Jump to content


Getting an "Insecure Connection" warning for Exisle? No worry

Details in this thread

Dixie Chicks Get Nixed?

Dixie Chicks War Protesters Iraq

  • Please log in to reply
110 replies to this topic

#41 Captain Jack

Captain Jack

    Where's the rum?

  • Islander
  • 14,914 posts

Posted 19 April 2003 - 10:41 PM

Meh, they're not going to starve.  Their greed for money has surfaced over and over with Sony Records.  I never was a big fan of them.  Heck, since when have they ever sang anythng close to dixie?  Most of their songs are remakes of previous ones, such as "Taveling Soldier" (Tyler England) and "Unbreakable Heart"  (Carlene Carter).

Basically, you have to play it smart when you are in the spot light.  What you say can come back on you negatively.  And it may not be necessarily what you say, it's also how you say it.  That doesn't mean you can not express your views in public, it means you should be always mindful of what you say when it may hurt your career.  Go Lipton! Bwa-hahahahahaha!!!  :D
Posted Image
689 Reasons to Defeat Barack Obama in 2012:

https://www.national...at-barack-obama

#42 Palisades

Palisades

    Northern Lights

  • Islander
  • 7,753 posts

Posted 19 April 2003 - 10:54 PM

BBC

Quote

MUSIC EDITORIAL
   
Banned in the USA
Dan Kramer, Broadcast Assistant


Last week the Dixie Chicks were banned on American Radio. Not for the obvious reasons that their music is limp, middle of the road country, but because they dared speak out against George Dubya Bush.

The band have been pulled off all Clear Channel Radio Stations and copies of their albums have been publicly burned.

If you are not familiar with Clear Channel, they are the corporation that own 1,200 radio stations in America. They are responsible for homogenising playlists across the country and helping to destroy local music scenes.

Vice Chairman of Clear Channel Tom Hicks is a past donor to the Bush political campaign and has very close links to the Bush family.

You can see where this is headed.

Clear Channel has decided to fund a series of pro-war rallies. They say that they are ‘patriotic’ instead of ‘pro-war’. This is the same logic that George Dubya uses when he calls anti-war rallies useless focus groups.

As well as hosting these pro-war rallies and banning the Dixie Chicks, Clear Channel are slowly dropping other artists off their playlists that do not support the war.

<snip>

"When the Fed is the bartender everybody drinks until they fall down." —Paul McCulley

"In truth, 'too big to fail' is not the worst thing we should fear – our financial institutions are now on their way to becoming 'too big to save'." —Simon Johnson

FKA:
TWP / An Affirming Flame / Solar Wind / Palisade

#43 Kosh

Kosh

    Criag Ferguson For President!

  • Islander
  • 11,147 posts

Posted 19 April 2003 - 11:29 PM

QuantumFlux, on Apr 19 2003, 02:38 PM, said:

BBC

Quote

MUSIC EDITORIAL
   
Banned in the USA
Dan Kramer, Broadcast Assistant


Last week the Dixie Chicks were banned on American Radio. Not for the obvious reasons that their music is limp, middle of the road country, but because they dared speak out against George Dubya Bush.

The band have been pulled off all Clear Channel Radio Stations and copies of their albums have been publicly burned.

If you are not familiar with Clear Channel, they are the corporation that own 1,200 radio stations in America. They are responsible for homogenising playlists across the country and helping to destroy local music scenes.

Vice Chairman of Clear Channel Tom Hicks is a past donor to the Bush political campaign and has very close links to the Bush family.

You can see where this is headed.

Clear Channel has decided to fund a series of pro-war rallies. They say that they are ‘patriotic’ instead of ‘pro-war’. This is the same logic that George Dubya uses when he calls anti-war rallies useless focus groups.

As well as hosting these pro-war rallies and banning the Dixie Chicks, Clear Channel are slowly dropping other artists off their playlists that do not support the war.

<snip>
Now that is censorship.
Can't Touch This!!

#44 Captain Jack

Captain Jack

    Where's the rum?

  • Islander
  • 14,914 posts

Posted 19 April 2003 - 11:32 PM

^Well, I do have a problem with a radio station company deciding what we can and can not hear on the radio.  What happened to freedom of expression?  I guess that's okay when rappers talk about murders, gangsters, and guns...

