Am I the Only Person Who Doesn't Care About the Dixie Chicks?

[Billster]

Originally posted by Brittanylips That's arguably what the DixChicks were doing when they launched their attack on Bush, attempting to prohibit him from participating in the arena in which makes his living. When people speak out against politicians they are attempting to interfere with their carreers. It sounds like the principal is the very thing that you are ignoring, which is that speech is free for both sides, and suggesting rather that the side whose views you prefer should have greater freedom to express them. Calling for a boycott of the Dixie chicks whether we like it or not (and neither of us do) is nonethless an exercise of free speech - every bit as much as the chix dissing the Prez is an excercise of their free speech. The principal is that both sides are entitled to the same freedom. peaceloveandbrittanylips

 

Thank you for typing my response to Jotown

[MrKnobs]

Originally posted by Brittanylips That's arguably what the DixChicks were doing when they launched their attack on Bush, attempting to prohibit him from participating in the arena in which makes his living. When people speak out against politicians they are attempting to interfere with their carreers.

 

Speaking out about politicians is a special area. All politicians are fair game, always have been. It's part of what you accept being a politician. It's a vital part of being in a free country.

 

Being spoken out against isn't what happened to the Dixie Chicks. Anyone is free to buy or not buy their records for whatever reason, but that's not what happened. What happened was a corporate decision at high levels, a publicity stunt in its own right to promote radio shows and stations who were ragging on the DC for being anti-American.

 

Pure mob mentality hate speech. Control of what the listeners get to hear by mega-corporations, exactly what many musicians decry as the evil system. Except even more evil in this case, because it was politically motivated.

 

Terry D.

[Jotown]

Originally posted by MrKnobs Speaking out about politicians is a special area. All politicians are fair game, always have been. It's part of what you accept being a politician. It's a vital part of being in a free country. Being spoken out against isn't what happened to the Dixie Chicks. Anyone is free to buy or not buy their records for whatever reason, but that's not what happened. What happened was a corporate decision at high levels, a publicity stunt in its own right to promote radio shows and stations who were ragging on the DC for being anti-American. Pure mob mentality hate speech. Control of what the listeners get to hear by mega-corporations, exactly what many musicians decry as the evil system. Except even more evil in this case, because it was politically motivated. Terry D.

Thank you Terry for typing out my response to both Billster and Blips.

 

There is a huge difference between free speech and institutiional character assasination. I will let you figure out who is doing which.

[Billster]

Originally posted by Jotown Thank you Terry for typing out my response to both Billster and Blips. There is a huge difference between free speech and institutiional character assasination. I will let you figure out who is doing which.

 

I admit that corporate conglomeration of radio stations is bad news. But do you really believe those corporations are acting at the behest of the government? The radio corporations are politically connected, but what they are really pandering to is their perception of the marketplace.

 

They believe the target audience is flag-wavers. They deliver that audience to the advertisers who pay the money. If they believe the audience will turn away from a controversial act, they will downplay that act to keep the real product (listeners) flowing toward the real customer (advertisers).

 

And let's be clear about the difference government regulation by the FCC and government control a la state run media like they have in North Korea.

[Rudolf von Hagenwil]

Could we say this, whatever corporations would play any music as long they think it generates money, and there are not really political reasons behind that all?

 

In other words, simple commercial opportunism with no political background at all.

 

For example as it is here, where more then 50% of the population are not members of any church, nor have any strong urge to force a political idea on opponents, of course apart from the opportinistic lobbying in the parlament, but have not really a chance since we practice a direct democracy. However, no one really nows if the majority are atheists, or if it is that we accept religion as a privat thing. Not that we don't have a tiny rest of amish like people somewhere in far away valleys who never made it to the Mayflower, but they are accepted and we simply leave them in peace with god and their music.

 

But i guess in the US everything is completly different, i just don't know how, but that makes your statements very interesting to me.

 

By the way, if you looking for nice houses and vacation spots, there are whole villages completly empty in the southern alps, where tens of tousands of people left to the new world in the past.

 

.

[SoulHitchHiker]

That's it. I'm friggin' movin' to Switzerland..............

[Brittanylips]

Originally posted by MrKnobs What happened was a corporate decision at high levels, a publicity stunt in its own right to promote radio shows and stations who were ragging on the DC for being anti-American. Pure mob mentality hate speech. Control of what the listeners get to hear by mega-corporations, exactly what many musicians decry as the evil system. Except even more evil in this case, because it was politically motivated. Terry D.

