Whatever happened to free speech?

[korn469]

Third, and more to the point, even if the numbers were comparable... so what? Clearchannel (whose programming I generally dislike and thus do not listen to more than once and a while) is a business.

maybe expenditures would have been a better comparison, but what i'm trying to show is that corporations have quite a bit of economic power, oftentimes greater than that of many governments throughout the world

[Arrian]

What I was saying is "so what?" I'm not disputing the "economic power" wielded by big companies. What I'm saying is, what is your solution to the perceived problem (said corporations using that power in a manner which you dislike)? Legislation? If so, what, exactly?

If not legislation, you're basically limited to complaining about their dastardly corporate ways. Which is fine and all, and quite fashionable.

-Arrian

[korn469]

as far as solutions go, i doubt there are any satisfactory ones

like you suggested i know that you can't rely on the government, and all we can do is hope that people stand up for civil liberties, and work against censorship in any form, but i have very little faith in humanity as a whole

also i don't complain to be fashionable, i seriously hate any type of abuse of liberties, but that's just my nature

[Ming]

Again... this is not censorship... They aren't playing music that people don't want to listen to. It's that simple.

Are you saying radio stations MUST play songs that people don't want. OH PLEASE....

Again... people have a free choice what to say... people have a free choice what to listen too (again, you can pick up radio stations in EVERY MARKET that play their songs) and radio stations not only the right, BUT THE OBLIGATION to play songs that people want to hear.

You are saying that the radio stations should LOSE money for what SOMEBODY ELSE said... That's not only NOT FAIR... It's CRIMINAL

[Willem]

Originally posted by Arrian
Businesses are motivated by profit. If you want them to abide by a higher standard, you are going to have to legislate what they can, cannot, and/or MUST put on the air.

I guess it's to much to ask that they abide by a moral code of their own making, and act responsibly just because it's the right thing to do.

[Ming]

Only in YOUR OPINION is it the right thing to do.

They are following the law, and serving the best interest of their audience... In their opinion, that far out weighs your opinion that musicians deserve special rights to maintain their earnings at the cost of somebody elses...

I guess it's asking to much that musicians live up to the same moral code as other people... that they should except responsibility for their own actions instead of causing economic harm to others.

[Chemical Ollie]

Wow, this is getting hot-headed!

I think it's a far thought that radio listeners would stop listen just because the station plays a non-political song by an artist that made a mild political comment in an interveiw.


But there are some artists who have more integrity vs journalists who ask stupid questions that has not to do with the art. I remember Gene Simmons in KISS taking a Swedish journalist down to earth:

- You have come to the wrong press conference. Do I look like a person who would answer questions about politics? Go ask the president!

[Japher]

Morals and Money?

I guess it's to much to ask that they abide by a moral code of their own making, and act responsibly just because it's the right thing to do.

The same thing can be said about the Dixie Chicks.

People were offended, and they will react accordingly, and if the great stars of hollywood get hurt in the process oh well! It happens all the time. The stations did abide by a moral code of their own making one that says "Don't Demean The Country That Has Made You Stars".

[Japher]

Stars reflect and image upon everything it touches. Why do you think the all have image consultants and PR managers... So stuff like this doesn't happen. By the radio supporting their art by playing it on the air they are saying that they support the Dixie Chicks and all that they encompases, including a hatred for the American way of life... and I tell you what, that just ain't gonna float in Texas.

[Arrian]

Originally posted by Willem


I guess it's to much to ask that they abide by a moral code of their own making, and act responsibly just because it's the right thing to do.

Yes, it is. Corporations are by their very nature amoral organizations. To the extent you wish them to behave in a moral manner, you must force them to (whether by legislating it... or perhaps threatening to not buy their product: in this case, the people who called up to complain about the Dixie Chicks).

-Arrian

[Static Universe]

Originally posted by Japher
By the radio supporting their art by playing it on the air they are saying that they support the Dixie Chicks and all that they encompases, including a hatred for the American way of life... and I tell you what, that just ain't gonna float in Texas.

They're from Texas...

[Willem]

Originally posted by Japher
"Don't Demean The Country That Has Made You Stars".

Don't criticize government policy would be much more accurate.

[Japher]

They're from Texas...

duh, and it sunk.

Don't criticize government policy would be much more accurate.

Not if you want there money for doing so.

[Ming]

Yes.. ignoring the issues again...