As much as I don't like the Dixie Chicks, I think this is way too excessive.
Posted Image
689 Reasons to Defeat Barack Obama in 2012:

https://www.national...at-barack-obama

#45 Kosh

Kosh

    Criag Ferguson For President!

  • Islander
  • 11,147 posts

Posted 19 April 2003 - 11:55 PM

A Karas, on Apr 19 2003, 03:16 PM, said:

^Well, I do have a problem with a radio station company deciding what we can and can not hear on the radio.  What happened to freedom of expression?  I guess that's okay when rappers talk about murders, gangsters, and guns...

As much as I don't like the Dixie Chicks, I think this is way too excessive.
Clear Channel pretty much does that anyway. I listen to an online station, and talk radio in the car, or CD's.












:thumbs-up:  <Bulwinkle J. Smilie
Can't Touch This!!

#46 Guest-AleisterCrowley-Guest

Guest-AleisterCrowley-Guest
  • Guest

Posted 20 April 2003 - 12:06 AM

Quote

QUOTE MUSIC EDITORIAL

Let's look at that one word again...EDITORIAL.  Worth roughly the paper it wastes.
  

Quote

Last week the Dixie Chicks were banned on American Radio. Not for the obvious reasons that their music is limp, middle of the road country, but because they dared speak out against George Dubya Bush.

Actually, no.  THEY did not speak out against Bush...one member did.

Quote

The band have been pulled off all Clear Channel Radio Stations and copies of their albums have been publicly burned.

As much as I despise Nazis,  I can only see these actions as merciful to those of us who can still hear.

Quote

If you are not familiar with Clear Channel, they are the corporation that own 1,200 radio stations in America. They are responsible for homogenising playlists across the country and helping to destroy local music scenes.

No I'm not familiar with this corporation, but given the description, I lump them together with others such groups as Ticketmaster who enjoys a similar monopoly.

Quote

Vice Chairman of Clear Channel Tom Hicks is a past donor to the Bush political campaign and has very close links to the Bush family.

So.....he's automatically a bastard?  Is this guilt by association?  I understand that such treatment is frowned upon in the US.  THIS smacks of McCarthyism.

Quote

You can see where this is headed.

Yes, unfortunately I can.

Quote

Clear Channel has decided to fund a series of pro-war rallies. They say that they are ‘patriotic’ instead of ‘pro-war’. This is the same logic that George Dubya uses when he calls anti-war rallies useless focus groups.

No one in their right mind has staged a "pro-war rally."  This is lazy liberal rhetoric that precludes anyone who takes a conservative or patriotic stand is automatically a senseless war mongerer.  In addition, "Dubya," as the philistines are fond of calling him, was spot on in his assessment.  It mattered not.

Quote

As well as hosting these pro-war rallies and banning the Dixie Chicks, Clear Channel are slowly dropping other artists off their playlists that do not support the war.

Such as?  Names, please.

Incidentally, if we can depart from the senseless screams of "censorship" for a moment, here is some information that might be of interest.  At this website: http://cc.com/artist.asp?artistid=9515 ...btw, a Clear Channel website, you may find a tour schedule for our much maligned Dixie Chicks.  Observe the list carefully, and you will see that several concerts are already sold out.  These tend to be in the northern states.  Concerts not sold out tend to be in the southern states, traditionally (but not always) a bastion for country music.  These are your censors: the audience.  When people who listen to the radio stations and support the advertisers call in to complain, the execs take notice.  It's about money, not high level politics.  No political conspiracies or whatnot.

A spark of rationality can set a forest afire.

#47 Palisades

Palisades

    Northern Lights

  • Islander
  • 7,753 posts

Posted 20 April 2003 - 02:14 AM

AleisterCrowley::

Quote

Let's look at that one word again...EDITORIAL.  Worth roughly the paper it wastes.
Why is his opinion, supported with facts, worth any less than yours?

Quote

Actually, no.  THEY did not speak out against Bush...one member did.
The other members of the band were on stage with Natalie Maines when she said, "Just so you know, we're ashamed the president of the United States is from Texas." None of them contradicted her.

