posted on May 24, 2003 07:49:28 AM new
Those concerts were sold out well in advance of all of this controversy. The radio stations that didn't play the dixie chicks were doing what the listners called in and asked them to do. They are listner driven and if the majority of callers said play the chicks and I'll turn the station then that was their freedom of speech and in the best intrest of the business to do so. Those that booed used the same platform to do so as they used in making the statement. I could really care less about the DC before or after the statements but freedom of speech works both ways and how "macho male" issues got in this who knows. Natlie attacked TK even before she did bush but thats not as largley publicized so most aren't aware of those issues. Its really just a bunch of millionaires pissing and moaning to each other so in the long run who cares !
posted on May 24, 2003 08:22:30 AM newYour logic eludes me
It's not my logic, it is the Constitution's logic. Free speech does not mean that all views will have equal billing or audience. It never has. I am at a loss how many people think that free speech doctrine in the United States means that you may use other's property and somehow be guaranteed an audience that someone else has built up. I guess we can blame our schools.
Freedom of speech is alive in the USA, as long as you can afford to own the media
What you seem to want is for the government? to force media outlets to allow anyone that wants to use their property to broadcast their ideas and opinions ? How will you react when the government forces you to allow me to paint a sign on the side of your house ?
freedom of speech and expression should not be predicated on ones finacial situation
And it is not. The government is not permitted to impinge on free speech rights regardless of one's finanacial situation.
Again, what you seem to espouse is some sort of usurpation of private property rights and rights of free association, and the free speech of the media outlet owner in order to allow someone's opinion to be heard.
Shall we force christian churches to allow satan worshipers equal time to preach on Sundays to the christian congregation?
How about forcing artists to use a required set of subject matter so as to make sure diverse ideas appear in their works?
posted on May 24, 2003 08:26:31 AM new
I quit listening to country music on radio a couple years ago because it had become “cookie cutter” so I probably shouldn’t even be writing about the Dixie Chicks. I have only heard them a few times and wouldn't recognize their picture unless it had a caption. It was reported that Clear Channel sent out a letter to its thousands of stations not to play their cds.
Eegnats is right. We are losing our right to hear a variety of music, talk, shows on media and many do not know it will only get worse.
Did anyone see Bill Moyer’s NOW last night? Michael Powell said we have had our chance to discuss MORE consolidation of our media systems.
Did any of you know a vote was coming up to allow even more consolidation?
It will allow even more of the media independents to be swallowed up. Powell said you have had the time and did or did not respond. Did you know? Or didn't you care?
Yet as one of Moyer’s guests said last night CBS and FOX never alluded to the vote
coming up.
Taking the Dixie Chicks off some stations, or deciding not to allow Susan Sarandon to attend or speak at a function is controlling freedom of speech. I believe we all should have the freedom to speak. As I said in Twelvepole's “abortion” thread what I read from twelve and others inspire me to donate to those who are not trying to control free speech or citizen's rights.
Twelve, if you say I have a “supposed ‘high’ moral tone” does that mean you have a "low" moral tone? Or a "Non-existent" one?
I have neither a "high" moral standard or "low" moral standard... I have Twelvepole's Moral standard... one undoubtedly you fall well short of...
Oh and at no time was the dixie chicks or sarandon denied to speak... just their venues were changed and it was up to them to continue on if they wanted...
AIN'T LIFE GRAND...
[ edited by Twelvepole on May 24, 2003 08:47 AM ]
posted on May 24, 2003 08:50:05 AM newTaking the Dixie Chicks off some stations, or deciding not to allow Susan Sarandon to attend or speak at a function is controlling freedom of speech
No it is not. It is in fact the venue owner exercising THEIR right of free speech and free association.
The Dixie Chicks are copyright holders of their music. They can refuse to allow the stations the right to play their music. Is that controlling freedom of speech as you define it?
How about Susan Sarandon refusing to allow her movie to be screened in a certain town? Isn't that controlling freedom of speech as you define it?
