It seems that there’s a bit of a problem with Cuddle and Coo — the cute li’l audio track in its tummy says, “Islam is the light”.
Whoops! What was Fisher-Price thinking of? The Malaysian market??
A grassroots campaign has been launched. It aims to force Mattel (the parent company of Fisher-Price) to withdraw the doll. Failing that, it wants to induce retailers to pull it from their shelves or at least attach a label with a content warning for potential buyers. The group is called MAMA (Moms Ask Mattel for Accountability), and they sent out this press release in an email yesterday:
Help Us Remove Mattel’s “Islam is the Light” Doll From Stores This Holiday Season
We’re writing to ask for your help with a local citizen’s campaign this December. Our goal is to convince stores to stop selling a Mattel talking doll that says “Islam is the light,” a way of inviting someone to join Islam — also know as “Da’wa.” We have started this campaign in Virginia and Maryland, and we need your help to take it nationwide.
The controversial toy is called the “Little Mommy Real Loving Baby Cuddle & Coo” doll, manufactured by Mattel-Fisher Price. We’ve put up a website to provide resources for parents to download an information packet to give to store managers. As parents, we’ve already started asking store managers to remove the dolls from the store shelves, or to put labels on the dolls stating “Notice: this doll says ‘Islam is the light,’ an invitation to your child to join Islam.”
THE “ISLAM IS THE LIGHT” DOLL IS STILL ON THE SHELVES
You may have heard about this controversy in the media. It received a lot of print and TV media attention in October and earlier in November. Yet — hard as it is to believe — most stores are still carrying the doll on their shelves for the holiday shopping season. The doll has no warning label letting parents know that it clearly says “Islam is the light.” In fact, we found one store in Virginia where the dolls had the audio disabled AND the front packaging panel (where the name is displayed) ripped off, which made it harder for parents to know that this was the controversial doll. A few newer dolls are being distributed without the sound file, but most still say “Islam is the light.”
Bottom line — parents are still buying the doll RIGHT NOW, taking it home, and may not realize what the doll says until Christmas morning when their child unwraps the package and the doll tells her that “Islam is the light.”
MATTEL DENIES EVERYTHING
You’d think Mattel would have recalled the doll after parents complained, after some retailers pulled it in response to parent complaints, and after about twenty Youtube videos went up spontaneously from parents and local TV news stations showing that the doll was really saying “Islam is the light.” But no. Mattel denies everything.
Mattel has flatly denied that the doll audio files say “Islam is the light,” and has stated that parents are hearing the phrase “Islam is the light” because of “power of suggestion.”
As a certified Islamophobe, I am by definition susceptible to the power of suggestion. However, my suggestion is that you listen to the audio from this doll, and make up your own mind about it.
The strange thing is that there are notable differences between Mattel’s official version of the audio as posted on their website, and MAMA’s own recording from a doll they purchased .The two are audibly quite different, and acoustic analysis confirms what the ear detects.
Scott Grayban analyzed the two recordings using “Audacity” software, and the waveforms for the two audio files appear significantly different.
I took Scott’s graphs and normalized them for comparison:
- - - - - - - - -
As you can see, the left sides of both graphs — where the baby is laughing and making nonsense noises — are virtually identical. But on the right side (the shaded sections) the two are quite different. For whatever reason, the pattern of amplitude on that part of the Mattel version has been dampened. By a strange coincidence, that’s also where suggestible people hear “Islam is the light”.
If you listen to both of them, you’ll hear that the MAMA version, recorded from the company’s actual product, is much clearer.
It gets even more peculiar. Boycott Watch produced a slowed-down version, and Randall Rathbun followed up with a further slowed-down version (warning: large .wav file). Their conclusion is that the audio source was produced not by real baby, but by recording a woman’s voice, and then speeding it up to raise the pitch.
So what’s going on here? Are we being paranoid? You decide!
Listen to all the evidence at MAMA and see what you think. There’s much more about the Da’wa Doll at their website.