Quote

As much as I despise Nazis,  I can only see these actions as merciful to those of us who can still hear.
I assume you're saying the people who are banning the Dixie Chicks are Nazis?

Hey, I don't listen to the Dixie Chicks either, but our opinion of their music isn't what's at issue here.

Quote

No I'm not familiar with this corporation, but given the description, I lump them together with others such groups as Ticketmaster who enjoys a similar monopoly.
Ticketmaster doesn't have control over who plays/performs.

Quote

Vice Chairman of Clear Channel Tom Hicks is a past donor to the Bush political campaign and has very close links to the Bush family.

Quote

So.....he's automatically a bastard?  Is this guilt by association?  I understand that such treatment is frowned upon in the US.  THIS smacks of McCarthyism.
Of course not. The author of the editorial is simply stating facts to support his opinion on why Clear Channel pulled the Dixie Chicks from its radio stations.

Quote

No one in their right mind has staged a "pro-war rally."  This is lazy liberal rhetoric that precludes anyone who takes a conservative or patriotic stand is automatically a senseless war mongerer.
So what else are people supposed to call a rally in support of the war?

Chicago Tribune
:

Quote

Some of the biggest rallies this month have endorsed President Bush's strategy against Saddam Hussein, and the common thread linking most of them is Clear Channel Worldwide Inc., the nation's largest owner of radio stations.

In a move that has raised eyebrows in some legal and journalistic circles, Clear Channel radio stations in Atlanta, Cleveland, San Antonio, Cincinnati and other cities have sponsored rallies attended by up to 20,000 people. The events have served as a loud rebuttal to the more numerous but generally smaller anti-war rallies.

Also, you claim that the term "pro-war" automatically paints anyone who takes a conservative stand as a senseless warmonger. I'm in favor of cutting back affirmative action, which is a conservative stand. How exactly does the term "pro-war" imply that I'm a senseless warmonger?

I'm tired of hearing people say (or imply in your case) that people who criticize Bush or oppose the war are unpatriotic. Here are some quotes:
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." -- Theodore Roosevelt (1918)

"Why of course the people don't want war. But after all it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger." -- Nazi leader Hermann Goering during the Nuremberg Trials after World War II

Edited to add: While a Nazi spoke these words, these tactics are not specific to Nazism. These methods have been used throughout history to drum up support for wars against enemies that pose no imminent threat.

Quote

In addition, "Dubya," as the philistines are fond of calling him, was spot on in his assessment.  It mattered not.
Actually, a large, independently organized rally doesn't fit the connotation or even the definition of "focus group."

Quote

Quote

As well as hosting these pro-war rallies and banning the Dixie Chicks, Clear Channel are slowly dropping other artists off their playlists that do not support the war.

Such as?  Names, please.
From here:

Quote

Artists like Ani DiFranco are beginning to encounter harassment from Clear Channel. The corporation attempted to bar groups from distributing protest literature at a recent Ani DiFranco concert in New Jersey. According to PeacenotWar.org, “Clear Channel Entertainment also threatened to pull the plug on DiFranco or anyone else that made anti-war statements on stage.”

Quote

At this website: http://cc.com/artist.asp?artistid=9515 ...btw, a Clear Channel website, you may find a tour schedule for our much maligned Dixie Chicks.
Clear Channel would have a hard time canceling concerts for which people have already bought tickets.

Quote

Observe the list carefully, and you will see that several concerts are already sold out. These tend to be in the northern states. Concerts not sold out tend to be in the southern states, traditionally (but not always) a bastion for country music. These are your censors: the audience.
Huh? A performance that isn’t sold out still could have already had a large number of people buy tickets for it. Also, Clear Channel pulled the Dixie Chicks off all their stations in all 50 states, not just the stations in the south.

Quote

When people who listen to the radio stations and support the advertisers call in to complain, the execs take notice.  It's about money, not high level politics. No political conspiracies or whatnot.
So to make more money, Clear Channel is pulling from all their radio stations a band  that’s selling out performances?

Quote

A spark of rationality can set a forest afire.
Perhaps, but nothing you wrote in your previous post started any forest fires.

