‘Bleep!’

3: Reading Response: ‘Bleep!’

‘Bleep’ is a 40-minute-long episode from the 99% Invisible podcast. The audio itself is paired with a digital article that, while it is not a direct transcript of the episode, uses text to highlight certain key ideas from the podcast. Moreover, the article also embeds the videos that are heard on the podcast. Thereby, while the podcast is a strong source on its own, analyzing the ideas expressed in both audio and article allows one to see, read, and hear the ideas of the podcast. The episode is hosted by producer Chris Berube, who worked at the Guggenheim Museum and on the ABC News ‘The Dropout’ podcast (Berbube). In the ‘Bleep’ episode, Berbue speaks with numerous experts ranging from professors to entrepreneurs to community councilmen. 

Through the episode, Berube focuses on analyzing the history of the ‘Bleep’ sound in media and radio. This includes its technical development and its cultural impacts. Of all of this analysis, Berube emphasizes the idea that the sound’s repeated use has altered its use and meaning in today’s culture. Specifically, the podcast address how the sound is now treated as synonymous with the curse words it was originally meant to hide. This correlation has become so strong that modern media uses the sound for comedic effect without implementing actually foul language. Thus, Berube opens up conversations about whether or not the Bleep sound remains an effective way to censor media.

To fully understand this commentary from Berube, two key perspectives exist to analyze. Firstly, one should note Berube’s conversation with Tim Winter, a Parents Television and Media Council member. The entire conversation with Winter, including background on the council itself, spans from 16:30 to 19:00. During this interview, Winter states that using the Bleep is “no earnest effort to … make sure the program doesn’t violate indecency standards … you are almost adding it back in and adding emphasis to to” (18:10 to 18:30). Through this statement, Winter is emphasizing how the repeated use of Bleep has negated its ability to hide the presence of swear words. Winter also focuses on how noticeable the Bleep sound is, which ensures that the viewer notices the presence of something being bleeped. Through this, Winter is highlighting the idea that, while some censoring is better than none, there are more subtle ways of sensors that keep the overall shock of profanity from being in the text.

This conversation with Tim Winter introduces an argument against the use of the Bleep sound as it negates the original goal of censorship. However, a counter to this perspective argues that censoring language isn’t necessary anymore. From 19:10 to 20:10, the podcast discusses how societal standards around swearing have changed. This includes commentary on how, following looser restrictions in FCC, “most stations don’t bleep words like bitch or ass anymore” (19:46 to 19:51). This emphasizes how, as the culture around swearing changes, so does the expectations for censorship in media. Subsequently, the necessity of any language censorship is called into question. To further emphasize censorship is not as necessary anymore, Berube also provides examples of how the Bleep sound is used comedically with no true focus on the words being said. This is especially noticeable in the video clip, where segments of bleeped-out sound are entertaining because they are bleeped, not because the viewer has any idea what is being said. 

Ultimately, the idea that the Bleep sound is ineffective at hiding the presence of swear words leads to two perspectives. One perspective is that new censoring methods need to replace the Bleep, while the other is that censoring is not as necessary anymore. The presence of these two countering perspectives leads to an interesting observation about cultural shifts. Namely, one perspective implies a desire for media to reflect reality. The contrasting perspective illustrates a desire to continue creating media that portrays an idealized version of reality. These differences indicate two different preferences on art imitating life or life imitating art. Furthermore, these two observations also lead to the question of which perspective creates more influential art. When artists attempt to use the media to start conversations and spark societal changes, how does censoring language influence the results? Does an unrealistic world where foul language doesn’t exist encourage the audience to view these characters as examples of the best of the best? Or do characteristics who speak with commonplace profanity serve as a more attainable example of minor flaws in a wholly good person? Answering this question may shift how people think about censoring and whether or not it improves media in addition to filtering it.

Works Cited

Berube, Chris. “Bleep!” 99% Invisible, 1 Jan. 1970, https://99percentinvisible.org/episode/bleep/.

Chris Berube, https://www.chrisberube.com/.wildobxhorses.

“Buster Cursing.” YouTube, YouTube, 22 Aug. 2010, https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=5&v=gmhEXjM7iTw&feature=emb_title.