A story in their news section shows that at least one retailer has put a finger to the wind and made an informed business decision: Kmart Australia pulled the doll from its shelves.
Updates 12/3/2008
Other coverage of Baby Da’wa:
Snopes says it’s false, basing their judgment mainly on the word of Mattel and a test using four people who listened to the audio. I’m still not convinced.
Uppity Woman covered the story on 11/26/2008.
Dan Riehl: Did Mattel get punked?
Atlas Shrugs: Mattel’s Islamic skulduggery!
23 comments:
I clearly hear a "g" sound in both versions, not the "sl" in "islam". So if it is an actual intentional phrase, it sounds like "God is the light" to me. But I still think it's just coincidence.
I don't see how anyone can get "islam" out of that.
Something really fishy is going on, and I don't mean the doll or Mattel.
As for the difference in waveforms, the doll recording is via a microphone. I'll bet the one Mattel supplied is the original sound file before it was put into the doll. You can hear a similar difference between recording a song from a CD via analog cables connected directly to the player versus putting a mike in front of a speaker while playing it. That would explain some of the differences. It may be possible to directly record the doll with cables by cutting it open.
I can't explain the specific absence of the lower part of the waveform in the supposed "islam", but as I said I hear a "g" in both sounds anyway.
I'll bet a qualified audio engineer could account for the differences more authoritatively. Although Scott Grayban is supposedly a "computer expert", I doubt he's such an engineer.
My final opinion: the doll is NOT saying "islam", and the entire thing is a coincidence. And the people trying to drum this up have some ulterior motive.
It seems that there’s a bit of a problem with Cuddle and Coo — the cute li’l audio track in its tummy says, “Islam is the light”.
Oh my goodness.
As a long time lurker here, just to say that while you generally raise good points, this is not one of them. It's pareidolia (detecting of patterns that do not exist); and rather paranoid nonsense.
As a previous commenter says, the "is" of the purported "Islam" has a "g" sound in it. If it sounds like anything to me, the phrase is something like "e glam easy site".
Come on. What possible reason would mattel have for spiking their dolls with this?
Ian B --
You could be right. Since I have never listened to the the audio with an unbiased ear — my first encounter with it was the Fox TV story via the Dutch article — I’m not a reliable judge. That’s why I want lots of other people to listen to all the different audio versions.
As for why Mattel would have done it: that’s a good question.
Mattel does not manufacture most of its toys in the USA. Most are subcontracted to China, Malaysia, and Indonesia. Given the recent poisonous paint scare, one can assume the chances that the doll was manufactured in China are low. That leaves two large Muslim countries as the probable place where the audio was recorded. Did a devout Muslim at the factory’s audio studio take the opportunity to spread his (her) faith?
But it’s the graphs that are most convincing to me. The Mattel version shows a stronger signal on the left side, and then an undeniably dampened waveform on the right. If the entire graph were dampened uniformly, it would mean very little. But the evidence of selective muting in one section is strong.
I think this story is worth digging into. The details of manufacture are going to be hard to find, but they’re out there. And the possibility of corporate malfeasance to cover up prior stupidity should be investigated, too.
I've definitely heard it! It is not a nonsensical "baby talk", there are definite "isla is the light" actual sounds. They may have deliberately omitted the "M" sound at the end of the first word, but the rest is pretty hard to miss.
Wow, here comes the real power of suggestion. Jim says it's a 'g', then Ian says it too, and now even the Baron goes "Oh it might be a 'g', I wouldn't know".
But it's not a 'g', it's definitely an 's' sound. 'S' sounds are more distinctive then other phonemes because of their hissing character, and cannot be mistaken.
Also the last word is not "site" as suggested by Ian. There is no 's' sound there, but clearly an 'l' sound.
Baron B:
Since I have never listened to the the audio with an unbiased ear
Are you able to listen to music with an "unbiased" ear? Would you ever say: "I cannot know if this song is good, because a friend had told me it's good before I heard it, so now I cannot have an independent opinion."