Edited by QuantumFlux, 20 April 2003 - 10:45 PM.


#48 G1223

G1223

    The Blunt Object.

  • Dead account
  • 16,164 posts

Posted 20 April 2003 - 02:50 AM

I just want to make sure I understand this. It's Ok to say what you want about the president. But not OK to be critical of those who do so.
If you encounter any Trolls. You really must not forget them.
And if you want to save these shores. For Pity sake Don't Trust them.
paraphrased from H. "Breaker" Morant

TANSTAAFL
If you voted for Obama then all the mistakes he makes are your fault and I will point this out to you every time he does mess up.

When the fall is all that remains. It matters a great deal.

All hail the clich's all emcompassing shadow.

My playing well with other's skill has been vastly overrated

Member of the Order of the Knigths of the Woeful Countance.

#49 Norville

Norville
  • Islander
  • 4,501 posts

Posted 20 April 2003 - 03:50 AM

Quote

I recall a lot of people burned or threw away their Cat Stevens albums when he spoke out in support of the fatwah against Salman Rushdie.

When I was a kid in the '70s, I was a big Cat Stevens fan; my sister had his albums and I listened to 'em, too. Then he disappeared, and turned up years later as a radical Muslim, Yusuf Islam, condemning his past work and Rushdie. I found I couldn't listen to his old material; I'd turn off the radio if I heard it. I've since calmed down and am better able to listen to him again, just pretending that he died years ago.

I have no comment on the Dixie Chicks themselves, though, really... except that I'd prefer that the choice not to listen to someone be my choice, not to have anyone make that choice for me by banning.
"The dew has fallen with a particularly sickening thud this morning."
- Marvin the Paranoid Android, "Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy"

Rules for Surviving an Autocracy
Rule#1: Believe the Autocrat.
Rule#2: Do not be taken in by small signs of normality.
Rule#3: Institutions will not save you.
Rule#4: Be outraged.
Rule#5: Don't make compromises.
Rule#6: Remember the future.
- Masha Gessen
http://www.nybooks.c...s-for-survival/

#50 Guest-AleisterCrowley-Guest

Guest-AleisterCrowley-Guest
  • Guest

Posted 20 April 2003 - 05:10 AM

Ah, QuantumFlux, we become entangled in quotes within quotes, so I'll address your comments in the order you made them for simplicity's sake.

As to my opinion being worth more or less than that of the author: it isn't. Nor is yours.  On the other hand, I'm not being paid to make statements as he is in this case.  I am merely making my statements because I believe them to be true...and he may as well but he's expected to express his opinion.  As to the "facts," the author quotes facts that guide the reader to a conclusion instead of supporting a conclusion.

In regards to Ms. Maines' statements on stage: silence from her bandmates does not necessarily imply consent or agreement.  They may have agreed, disagreed, been stunned by her boldness, or simply wondered what got into her.

No, I am not saying people who ban albums are Nazis, I'm saying people who burn albums are nazi-esque.  I think we both know what I meant in that statement.  The opinion I was expressing was a personal observation and had no bearing on the argument, but thank you for pointing it out.

My lumping Clear Channel with Ticketmaster was not an attempt to imply that Ticketmaster controls who goes on stage, though they very well might for all I know or care.  I was speaking of monopolies in the entertainment industry.

I will add here that in the future I will attempt to be more concise so that you will not be lured into misreading  my statements.  This is my fault.

In regards to Tom Hicks having connections to the Bush family and Bush's campaign:  while we might be tempted to say "aha!" and draw a conclusion, I would be more convinced if some real evidence were presented here.  Perhaps an admission from Mr. Hicks or some damning paperwork...anything along that line.  The editorial's author is insinuating that because Hicks has connections to the Bush clan, therefore all of Clear Channel's actions concerning this matter are motivated by Mr. Hicks. Non Causa Pro Causa.


Again I state that no rational person is going to stage a "pro-war" rally.  People might stage rallies in support of Bush and his policies, or to counter-demonstrate against "anti-war" rallies.  I could not find the Chicago Tribune article you quoted (link, please?), but did it actually state the rally was in support of war against Iraq as a measure of solving the situation?  But perhaps I should have been more specific...again.  I was speaking of liberals painting conservatives as "warmongerers" in relation to this situation.  Once again, my apologies; I will endeavor to be more clear in the future.  I simply though it was understood.

