on Sep 19, 2007 8:39 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
They've just been denied the power up until recently, but women can be just as corrupt as men can be. i.e. look at Hillary Clinton, she voted for the war in Iraq, too.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Lots of energy spent on hating FOX
Posted by: Ky Lake Dave on Sep 20, 2007 2:34 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
NBC, CBS, NPR, CNN, MSNBC, ABC are all left leaning news organizations. Why are liberals so angered and frightened of a network that leans toward the right? In some post people are vomiting, hacking, coughing, and wheezing over a news network that you disagree with. Fox News is as acurate to the right leaning person as NPR or MSNBC is to the left leaning. Take a breath guys and gals and find something to really get angry over. Like the illegals over-running our souther border.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

It would be fair and balanced
Posted by: Christie on Sep 21, 2007 10:52 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
if some of those stations listed above were left leaning. MSNBC has Keith Olbermann and Steven Colbert. I don't see evidence that the rest of the MSM has good left-leaning spokesmen and women.

The Internet is developing as quite a resource for progressives to be heard. Of course, we may be just listening to each other. How significant is that? I believe that in the voting booth it is going to be very significant--because I think and hope that a high percent of the 50% who do vote get much of their information from the Internet.

Of course, first we have to be sure this administration does not bomb Iran. So blurt out the anti-war message on MSM any chance you get.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I definitely spend my money based on politics.
Posted by: Ellie1 on Sep 21, 2007 12:22 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I will NEVER go to Walmart or Domino Pizza. I will not see any movie made by Arnold, or any other right winger. I do not watch Fox news and complain when I go to a diner or cafe that has that network on. If they don't change the channel, I cancel my order and leave. I have even eliminated from my social sphere relatives and "friends" who extol the virtues of George W. Bushit and his ilk. I have cancelled newspapers that were "right". That is my right, I put my behavior and money where my ideology is.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

not anti-war nor goddamn
Posted by: tineleyspice on Sep 21, 2007 3:21 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
She got censored the moment she said "If mothers ruled the world" --it doesn't get any more threatening that that.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

What is it??
Posted by: SackofWoe0 on Sep 22, 2007 10:24 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
what is the problem with the folks who said hollywood stars should keep their comments/feelings in a bar. I say to you that all the citizens in our country have the right to speak their minds, at least that was the case before the Bush Administration and his henchmen occupied the White House. After all the Republicans love Hollywood stars, lets see now, we had Reagan, now we have Thompson running for President, so what the heck are you complaining about. Ha and furthermore, they are both B Actors, not first class like Sally Fields.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: What is it?? Posted by: Bibsi
"Goddamn"
Posted by: BazookaTooth on Sep 22, 2007 11:36 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The USA Network aired an episode of the 4400 (a sci-fi show) where a character said it under extreme duress. This was a couple weeks ago. Don't think the diction was the problem.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Are you a Healthy American?
Posted by: nikkie on Sep 22, 2007 11:35 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There is a chilling silence in the air. I hear the feeble clamoring of the muted as they move around in the dark thinking forever, as they think now, that Twinkie’s are a viable food source. To what extent is it possible for human beings to be coerced into an other-worldly detachment that increasingly warps their perceptions in much the same manner as adulterated food rots the body? The majority of responses to the Sally Field incident leaves me hungering for nature and its most simple and eloquent truth while the masses gorge themselves on a freakish consumerism of devalued goods and shallow beliefs that leaves them numb to the bone with fatness and stupidity.

The powers that be have dealt their hand and you’ve missed it on every occasion. It’s not morality against immorality, Democrat against Republican or black against white, etc. People get lost in these arguments where they are pitted against each other while the thief steals them blind under such cover. Wake up Americans. It’s us against them.

Take the Janet Jackson wardrobe malfunction. Do you really think the objection at the highest level was over a nipple? I think we can all agree that we’ve all seen them and we know in the overall scheme of things the event was relatively harmless. So why did America respond like it was driven by the Inquisition? Defining America is more than half the battle because in this instance it’s really a very small group of people although the popular illusion is that it’s a majority. And the interesting thing is they could have cared less what part of anyone’s body was shown on TV. Their interest was purely in the fact that something went out live over the wire that was beyond their control and ability to manipulate. A message got through the layer upon layer of repression, which starts and ends with media control and it alarmed them. How ignorant to suggest that the media leans left or right when the perversions come over both channels as you argue about nothing. They are gearing up again for another large takedown and people like Sally Field simply get in their way.

Good strong patriotic Americans like Sally know this, which is why these things come out at public functions. The censors have stated their intentions that there will be "no other time and place" for these matters. Don't you see that? It means we’re at the breaking point. What better opportunity is there considering how desperate the situation is? Action must be taken by everyone at every occasion. If you don’t know that then you have eaten too many Twinkies. And before anyone should criticize her they should weigh in as to who she is and what she has meant to this country as a solid citizen of celebrity status for many years. She's what we used to call a tried and true American. Then weigh in the likes of people like Tucker Carlson who called her a “creepy American.” To me, that statement is more offensive than anything Jimmy the Greek or Imus ever said because it’s attacking each and every one of us Americans who choose to exercise their rights against those that would steal our freedom and enslave us. If you don’t know that then you have eaten too many Twinkies.

I call for Tucker Carlson’s resignation. Who is he anyway? Where did he come from? Who gave him his job and why? What has he done for the country? Don’t bother to answer what are rhetorical questions. I’ve already done the research. He’s a zero. He snuck in the back door. He’s nobody compared to Sally Field. He only looks and acts important because he receives the backing of tyrants in exchange for his shameless willingness to do their bidding. Neither one can exist without the other, but Sally Field exists despite them both. You don’t have to look far to identify who the phony punk gun for hire is and who the patriot is. Take your cues from Sally and be a healthy American.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Quite a few concern trolls
Posted by: FGFM on Sep 22, 2007 12:31 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Fact of the matter is, Field won the award and she had a minute or two to say what she wants. Fox censors her and then brings on Michelle Malkin to libel her. End of story.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]