You know, it's really the same underlying concept as the civil liberties vs. security debate - increasing one is at the expense of the other, so it becomes a matter of where you draw the line: more liberties/less security vs. less liberties/more security. And different people have different views on where the line should be.

 

Similarly, free speech is also a matter of where you draw the line. The supreme court, for example, drew the line at yelling fire in a crowded theater in a landmark case - that is not protected by free spech. On the other hand, free speech accomodates KKK rallies and all sorts of heinous things, many of which are not even literally "speech" (flag burning, for example, is considered a form of speech).

 

So important is the excercise of free speech that the courts are loathe to limit it. It's not that people love the KKK, but if the line were drawn to prevent the KKK from expressing their views, it would also prevent other, more bunny-friendly organizations from expressing their views.

 

So when you describe what happened - "What happened was a corporate decision at high levels, a publicity stunt in its own right to promote radio shows and stations who were ragging on the DC for being anti-American" - I don't disagree and I don't like it any more than you do.

 

But as evil, corporate, and politically motivated as it was, it is still protected by free speech and falls on the "you're allowed to do that" side of where the line is drawn.

 

There are societies all over the world that would not tolerate that kind of speech. But I'd much rather live in one that does.

 

-plb

[blue2blue]

If it was all about just short-term profit -- Clear Channel would not have been one of the key supporters of the Bush campaigns, both through direct contributions and in many indirect ways.

 

But Clear Channel had a lot of motivation to assure the assent and retention of Bush and his team, since they were very much concerned by the threat of de-monopolization efforts under a different president.

 

As they should be.*

 

 

 

*And by that, I mean they've had a bust-up coming for a long time (IMHO) but complicity of the Clinton and Bush FCC's (as well as Republicans and some Demos in Congress) has helped them all but wrap up some markets.

[Joe Cole]

To answer the original poster's question....

 

You are not alone. They do not even orbit my universe.

[Rique]

Originally posted by Brittanylips Calling for a boycott of the Dixie chicks whether we like it or not (and neither of us do) is nonethless an exercise of free speech - every bit as much as the chix dissing the Prez is an excercise of their free speech. The principal is that both sides are entitled to the same freedom. peaceloveandbrittanylips

 

Free speech is not equal for both sides though, and Blacklisting is different than boycotting.

 

The Dixie Chicks made some anti Bush comments in London not in song form mind you.

 

And, all their MUSIC was subsequently blacklisted from country radio.

 

If the radio stations put a disclaimer on saying that the artist views do not represent the views of the radio station and continued to play their music, then you could say that

Free speech is equal for both sides, but there was not even a particular song to boycott.

 

Go ahead and boycott their music if you want but Blacklisting them from

radio stations is a clear attempt to deny all people of their Free speech.

[Billster]

Originally posted by Rique Go ahead and boycott their music if you want but their Blacklisting from radio stations is a clear attempt and deny people of their Free speech.

 

I'll say it again - free speech is protected by the government. Megalomaniac corporations may act badly, but they do so at the risk of a civil rights lawsuit.

 

If the alleged "victims" here (who by the way have a number one album and leveraged themselves onto the cover of Rolling Stone as a result of this nonsense) were really being squished, they could pursue legal action.

 

Just because many people might agree with the opinion being "blacklisted" by a radio conglomerate, doesn't mean the station owners can't disagree and take action to express that opposition.

[Rique]

Originally posted by Billster I'll say it again - free speech is protected by the government. Megalomaniac corporations may act badly, but they do so at the risk of a civil rights lawsuit. If the alleged "victims" here (who by the way have a number one album and leveraged themselves onto the cover of Rolling Stone as a result of this nonsense) were really being squished, they could pursue legal action. Just because many people might agree with the opinion being "blacklisted" by a radio conglomerate, doesn't mean the station owners can't disagree and take action to express that opposition.

 

 

If your music doesn

[Billster]

Originally posted by Rique     If your music doesn

[Rudolf von Hagenwil]

As it seems, they did it without the support of country radio, which largely ignored the Dixie Chicks.

 

So what's all the blah blah about free speech?

 

Is this another change in the landscape of country music, or just a one time exeption?

 

.

[Brittanylips]

Originally posted by Rique Go ahead and boycott their music if you want but Blacklisting them from radio stations is a clear attempt to deny all people of their Free speech.