Also, regarding the two quotes you posted, I wouldn't use those examples.  Roosevelt is most famous for his statement "speak softly and carry a big stick" and for parading the Great White Fleet around the world.  As to Goebels, Nazi Germany wasn't under attack until it started a war (the "Jewish Menace" was a phantom, you undoubtably understand). Iraq, on the other hand, is a confirmed training ground for the same jolly crew who destroyed two large buildings.  Subtle difference, to be sure, but there nonetheless.

While the definition of a "focus group" may not apply, I would also add that the definition of a "peace rally" was savagely flaunted in the first few days of the war.  Lil and others from the San Francisco area can confirm that bit.  "Truculent Mob" may be the label we're looking for here.

Ani DeFranco: Gads, please tell me you did not just use a college newspaper editorial quoting a website devoted to anti-war effort as a source of fact.  It may very well be fact, but I question the reliability of your source.

At this point I must quote two statements made by you.  I apologize.

Quote

Clear Channel would have a hard time canceling concerts for which people have already bought tickets.

Actually, this supports my point that it would be the average listener that censors this group, and not necessarily Clear Channel.

And...

Quote

Huh? A performance that isn’t sold out still could have already had a large number of people buy tickets for it. Also, Clear Channel pulled the Dixie Chicks off all their stations in all 50 states, not just the stations in the south.

In regards to the first sentence, this can be argued both ways.  It could also mean ticket sales were low.  That wasn't my point, which was that the sold out shows tended to be in the north.   As for your second sentence, if CC is an organization with stations across the U.S., it makes sense they would remove this band from all of their stations as a matter of policy.  The listings I displayed suggest the actual concert goers in the south are not so keen on the Dixie Chicks as in the north and west.  However, time will tell.

Lastly, CC would be wise to avoid a group being protested by its listeners.  Yes, it's about money, not your taste or mine.  It works like this: people listen to the radio.  Advertisers pay the stations to play their adverts in relation to popular segments of airtime (popular groups for instance).  If listeners are protesting a group and stop listening to the station (or threaten to do so), CC would be wise to distance themselves from that group or they stand to lose advertiser's money.

One last throw in, from G1223:

Quote

I just want to make sure I understand this. It's Ok to say what you want about the president. But not OK to be critical of those who do so.

Yes, G1223, that's the message I'm getting as well.

Time for fresh coffee.

Edited by AleisterCrowley, 20 April 2003 - 05:17 AM.


#51 Uncle Sid

Uncle Sid

    Highly impressionable

  • Islander
  • 1,414 posts

Posted 20 April 2003 - 05:30 AM

Let me just say this as sort of a summary of where I am.

The DCs were taken off the radio initially because there was overwhelming reaction by listeners who called in and demanded that.  The consumer has spoken.  

Is CC a company that is sympathetic with the administration?  It's certainly possible, but one Vice President's personal views does not a corporate policy make.  In the end, either way, there's no law against a company supporting a particular political interest.  Even in the unlikely event that CC did "ban" them just because their execs love George Bush, it's still their right to do so.  However, using terms like McCarthyism for this or censorship are completely inaccurate.  Both McCarthyism and censorship have a governmental component.  If anything is clear, it is that the government did not need to force Clear Channel or Lipton to take its steps.  

This is not is a free speech issue.  CC is a private company and private companies are allowed to do what they feel is best with the time and resources in terms of making a profit within legal limits.  Private companies, with some restrictions, are also allowed to be involved in the political process.  Private companies should not be confused with the government, which has constitutional limitations with what it can do with most of its resources.  If Clear Channel wants to stop playing the Chicks, then its their right to do so.  They aren't preventing the Chicks from performing or in any way hindering their ability to comment in any way that they choose, so there is no free speech issue.  They simply aren't using their resources to promote them.  The Dixie Chicks have no inherent Constitutional right to get radio air time or TV commercials with them in them.  