It is appalling the lack of understanding of Constitutional rights. Again I blame the schools for these weird and totally baseless positions of free speech doctrine.
posted on May 24, 2003 09:21:39 AM new
Reamond,
Thats a neat trick that you employ, taking statements out of context, and avoiding large areas of discussion for which you apparently have no answer. Who has a more viable freedom of speech right, a syndicated millionaire right wing talk show host,with outlets to air his views in every major city and many smaller ones, on radio and television stations owned by millionaires, or an unemployed or underpaid worker. Is it really freedom of speech if one can say something and no one is allowed to hear it. Unfortunately a democracy becomes much less viable if certain ideas are not allowed to be aired, because they disagree with the media/government powers that be. Thus millionaires can and do control the national agenda...freedom of speech IS predicated on finanancial status. If a tree falls in the forest, and no one is there to hear it does it make a sound? if someone has a viewpoint that is purposely not allowed to be heard, is it really freedom of speech. I guess the rich and powerful just have more freedom of speech. Your analogy about putting a sign on my house is absurd. a sign on my house does not contol the national discourse and agenda. Control of all of the major media outlets by fewer and fewer extremely wealthy people does exactly that. When the wealthy few are allowed to control and dominate the airwaves, with the encouagement and blessing of the government, and they are allowed to control the ideas allowed on those airwaves it then becomes time to say goodbye democracy and hello to oligarchy. democracy depends on free access to ideas and free informed discussion of those ideas.
enjoy the weekend
"e"
posted on May 24, 2003 10:07:49 AM new
You know, I think this is all very simple. Sure we have free speech you can say whatever you want! BUT and here come the big BUT - if actors, actresses, singers etc., use their platfrom to make political statements then don't get all upset if the clientele does not want to buy your product.
Susan and Tim didn't get nixed from the baseball hall of fame because of what they said as much as Baseball wants to be free of being turned into a political vehicle for high profile protestors. I personally think that is fair.
The Academy Awards are about awards for acting etc. It should not have been turned into a platform for another blowhard! Its just a lack of respect in my opinion.
When the famous speak out their opinons don't they expect there may be a backlash? Not everyone is going to agree with them.
I have friends that hate bush, hated the war, etc etc. I just avoid the topic at gatherings because I want to stay friends. Not because I have right to exersize my free speech.
With free speech comes free responses!
The Dixie Chicks need to get a muzzle for Maines. She hurt business by assuming she was some sort of "ambassador" for Texas. She is a singer and a pretty bad business person in terms of public relations. She has a right to her opinion but her fan base is mostly country and conservative, what did she expect?
This country just went through a horrible experience unlike any other in the history of our country. 911 ! It is not like McCarthys time. I don't think it makes any sense to compare it to that era. McCarthy was about the Gov. going after people and that is wrong! But if the people of the US don't like what an entertainer has to say, its a whole different situation. No one is trying to silence them, people are just showing them, I don't agree with your opinion! and if you offend people they don't want your product.
Do you put in your ebay auctions I hate Bush? Don't buy if your French! I sure don't cause i want to make money. I can't stand the French position on this war but I sure will take their money if they want to buy somthing from me and I still drink Evian water. I don't believe in punishing people in terms of commerce. But if I felt strongly and I chose not to buy their products then I have that right too.
posted on May 24, 2003 10:15:59 AM new
Also here is a warning about Susan Sarandon.
She is a liar. She uses her own brand of propaganda to further her political beliefs.
Dead Man Walking was a lie.
I am from Louisiana and I live very near the area where the killers are from. Everyone here knows the killers did not come from poor depraved familys as the movie showed. Actually the Sean Pean charactor's family owns a business.
He never repented and went to the chair defiant until the very end.
The entire movie is a Susan Sarandon Lie.
Why did she doe this? A lot of people in Louisiana know the truth and shake our heads in disgust.
posted on May 24, 2003 10:27:14 AM newWho has a more viable freedom of speech right, a syndicated millionaire right wing talk show host,with outlets to air his views in every major city and many smaller ones, on radio and television stations owned by millionaires, or an unemployed or underpaid worker
They all have the same vaibility regarding government intervention under the doctine of free speech. What you seem to say is that the free market of ideas is working in the media realm and you do not like the results of the free market. Well... too bad.
No one is forced to listen to Rush Limbaugh. And there are plenty of outlets for opposing views. Bill Moyer is on PBS because he doesn't have a large enough audience to get into commercial broadcasting. That is because only a few people want to consume his product. It's the free market.
It is not the case that ideas are not heard. Popular ideas always will get the use of media outlets sooner or later. It can not be stopped.