In what way does not playing their music deny them speech? They're free to say whatever they want, regardless of how much their record is played.

 

In fact, as many have pointed out, the result of the radio stations' decision is that the CHiX speech has been expanded, if anything, with increased media exposure and CD sales.

 

If not getting on the radio is a violation of free speech, then is Clear Channel denying you of your right to free speech if it chooses not to play your music?

 

-plb

[Jotown]

Originally posted by Brittanylips If not getting on the radio is a violation of free speech, then is Clear Channel denying you of your right to free speech if it chooses not to play your music? -plb

You are making this way too complicated or you are intentionally trying to cloud the issue.

 

This is why the de-regulation of radio and TV station ownership was such a big issue. By allowing one entity or voice to control what comes through the publicly owned airwaves you get (for the first time in US history) the ability to block dissenting views.

 

Clear Channel and others are not blacklisting the DixChix because people don't want to hear their music (the success they are currently having proves this to be untrue) they are blacklisting them for what they said about bush; hence they are being punished by an organized entity - which has clear political ties - for what they said.

 

First they blacklist music, then the blacklist news. This is not a good trend for America and that the Chix have succeeded despite efforts to block them is an aberration. Someone not so high profile who can't get other media exposure will never get their music, or their political opinion heard.

 

Why is this so hard to grock?

[Rudolf von Hagenwil]

Aha !

 

.

[Billster]

Jotown, you've gone off the deep end.

 

As I have stated repeatedly in this and other threads, corporate conglomerate ownership of radio stations is a bad thing, but it is not a threat to free speech.

 

There are so many media outlets in this country, the idea of anybody being shut out is ridiculous.

 

Roman Polanski continues to make films that are shown in America despite the fact that he dare not set foot in the country because of outstanding child rape accusations.

 

Every major city and most smaller ones have "alternative" newspapers independently published and throwing rocks at the powers that be. You should Google "Boston Phoenix and Catholic Church" and see what you find.

 

If your political voice isn't heard, it's because you choose not to participate. Go to a town council meeting, go to a county commisioners or school board meeting. Call your representative and senator. Vote.

[Jotown]

So when someone does not agree with you they have "gone off the deep end"?

 

You are indeed a wise and kind soul.

 

NOT>

 

I am not going to explain this to you again because it is clear your reading comprehension is not very good.

 

I have nothing more to say here.

 

Live in your bubble.

[Billster]

Originally posted by Jotown So when someone does not agree with you they have "gone off the deep end"? You are indeed a wise and kind soul. NOT> I am not going to explain this to you again because it is clear your reading comprehension is not very good. I have nothing more to say here. Live in your bubble.

 

You keep harping on this being about suppressing "free speech", and it is not.

 

As I see it in this case, a large radio conglomerate decided not to play music by an artist expressing views they (the radio owner) felt would alienate the target audience.

 

This speaks to jingoism and cynicism, but it is not censorship. It is a business entity making a misguided decision.

[Rudolf von Hagenwil]

Something is unlogical in the last few posts for me.

 

Would the Dixie Chicks fit in the program concept of this radio stations who are not playing them, or are we talking about radio station who do not play country at all?

 

.

[Billster]

Yes Angelo, the claim is that country music radio stations are blacklisting the Dixie Chicks. That would be like a classic rock station blacklisting Led Zeppelin.

[Rique]

Originally posted by Brittanylips In what way does not playing their music deny them speech? -plb

 

Blacklisting does deny free speech.

 

Let

[Rudolf von Hagenwil]

Originally posted by Rique Let

[Billster]

Originally posted by Rique If a person knows that they will get blacklisted for expressing an anti Bush or war comment, it denies them their free speech because they know they will be punished for expressing those ideas.

 

If someone chooses to sit on a controversial opinion because of fear of backlash, that's their choice, not censorship.

 

For the umpteenth time, freedom of speech is guaranteed by the constitution of the United States. Those who attempt to ban free expression do so at their peril.

 

Remember the uproar about putting "parental advisory - explicit lyrics" stickers on albums? Wal-Mart refuses to sell those albums. Is there a free speech uproar, or do the artists just sell through other avenues? The silly policy costs Wal-Mart some customers, but apparently they can accept that in exchange for expressing their "values" in that way.

 

And for the record I don't shop at Wal-Mart, and I certainly wouldn't buy music there.