In the end, if you are anti-war, I see no reason why you shouldn't be annoyed.  After all, CC and Lipton took away an outlets because your shared views made them unpopular.  That would annoy the heck out of me.  But would you consider it to be unethical if the DC had "banned" from Clear Channel because they vocally supported the war and/or just plain killing Iraqis?  Fundimentally, this whole issue is just a partisan issue.  One side got what it wanted.  The other side is annoyed.  That's what really happened.  Attempting to raise this to some high and mighty issue of rights is just rhetoric.
I can picture in my mind a world without war, a world without hate. And I can picture us attacking that world, because they'd never expect it. - Jack Handey

#52 Guest-AleisterCrowley-Guest

Guest-AleisterCrowley-Guest
  • Guest

Posted 20 April 2003 - 05:36 AM

Here, here...well said.

#53 Banapis

Banapis

    Tilting at Shadow Depositories

  • Islander
  • 2,222 posts

Posted 20 April 2003 - 05:38 AM

Lover of Purple said:

Just want to interject something here. Since I may be ONLY person here who listens to country music stations. I can tell you that the six I listen to pulled the Dixie Chicks off AFTER they were swamped with phone calls.

But see, the problem is how do we know that isn’t just a vocal minority?  Why are these people allowed to speak for everyone? Presumably, the people who couldn’t care less wouldn’t have bothered calling.  And if people did try to call in support of the Dixie Chicks, they would have been part of this “swamping” of the phone lines.   So, how can the “swamping” be said to be conclusive evidence that listeners want the Dixie Chicks off the air?

Furthermore, what reason do we have to believe that the callers “swamping” the station are even people who listen to that C&W station?  They might not even be C&W fans.  How do we know they aren’t talk radio fans who, having heard about Ms. Maines’ comments on their preferred political radio show, were filled with the righteous zeal to take the issue to their local C&W station and demand the scandalous un-American traitors be taken off the air?

Banapis

#54 Banapis

Banapis

    Tilting at Shadow Depositories

  • Islander
  • 2,222 posts

Posted 20 April 2003 - 05:42 AM

First off, welcome to the island AleisterCrowley! My apologies for failing to welcome you in my initial reply.

AleisterCrowley, on Apr 19 2003, 08:50 PM, said:

Incidentally, if we can depart from the senseless screams of "censorship" for a moment, here is some information that might be of interest.  At this website: http://cc.com/artist.asp?artistid=9515 ...btw, a Clear Channel website, you may find a tour schedule for our much maligned Dixie Chicks. 

I must admit I can’t really find any meaning in these “sellout” statistics.  For one thing, we’d have to know the “sellout” rate of the Dixie Chicks before Ms. Maines’ comments in order to draw any conclusions.  However, even just limiting our analysis to these figures, the problems are myriad.

I look at the first 3 concerts scheduled: FL, FL, FL on 3 consecutive days.   None of them are sellouts.  I attribute this to simple supply and demand.  There’s a glut of Dixie Chicks music supply all within a short period of time in a relatively small geographic region (MapQuest estimates a 3 hour 38 minute drive from Orlando to Fort Lauderdale; 1 hr 52 mins Orlando to Tampa).  Therefore, I fail to see how any conclusions can be drawn from the lack of sellouts (as of right now) for the FL concerts.  It would be far more useful if we could see exactly see what percentage of tickets for each of these concerts have in fact been sold.

However, one inescapable conclusion can be drawn from 3 concerts in the same area on 3 straight days: the promoters must have darn good reason to believe there’s considerable demand for Dixie Chicks music in the State of Florida.

Moving along, what meaning do we ascribe to the fact they’ve failed to sellout in Ohio?  Is Ohio the “South?”

What of the fact Kansas City, MO is soldout on May 10th, but St. Louis, MO hasn’t soldout for May 11th?  Is K.C. the “South,” while St. Louis is the “North?”

What of the fact none of the California concerts have soldout?

Does any of this even matter, considering all these not-yet-soldout concerts still have time to sellout?

Finally, I look at the end of the schedule you linked to.  It’s interesting to note that the 2 latest concerts listed on this schedule (and hence the least likely to be sold out as of today) are in fact sellouts.  Their locations?  Houston, TX and Atlanta, GA.