I think you are confusing free speech doctrine with some sort of socialist/communist ideal of media ownership and use.
posted on May 24, 2003 10:53:07 AM new
I think its you who are confused. In communist countries only one side is allowed access to media exposure,only one side of a story gets told. sound familiar? Your idea of free market forces allowing all sides to be heard is incredibly naive. Ideas need exposure to become "popular". ideas denied media access cannot become popular. Bill Moyers is on pbs, because the big money interests of the networks will not allow discussion of some of the more controversial topics which he discusses. Too many big toes might be stepped on. The networks commercial sponsers might just withdraw the dollars(God forbid!)
posted on May 24, 2003 12:00:52 PM new
m&m is apolitical, thus he is tolerated. Phil Donahue spoke out against the war in Iraq, thus he was cancelled. The "liberal media" is a myth. Read "what liberal media" by Eric Alterman...open your eyes ears and mind!
posted on May 24, 2003 12:09:56 PM new
M&M is apolitical !! LOL !! You said Moyer isn't on major networks because he covers "controversial topics". So now you want to change the criteria to "political" topics. Moyer does more than political topics. Moyer is on PBS because he has no audience because people are fed up with 7 decades of liberal drivel in all the major media outlets.
Phil Donahue spoke out against the war in Iraq, thus he was cancelled
Phil Donahue was cancelled due to ratings being lower than anything on record at MSNBC. He admitted this himself. No one wanted to listen to his liberal drivel.
If the liberals can't win the free market game, they then want to change the rules.
posted on May 24, 2003 03:09:55 PM new
If anyone would like to see the NOW show I believe it is replayed over the weekend. In this area it is Sunday mornings.
Moyers had Powell (FCC Commissioner), Commissioner Kopps and Chuck Lewis from the Center for Public Integrity on as guests.
While we can still comment it is a little late to sway them either way. Powell said we have had our chance (with just 1-2 public meetings) so they are justified for going ahead with more deregulation.
The Center for Public Integrity website has
a place to check and see how many stations
in your town or area are out of town or even state owners. Click on the Capital on the right.
One of the major issues with dereg, when NPR first started talking about it, was the fact
that companies owning the stations were so far away from the viewing/listening audiences. Any local or even county news was taking a back seat to general programming that would cover huge audiences.
posted on May 24, 2003 05:04:28 PM new
John Mellencamp, Cheryl Crow, Paul McCartney and a number of other popular artists all recorded anti Iraq war songs recently, has anyone heard any of them on the mainstream media stations...doubtful. Did all of these artists suddenly become so unpopular, or is there possibly another dynamic at work here? " 7 decades of "liberal drival"...thats a bit of a stretch isn't it? How does one explain that Clinton was belittled endlessly in the "liberal media" as a draft dodger when he employed a perfectly legal student deferment, as did Bush. Bush on the other hand has been given a free ride by the "liberal" media when the record shows that not only did he employ a student deferment, but when this deferment expired, he joined the air national guard in Alabama and was awol from May 1972 to December of 1972 "according to his commanding officer, Bush never shows up for duty while in Alabama, nor can anyone confirm that he ever serves in the guard again"(Mother Jones Jan-Feb 2003 pg 17). What dynamic is at work here which allows Bush to be portrayed as a great supporter of the military, when the record clearly shows that he is a true "chicken hawk" Why isn't the "liberal media" portraying him as a draft dodger ala Clinton. The examples of this sort of thing are numerous, but you won't find them in the mainstream media, but they can be found if you dig deep enough. the truth is out there if you really want to know it...open your eyes...wake up!! be a true patriot and seek the truth even if you have to dig to find it.
over and out,
eegnats
posted on May 24, 2003 05:50:12 PM new
If the music is good and people want to hear it, no "media mogul giant conspiracy consortium" can stop it.
And no matter how much air time and hype a movie, song, book, work or art, or TV show, gets, if people do not want to consume it, the "media mogul giant conspiracy consortium" can not make it popular.
posted on May 24, 2003 05:52:12 PM new
Funny,no comments about our commander in chiefs well hidden "illustrious" military record as opposed to that draft dodger clintons shameful past! selective vision with huge blind spots!
posted on May 24, 2003 06:11:18 PM new
I don't hold their military record or lack of it against either one.
But yet again, the market decides what is relevant news.
Bush and Clinton's records have been vetted over and over. Neither story got any "traction" with the public.