People, do believe your ears! So what do they tell you? Here's the slowed down version. Where do you hear hissing sounds, and where don't you?
As for why Mattel would have done it: that’s a good question.
Either it is actually intended to be garble, but came out as "Islam is the light". That's not impossible.
Or the the management of Mattel are duped by people under them who made this recording, intentionally included "Islam is the light", but presented it as garble to the management. Same people who provided the sound file you link a graph to above.
Or Mattel has joined the dark side.
Cool your jets, Swede.
When I listen to it, I always hear “Islam is the light” or possibly “Islam is delight”.
When I said that I can’t listen to it with an unbiased ear, I meant that before the first time I listened to it I had read that people heard “Islam is the light” in the audio. I never listened to it without that idea already in my mind.
I would love to have heard it before I had read that, but I didn’t get the chance. So I can’t state that without a doubt I would have heard the same thing without a prior suggestion. There’s no way for me to know.
But in any case, when I listen to it now, I hear it clearly. That’s all I can say.
Yep, I heard "isla is the light". Must be some damn muslims working for mattel. Well, I'm not going to buy ANYTHING mattel this year...
As to why Mattel refuses to admit it - they'd loose hundreds of thousands if they did admit and order it off the shelves. The toys are going be worth 0.00 in any currency instead of $21 and equivalents. As simple as that.
It isn't "definitely an "s" sound" and there is no "ess" hissing sound. It's more like the gl in igloo. Try sticking your tongue at the front of your mouth and making faux baby noises and it's what you get, part of a "gurgle" for want of a better word.
Also, I'd expect that the sounds are of an adult, since a voice actor pretending to be a baby is far more practical than trying to get a baby to cooperate in a recording studio (let alone the regulatory issues).
Baron,
Cool your jets, Swede.
I simply disagree with you, that's all. I will continue to do so if I may.
I would love to have heard it before I had read that, but I didn’t get the chance. So I can’t state that without a doubt I would have heard the same thing without a prior suggestion. There’s no way for me to know.
This is where I disagree. With proper reflection and if we are truly honest to ourselves we can often conclude quite a lot about our reactions in alternative scenarios. We are not directed to a swamp of relativism.
Without the influence of other people it is quite possible that you wouldn't have heard anything intelligible at all. Quite as with the song, in my comparative example above, if a friend hadn't pointed out that the song was in Beatles style you might have missed to see it in that way, and you would have ended up liking the song less.
It's true that once something like this has been pointed out to us that we are no longer able to look around it. But that does not imply that our perception has become blurred. We still know very well if we like a song or not. And for very distinct sense data there will be no doubt: we know if we hear an 's' or not. And if we hear an 's', we would hear that in any alternative scenario.
Too bad the doll doesn't say, "Islam, we must fight!"
"isla is the light"
Yes the 'm' is very weak, but it's there. Indicated also by the nasal "colouring" in the decay of the 'a'. If there hadn't been an 'm' or an 'n' following, the 'a' would have remained "pure".
Oh, come on, Now I am usually quite satisfied to just lurk, but this whole thing is silly. Yes the recordings are different but neither 'say' anything. They are clearly (pun intended!) meant to represent babbling by a baby and no real words. These women need to get a life and stop seeing the bogeyman out to get their children. Reminds me years ago of the whole Alar "scare" with apples.
I guess they figure once the kids have the doll in their little hands, they won't let their parents take it back to the store for a refund without crying down the house.
Marianne,
Yes the sound file most definitely presents itself as baby babbling (as I have already stated, I'm sure this is how it got passed the Mattel management).
But even if we assume that your impression is true, that still doesn't explain for why the Mattel sound dept. has tinkered with the sound file, they presented, just in that section.