Great demand being milked for all its worth in Florida, plus sellouts in Texas and Georgia?  I simply can’t read these stats to indicate music fans in the South are really “shunning” the Dixie Chicks because of Ms. Maine’s comments.

The fact remains there is no conclusive proof of what listeners/consumers want.  Thus, the Dixie Chicks shouldn’t be off the airwaves.  It should be up to individual citizens to boycott their music if they so desire.  Radio Broadcasting Corporations should not be making these decisions for people.

Banapis

#55 Kosh

Kosh

    Criag Ferguson For President!

  • Islander
  • 11,147 posts

Posted 20 April 2003 - 05:44 AM

Quote

Iraq, on the other hand, is a confirmed training ground for the same jolly crew who destroyed two large buildings. Subtle difference, to be sure, but there nonetheless.

Do you have an article or something to back that up? I haven't seen any conformation, but the news gets so much wrong I don't turn it on often.
Can't Touch This!!

#56 Guest-AleisterCrowley-Guest

Guest-AleisterCrowley-Guest
  • Guest

Posted 20 April 2003 - 05:48 AM

Lover of Purple, on Apr 19 2003, 06:25 PM, said:

And I'm not real happy with the "redneck" label. It's  use in this thread is similar to other racial slurs as it was used as an insult. I've seen no complaints about that use.

As far as I am concerned, yeah she has a right to say what she wants. What got her into so much trouble was saying it in London, I think. I didn't care either way. They are great performers and I didn't throw away my CDs! But the "rednecks" have rights too...or do we forget that? Or do some feel only liberals or anti-war people have rights? Sometimes I wonder when I read comments on the internet and in the papers.

Last thing and I'll leave you to it. With freedom of speech comes responsibility. You or I can say what we want, but we are responsible for our actions..just as she was.
You forget, LoP, "rednecks" are stereotyped as conservatives and thus are fair game.  The rules of civilized conduct do not apply when speaking of such people.  They have the right to be silent and not make waves.

You speak of the connection between freedom and responsibility.  You are very correct, sir.  Unfortunately...not speaking about anyone here...many simply want to practice their God-given right to diarrhea of the mouth and eschew the consequences.  It also occurs on both sides, sorry to say.

#57 Rov Judicata

Rov Judicata

    Crassly Irresponsible and Indifferent

  • Islander
  • 15,720 posts

Posted 20 April 2003 - 05:51 AM

Banapis, on Apr 19 2003, 07:26 PM, said:

Radio Broadcasting Corporations should not be making these decisions for people.

Banapis
Here's the weak point of the argument.

Don't corporations have the right to choose what they broadcast? Doesn't Lipton Iced Tea get to choose their ad campaign?

Put another way:

If, in support of the DC stance, various radio stations put the Dixie Chicks on *more*, wouldn't that be okay, because it's their network?

Why doesn't it work the other way around?
St. Louis must be destroyed!

Me: "I have a job and five credit cards and am looking into signing a two year lease.  THAT MAKES ME OLD."
Josh: "I don't have a job, I have ONE credit card, I'm stuck in a lease and I'm 28! My mom's basement IS ONE BAD DECISION AWAY!"
~~ Josh, winning the argument.

"Congress . . . shall include every idiot, lunatic, insane person, and person non compos mentis[.]" ~1 U.S.C. § 1, selectively quoted for accuracy.

#58 Guest-AleisterCrowley-Guest

Guest-AleisterCrowley-Guest
  • Guest

Posted 20 April 2003 - 05:53 AM

Kosh, on Apr 20 2003, 02:28 AM, said:

Quote

Iraq, on the other hand, is a confirmed training ground for the same jolly crew who destroyed two large buildings. Subtle difference, to be sure, but there nonetheless.

Do you have an article or something to back that up? I haven't seen any conformation, but the news gets so much wrong I don't turn it on often.
Give me time for research, but I recall two distinct things:

1) Iraq has consistently served as a training area for Al-Qaida recruits while not officially condoning their actions.  I believe even Hussein issued a formal statement condemning the 9/11 attacks.