Bush has been accused of using coke, Clinton didn't inhale.
Clinton is unfaithful to his wife, Bush may have been involved in a woman having an abortion.
The public just doesn't seem to give a rat's arse about these things no matter how little or how much the media parades these stories.
The public does care how national security is being handled and Bush has the majority of Americans support for his actions. Two democratic pollsters put an article in the WSJ last week that the Democtrats might as well stay home in the next presidential election until at least one of the candidates takes a strong national security position.
I agree with REAMOND when he says people decide what they like to hear and what they will watch. We have all seen movies hyped like crazy before their release, only to see them bomb really quickly.
posted on May 25, 2003 10:40:25 AM newKeep in mind that their mainstream fans were NOT in attendance at the music awards, and their mainstream fans have been packing their recent concerts...
The Dixie Chicks need to get a muzzle for Maines. She hurt business by assuming she was some sort of "ambassador" for Texas. She is a singer and a pretty bad business person in terms of public relations. She has a right to her opinion but her fan base is mostly country and conservative, what did she expect?
I agree that the Chicks have every right to voice their opinion. It is unfortunate that it gets them blacklisted from traditional country music venues. I think it's important to note that they are very talented musically, and IMO can appeal to a much larger audience than just country music fans.
I don't listen to country music, not because I don't like the music (although it is fairly one-dimensional) but because I don't care for its image, especially the ultra-conservative, gun-totin', flag-waving, cabbage-headed morons who make up its fan base.
How come you never see an openly gay country music singer? Nah, those folks go into rock music. Because country music fans won't accept it.
The hoopla with the DCs, if they can ride it out, will help their sales by forcing them into mainstream music. And that would be a plus for us all. Regardless of their political views, their music is great. So we all will benefit. The further they distance themselves from those sequined, 10-gallon hat wearing morons, the better.
Country music has a lot to offer, but in fact, country music IS used to promote a particular political ideology. ("God Bless The USA."The Dixie Chicks aren't buying it. Good for them.
posted on May 25, 2003 12:04:35 PM new
::If the music is good and people want to hear it, no "media mogul giant conspiracy consortium" can stop it::
Sorry - I gotta pop in on this one. As someone who worked in the business for a few years I can tell you that this a utopian fantasy.
Unfortunately quality has little to do poularity. Payola is alive and well and singles and airplay are decided not on quality but on power, influence and marketability of the performer.
How many times have you heard a song once and not particularly liked it but after 10 or 15 times due to heavy rotation start getting more comfortable with it because of familiarity?
The public may have a say in what does not get played but it has very little say in what does.
posted on May 25, 2003 03:30:27 PM new
my goodness, even in Tejas people have differing opinions..
If you can't answer a man's argument, all is not lost; you can still call him vile names.
- Elbert Hubbard
posted on May 26, 2003 04:01:02 PM new
I don't know about differing opinions, I do know I haven't heard the clucks on the radio since Maines had a bad case of brain drain.
posted on May 26, 2003 04:45:28 PM new
Well bear,I've never heard anyone say they were a native Texas before.
And since I am a native Texan,from the great Tejas capital.It may shock you to know the D/chicks had a massive crowd at their show a couple of weeks ago.The crowd and the chicks had a good time,no name calling or stupid people showed up.
Outside was a different matter,a total of 5 people (anti chicks), had cardboard slogans......"Scary"....
posted on May 26, 2003 07:24:37 PM new
Well Junque everyone's keyboard doesn't type what you tell it to do all the time. So how about this correction:
NATIVE TEXAN
I'll even go back and correct my other post.
Nothing about Austin shocks me, after all it's the most politically liberal of all Texas cities and home of the most liberal college in Texas. The same school that has on staff a professor that critized the U.S. saying we deserved the attack on 9/11. His name, Robert Jensen.
posted on May 26, 2003 07:45:03 PM new
TIME is the only real thing that matters here, this time next year will the chicks be back in everyone's good graces or struggling to sell more than their loyal fans can buy....
posted on May 26, 2003 08:02:04 PM new
I have a bunch of cousins in San Antonio...they talk funny, Spanish AND English
If you can't answer a man's argument, all is not lost; you can still call him vile names.
- Elbert Hubbard
[ edited by Twelvepole on May 24, 2003 08:47 AM ]
The Dixie Chicks aren't buying it. Good for them.