Monday, December 17, 2018

Editorial: Should Radio Stations Pull 'Baby, It's Cold Outside' Out of Rotation?

I don't know who you are or when you're reading this, but the egotistical side of me would like to believe that my little blog might get dug up by anthropologists of future centuries who are interested in the history of social issues. So with that in mind, here's some redundant information.

"Baby, It's Cold Outside" is a song written by Frank Loesser in 1944. It was not a Christmas carol, as it's since come to be identified by huge groups of people who are wrong, but was a jazzy call and response number between two vocalists (named on the sheet music as "Mouse" and "Wolf"). Mouse has paid a social visit to Wolf's home and is at a crossroads where the appropriate time to leave is at hand, but Wolf's opinion that Mouse should stay the night is made clear. Loesser wrote the song for him and his wife Lynn Garland to perform at a housewarming party (as a 'time for everyone to get the hell out of here' song) and it became an instant hit among the Hollywood social scene of the 1940s.

Now skip ahead to the present (December 2018). Christmas music, and music posing as Christmas music, is overdosing department store playlists. But we're also in the #metoo climate; a social movement that it's still too early to tell what (if any) will be the long term effects thereof, but certainly begun in the best of intentions.

#metoo is a complicated topic, at least enough so that I don't feel comfortable trying to define it in a single sentence. But at it's core is an umbrella that's been catching as many buried feelings as possible from people who have been sexually violated; a much higher percentage than we'd generally accepted prior to the movement. The seeds seemed to have been planted with the high profile Hollywood cases such as Woody Allen, Harvey Weinstein, and Bill Cosby; only the latter of which took anyone by surprise.

I think the reason Cosby hit so close to home for the zeitgeist is that he was universally loved. We trusted him because he was all over our childhoods, and nobody earns your trust faster than someone who can make you laugh. The thought of him being a serial date rapist is something that's too disturbing to fully accept upon the first charge but impossible to dismiss as 'well, it's Hollywood' like we did with Allen and Weinstein for way too long.

So that brings us back to "Baby, It's Cold Outside", a song with lyrics that feel a little too predatory by today's atmosphere, and a line "What's in this drink?" that immediately calls to mind the Cosby accusations of date rape drugs in women's drinks. Should radio stations pull the song out of rotation?

Well first off, let me say that I personally don't give a flip about the song. It's not a musical style that I connect with, and I find it kind of annoying. But that's an easy out for me, and it sidesteps a real discussion, so let me strike that off the table.

Do radios have the right to pull a song out of rotation? Yeah. They don't have to give a reason for it. Take any song of the season. Do you think they're going to get hate mail in January if their station doesn't play "Silver Bells" one single time? Who pays that much attention?

But WDOK in Cleveland (which apparently started this topic) just had to go on the air and announce that they were pulling the song, and provide a reason. And the backlash happened. On the one side are people who think it's just a song and other people are too easily triggered and too sensitive, and on the other side are people who actually are getting triggered and are sensitive and feel like those emotions are being trivialized. I see both sides and I don't think there is a solid 'right' answer, but hopefully we can find some 'right' reasons to decide on an answer.

In entertainment, most any romance with a sexual undertone is presented as a predator/prey kind of relationship. That may very well be a symptom of a larger problem, but it is possible to tap into that formula without crossing the line into harmfulness. I can't tell you where that line is, and I doubt it's in the same place it was in 1944, but I feel comfortable saying that Loesser's intention was likely meant to be sexually fun. Garland certainly loved the song, so much that she felt betrayed by Loesser when he sold it in 1949 to MGM. If that has any bearing on how one should interpret the lyrics, Mouse is probably consenting.

Wolf is traditionally understood to be a male character while Mouse is a female voice. In the 1940s I don't imagine those gender roles would ever have been challenged. But how would the song be perceived if the roles were switched?

Question one: Why is Mouse trying to leave?

The lyrics don't give a definitive answer. In the forties it was considered improper for a woman to spend the night at her lover's home (implying they aren't married). With a female Mouse, it's as conceivable that she truly wishes to stay the night and is only worried about how people will react as it is that she's being seduced against her wishes.

If it's a male Mouse and a female Wolf, the story has even more disturbing implications than it already does. It's accepted that men think with their genitalia, which is an unfair stereotype but we're not at the point where we're taking offense to it yet. The perception then is that a male Mouse would want to leave because he legitimately wanted to leave. Thus, there seems to be little explanation for the line "What's in this drink?" other than the worst possible scenario.

Real quick before I move on, have you tried imagining the song sung by two singers of the same gender? Where does your mind naturally paint the encounter as an innocent seduction, and where do you think of it more as a violation? No seriously, I'm interested in what you think if you want to e-mail me your thoughts.

Question two: What are Wolf's intentions?

We presume we already know the answer to that question, but the truth is we only have a transcript of the conversation; and as anyone who's ever gotten into an escalating misunderstanding on Twitter can attest, nuance means as much as words do. It's really not a huge leap to imagine Wolf as that corporate incubus making the come-hither gesture, but look at how much profiling that is based on very little information.

You know, it's not the most exciting interpretation but it's quite possible that Wolf is merely concerned about Mouse's well-being. Why do we assume that Wolf assumes this is going to lead to sex? Hell, I didn't even think about it until just now when I typed in question two.