And how much is your impression coloured by a general view of yours as seeing such actions groups as tacky and ridiculous? Concerned parents and citizens such as these are regularly ridiculed in the media and in urban culture, such as e.g. the vigilantes along the Mexican border. (A very positive side of America is how ordinary people actually get organized like this. I applaud it.)
And I'm curious: Would you buy the doll yourself?
Conservative Swede- if the Mattel version is the original sound file used, and the other version is recorded from the doll, no further explanation of why they are different is needed. The doll version is lossily compressed, it's coming through a cheap amplifier and a little tinny speaker in a plastic doll, then a microphone. The harmonic content as recorded will be very different to the original source file. Also, it's the whole file which is different, not just the purported "Islam section" as you can surely see from the graphics.
You could try comparing a CD version of a song to one recorded via a microphone from a cheap radio. The files would appear quite different.
This is really no better than people seeing rude words in wisps of smoke in a Disney cartoon, or "Allah" in fruit seeds.
Ian,
Also, it's the whole file which is different, not just the purported "Islam section" as you can surely see from the graphics.
I think you missed the Baron point here. I repeat it for you: "As you can see, the left sides of both graphs — where the baby is laughing and making nonsense noises — are virtually identical. But on the right side (the shaded sections) the two are quite different."
This is also what can be seen in those graphs. Not what you suggest.
This is really no better than people seeing rude words in wisps of smoke in a Disney cartoon, or "Allah" in fruit seeds.
Why?
The point here is you can't make a particularly useful qualitative judgement of the harmonic content of audio by looking at a graph of the amplitude. You simply can't come to any useful judgement about the sound itself; the information you require isn't available in such a form.
It's quite clear that the two files are the same basic audio; even if one has been "treated" they're still the same sounds, and it matters not as to meaning whether somebody has put one of them through a compressor or a flanger or some other processing. Either the woman said "Islam" or she didn't; and it really doesn't sound to me like she did. In either file.
Ian,
Either the woman said "Islam" or she didn't; and it really doesn't sound to me like she did. In either file.
While I hear her saying Islam in both files. I cannot imagine how you could miss an 's' and take it for a 'g'.
The interesting thing with the Baron's analysis of the sound files is that public Mattel file seems to having been tinkered with in exactly that section of the file. It does not seem to having been successful, but with the graphs presented, the Baron has made it quite possible that there was an intention.
Which part of the explanation that the second "doll" file was recorded from a doll, whereas the mattel file is the original source audio, are you having trouble with? There is no indication that mattel have "tinkered" with anything. They presented an audio file, since they had the original, rather than recording it from a doll, which would be silly (and would produce yet another different result).
There isn't an "s", you really are imagining it. There isn't a properly formed letter at all, because the woman is doing an impression of baby talk. It sounds a bit like a g, or a d, or even a t, badly pronounced. The one thing one can be certain of is it isn't the word "islam". You're just hearing it because that's what you want to believe it is.
I'm late to this topic (and plenty ignorant as well ;-), but what I hear is,
"Igg-lam id the ligh-dt!",
spoken by someone with a heavy accent from the Philippines or analogous 3rd-world country. One dead giveaway of national origin might be the way she says her T's, a very distinct speech impediment or pronunciation quirk that is noticeable in the super-slowed-down version.
Question: Is it possible that they say the *word* "Islam" differently in Malaysia, Indonesia or the Philippines? And that, possibly, whoever recorded the original track (before it was sped up to resemble a "baby") has trouble with their S's, F's and/or T's (i.e., hard/sibilant sounds)?
After hearing it again, what I hear is:
Ig-glong id de *ligh-dt*!
Where the "id" is partially a "is", and "glong" is partially a "glom" or "glon" sound.
I'm also positive now that the phrase is *not* random. Not like the beginning of the clip. These two were probably spliced together at some point, but it's not really important one way or the other.
I'm also sure that if this person could speak English properly, it would *not* sound like, "Ig-glom iz de lighddd", but something else entirely, and we would all pretty much agree on what it said. Unfortunately...
Post a Comment