After apparently months of requests, video sharing service YouTube finally agreed to allow a 2018 music video by Lebanese singer Myriam Fares to be edited to remove “offensive” imagery. According to a report from Rolling Stone, a member of Fares’ management team confirmed that they had “successfully trimmed” some of the footage of the singer in blackface from the video for her hit international single “Goumi.”
The music publication first pointed out the controversial footage last November. However, even when it was released five years ago, there had been some backlash for her being seen in blackface to appear African.
“We are now very well aware of the offensiveness that escaped our judgment when we launched the music video as it was never intentional. Especially since the blackface concept is non-existent in the Arab world and it was not considered a sensitive phenomenon in the Middle East,” a statement to the publication of record stated.
“When Myriam crossed over to become an international artist, it was brought to our attention how this might be offensive,” the statement continued. “It was never our intention to raise any sensitive issue, as we really did not mean any offense, we just wanted to portray the beauty of women from different cultures.”
According to the singer’s management team, YouTube had originally not allowed the footage to be edited, and the only option would have been to remove the video and repost it. However, that would have resulted in the loss of all previous views.
Editing The Past Or Correctly Past Wrongs?
This is hardly the first time that old content has been edited or otherwise addressed for being potentially insensitive, and some streaming services – notably Disney+ – have responded by posting a disclaimer at the beginning of the content.
What is notable with this video is that there is no disclaimer, but also no mention that it has been edited.
“These are confusing times when it comes to social media policy, and how determinations are made as to what is acceptable or not – and also about manipulating content for nefarious purposes. While Congress continues to talk about this and Twitter is like a flag in the wind – the ambiguity of what’s acceptable or not is spilling into other areas like entertainment,” suggested Susan Schreiner, analyst at C4 Trends.
“At the heart of this discourse is the fundamental lack of transparency about guardrails by social media companies,” said Schreiner.
She noted that there had been a number of movies that were made in the 1940s and 50s that included blackface – and many are simply not aired on TV anymore. But in this case, it wasn’t a video made in “another time” as even in 2018, the singer – or at least her management – should have known this isn’t considered the least bit acceptable. It also puts into question why YouTube wouldn’t have a policy against such content.
However, there is another issue regarding the editing of the video for “Goumi” – namely that no disclaimer was posted altering viewers that such changes were made. In this case, the editing was done for good reason. But all too often, content can be edited on social media for more nefarious purposes.
“The question is once you have a technical artifact that captures a moment in time, when is it appropriate to change or edit it – which is essentially changing history,” noted Nicole Ellison, professor of information at the University of Michigan.
“Online media can be changed in a way that the printed word can’t be so easily updated,” said Ellison, who further warned that on social media, the context – not just the words – can also be edited.
“If there isn’t a public record that changes were made, that could be a problem,” she explained. “We should be informed that an edit was made, and those changes should be documented and made public. Otherwise, we could see a situation where someone posts something fairly neutral – receives likes and support – and then that content is changed to something that perhaps wouldn’t have been met with the same approval.”
To those who only see the edited version, it may appear that it was still approved by other users. Then there is the issue that the content could be edited by those other than original the creators.
“This isn’t the same as correcting a typo, as the context can change entirely,” warned Ellison. “That is why it is important to have a record of the change, and perhaps even have it explained.”
This could be a case where it was the correct decision but was still handled the wrong way.
“YouTube might have made the right move by allowing the owner of the intellectual property (IP) to make these edits, but there should also be a disclaimer that this is an edited version,” Schreiner added.
On the one hand, artists can’t know what may be socially acceptable years or decades from now, but at the same time shouldn’t so easily be able to essentially edit or “retcon” their past.
“Given the ambiguities in the social media universe – a balance needs to be found between erasing the past and holding public figures accountable – yet making space for acknowledging regrets and apologies,” Schreiner continued. “Public figures are human and what might have been a joke at age 18 is far more serious at 40, particularly if someone is in the public eye.”