2) Al-Qaida cells moved into Iraq about a month before the war began to help "defend" the nation.  Good job, fellows.  Iraq's official position: we didn't ask for it, but if they want to help...

Again, it will take some digging for legitimate online proof, and I'll return either carrying my shield or carried on it.

#59 Banapis

Banapis

    Tilting at Shadow Depositories

  • Islander
  • 2,222 posts

Posted 20 April 2003 - 06:06 AM

Javert Rovinski, on Apr 20 2003, 02:35 AM, said:

Here's the weak point of the argument.

Don't corporations have the right to choose what they broadcast? Doesn't Lipton Iced Tea get to choose their ad campaign?

Some initial confusion here.  I don't equate Lipton's concerns with the Radio Corporations actions.  The 2 are worlds apart in my view.

I repeat:  I’m not faulting Lipton here.

It’s well within their rights to not air an ad if they think it would be detrimental.  In fact, if I were running Lipton I probably wouldn’t air the Dixie Chicks ad.  

The problem here is that Lipton is operating with imperfect information.  There *could* be widespread public displeasure among the public because of Ms. Maines’ comments. Then again, there might not be.  It all depends if the actions of the radio stations are an accurate reflection of their listeners.  I don’t see any persuasive evidence of that.   But if it were my job to look out for Lipton’s image, being the risk adverse person I am, I probably wouldn’t chance it.  The actions of the radio stations have generated too much uncertainty.

Quote

Put another way:

If, in support of the DC stance, various radio stations put the Dixie Chicks on *more*, wouldn't that be okay, because it's their network?

Why doesn't it work the other way around?

Simple reason it doesn't work the other way around:  radio stations are government licensed monopolies.

If the Dixie Chicks (DC) so enrage you that you can't listen to that particular station anymore, you can change the dial whenever a DC song comes on, and then tune back when it's over.  Perhaps, when you come back a song by pro-war Toby Keith will be airing.  

But, if radio stations take the DC off the air, there is no alternative available to you.  There are only so many stations on the dial and they're not playing the DC.  There's simply no way you can listen to DC music.  Period.  Wheresas in your case you retain the power to tune the DC off and come back later, in this case someone else has taken your right to change the dial away from you.  

They are imposing their choice on you.

The more apt qustion to ask is this:  if the radio station ceased playing Toby Keith out of anti-war sentiment, would I think that wrong too?

I'd say, "Hell, yes!"  For the exact same reasons

Banapis

Edited by Banapis, 20 April 2003 - 06:12 AM.


#60 Guest-AleisterCrowley-Guest

Guest-AleisterCrowley-Guest
  • Guest

Posted 20 April 2003 - 06:08 AM

Banapis thank you for your warm welcome!

In truth, the concerts may ultimately mean nothing.  I presented them in line with this argument:  if the south is to be considered a bigger market for country music, then we should see some difference in ticket sales for the upcoming DC tour.  Now, we can't judge ticket sales from this list, obviously, but we can see where the biggest bulk of the "soldout" shows are and draw a hypothesis:

(I'm using the generally agreed upon definitions of north and south; feel free to disagree)

Northern shows
Kansas City MO (sold out)
St. Louis MO
Ames IA
Moline IL (sold out)
Cleveland OH
Cincinnati OH
Buffalo NY (sold out)
Philadelphia PA (sold out)
Philadelphia PA again (sold out)
Boston MA (sold out)
New York NY (sold out)
New York NY again
Uniondale NY
Oakland CA
San Jose CA
Sacramento CA
16 shows...7 sold out: 44% sold out


Southern shows
Orlando FL
Ft. Lauderdale FL
Tampa FL
Greensboro NC
OK city OK
Austin TX
San Antonio TX
Houston TX (sold out)
Atlanta GA (sold out)

9 shows...2 sold out: 22% sold out.

Even though almost twice as many shows are being performed in the north, I divide the number in the region into the number sold out.

But, as I said in an earlier post, time will tell...they could do very well as the dates approach.

Edited for critical typo

Edited by AleisterCrowley, 20 April 2003 - 06:13 AM.




Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: Dixie Chicks, War Protesters, Iraq

0 user(s) are browsing this forum

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users