Another thought: imagine if Mouse comes from a higher economic class than Wolf does. How does that change the story's dynamic? It's not likely, but it's also not outside the realm of possibility, that Wolf is coming from an awareness that the relationship is truly based on matters of the heart; one that will invariably not survive the expectations of the metaphorically cold world outside. Surely there's no harm in wanting one's ultimately doomed hope spot to last just a little bit longer.

That's a reach of course, but it illustrates how there are several problems with definitively saying the song should be treated as a condoning of sexual predators. First up, how ambiguous the situation is. We can't really divine from either character where their intentions lie, and one wonders if they can divine it from each other. Secondly, at the end of the day this is just a song. We can't expect every song, poem, or story to abide by the same parameters we place on real life encounters. The third problem, it's also not just a song. Many people have a sentimental attachment to this old school style of crooning that helps them get in touch with the whole of what the holiday season means to them. Any artist is hoping that their work will transcend itself by connecting with an audience on an emotional level. "Baby, It's Cold Outside" has been doing that for decades. And in the current climate it's now doing that in an unfortunate way that Loesser could not have predicted.

So where does that leave us? Well, even if you haven't had your own #metoo story (and I genuinely mean this, I hope you never do) you HAVE to be able to recognize that the song can be taken in its more ominous interpretation. And from there, surely you can understand why someone who has been through any kind of sexual assault might have some of those emotions stirred up by a song. And you might even be right to wonder aloud why something as inconsequential as a song could provoke a hornet's nest.

My best advice, stop there. I can admit there's a certain bandwagon of hate that a lot of people can't help but enjoy jumping on, but it never starts with them. It starts with people who were hurt by something they couldn't process, even if they had a solid support system; and chances are they didn't. Life requires you to still function, so they've handled it the only way they can. They've buried it. And tried to forget about it. And then something innocuous hits the wrong nerve at the wrong time and these buried feelings come pouring out. And yes, that might make Christmas a little less joyful at times, but the harsh reality is there are people in the world who aren't you, dealing with issues that aren't yours. Maybe show a little compassion?

Getting back to the question that started all of this. What should radio stations do in regards to a song that has inadvertently become controversial? There may not be one single answer to accommodate every situation, but we might be able to simplify things a little. First, is your radio station normally in the habit of playing the song? If the answer is no, then there's only a problem if you invite one. There's no reason to start playing it now. If you get a sudden surplus of requests for the song then maybe consider it, but also consider the very un-Christmas-like us vs. them mentality that has spread through our culture as of late and ask yourself why the song is being requested. Is it to make other people angry? Because that's a good reason to deny the request.

But okay, suppose your radio station has had a history of playing "Baby, It's Cold Outside" in recent years. Do you now remove it from the lineup because of the stigma, or do you keep it because of tradition? To answer this, I'd have to ask what your intention regarding the current social issue is. As a representative of the organization whose opinions typically don't reflect that of an individual's, do you want your station to take a stance or do you want to avoid the issue altogether?

Case one: avoid the issue. This is a little harder to do than it sounds in this day where everyone has an opinion and outlets to force them to be heard. And not responding at all may provoke the extreme voices on one or both sides. But if this is your route, keep doing exactly what you're doing and distance yourself from your listeners. Don't take requests and don't read e-mails until the holidays are over. And don't draw any attention to what you are and aren't doing. You may lose some integrity points, but it will be across the board, and that's the way it has to be.

Case two: take a clear side. It won't be without penalty, but it's the easiest course of action in the long run because you'll never have to ask yourself again which side you're on. The downside is, you aren't going to be able to change your mind, and you'll invariably lose some listeners and gain some negativity/hostility that I personally wouldn't care to deal with. But that's on you.

Case three: take a middle ground stance. This is hard to do because the extremes on both sides treat your balance point as support for whatever they themselves are opposing. But they won't hear anyone but themselves anyway, and you're trying to make sense for the rational listeners who are closer to that middle ground.

I would say, keep the song in rotation but be prepared to explain yourself. For example:

"We here at WGOF have heard the complaints from our listeners about the song "Baby, It's Cold Outside", and at this time we feel it's unnecessary to remove the song from our regular rotation. As with many issues, this is an ongoing discussion, and we welcome your comments.

"The complaints we've received center around the notion that the lyrics serve as a condoning of sexual assault. We believe this was not the intention of the songwriters, and as such the song itself is ultimately harmless. With that said, we understand that we have a variety of listeners who may feel very strongly about the song for any number of reasons.

"It is certainly not our intention to make anyone feel negatively regarding our content, and sexual assault is a very serious issue that we do not take lightly. If it turns out that playing this song is in fact harming any of you, we want to hear from you.

"It also occurs to us that, as a radio station, you invite WGOF into your homes on a regular basis. We're obviously not trained to counsel anyone, but if you've had an experience that you've not been comfortable revealing to anyone before we encourage you to talk to someone, our station included. For any of our listeners who need to be heard, we invite you to contact us. We realize it's only a step, but perhaps there is something more beneficial we can do than the mere elimination of a song from our airwaves.

"As always, we hope everyone stays safe this holiday season, and that we can all be a little more kind to each other."

No comments:

Post a Comment