This is about perceived censorship... even though no censorship has actually occured.

Why should musicians get special treatment. And why should somebody else lose money because of the muscians actions...

You haven't really answered that yet except to say it's the radio stations that are in the wrong for just doing their job in a legal manner.

[Willem]

Originally posted by Arrian
Corporations are by their very nature amoral organizations.

Corporations are made up of people, people have morals. Or is sacrifising your humanity a necessary byproduct of being a member of a corporation?

[Willem]

Originally posted by Ming


You haven't really answered that yet except to say it's the radio stations that are in the wrong for just doing their job in a legal manner.

I've answered that so many times now I can't be bothered doing it again.

[Ming]

Yep... all of your answers have said that the radio station has a moral obligation TO LOSE MONEY, even though a musician is resposible, and that it is wrong for a musician to ever lose money, even when they are the cause of the action.

Yep... that's it in a nut shell... you think musicians deserve better treatment than everybody else.

[Japher]

While I side with Ming on this issue I took a stab at those questions... I don't think I helped at all.


Why should musicians get special treatment?

Because they supply entertainment to people, and they make a lot of money for doing so. The also have some pretty impresive talents, and when you couple that with good looks you get ditsy blondes, and we all know about them. Thus, we should let this one slide.

Whe should someone else lose money for their actions?

Because they really don't know what they are doing. They are ditsy blondes after all. Besides they have a contract with a record lable that should be taking the blunt of the hit, not them. I mean isn't that contract suppose to protect them from the retroactive effects of speeking freely? Come on world, they're sorry they are Texans and never really felt like we were a part of the Union, by our records. We need poorer people like you in order to be as rich and beautiful as we are. With a little hope cosmetic surgery will keep us looking this way for years to come.

[Willem]

Originally posted by Ming
Yep... that's it in a nut shell... you think musicians deserve better treatment than everybody else.

And around and around and around in circles you go. Yet you always come back to the same place. You're getting boring Ming!

Yep... all of your answers have said that the radio station has a moral obligation TO LOSE MONEY, even though a musician is resposible, and that it is wrong for a musician to ever lose money, even when they are the cause of the action.

Can't be as much of a cash drain as all that if many stations aren't willing to go along with the boycott. Or maybe it's that the ones who are just want some cheap publicity. And I mean cheap as in sleazy BTW.

[korn469]

Ming

Again... this is not censorship... They aren't playing music that people don't want to listen to. It's that simple.

it seems that in this case it is censorship, up until they made a rather tame comment over an emotionally charged issue people wanted to hear their landslide cover, and the dixie chix are an established country music act that is popular (measured by album sales)

a few people complain then a radio station blacklists them, depending on the scope of the corporation it can effectively take them off the air in a number of markets, that is de facto censorship

Are you saying radio stations MUST play songs that people don't want. OH PLEASE

i never said that, it's not like i said the government should pass a law that says every country music station should play Fischerspooner every hour

the dixie chix makes country music songs people like, if they make songs people don't like then the market and not a blacklist can take care of it right? if enough people boycott their albums or refrain from requesting a song then it will go away on it's own, a blacklist isn't needed

it sounds like you are saying "hey a couple people were offended, we must keep this song (landslide for example) off the market even though other people want to hear it, so as not to offend the sensitive patriots out there"

Again... people have a free choice what to say... people have a free choice what to listen too (again, you can pick up radio stations in EVERY MARKET that play their songs) and radio stations not only the right, BUT THE OBLIGATION to play songs that people want to hear

this is incorrect. depending on what area of the country you live in, you will only have certain radio stations to choose from, and if they are all playing (or blacklisting the same songs) which is quite possible because of mega media corporations who control mdia outlets then you have no choice at all, even if you retain the ability to turn the dial

You are saying that the radio stations should LOSE money for what SOMEBODY ELSE said... That's not only NOT FAIR... It's CRIMINAL

first you have to prove that the government is forcing them to play the dixie chix and that the people really don't want to listen to them, both of which sounds like an opinion and not a fact

your argument is that corporations should have the right to ignore civil liberties to increase profits, which is simply untrue

[Japher]

It is the radio stations, and the governments, air space and air time. If the radio station choses not to play something, they don't have to. It's not about freedom of speech it's about ownership and about someone wanting something from someone. Why do commercials have to pay for air time and songs don't? I am sure if the Chicks want their songs plaid they can pay for them to be on PBR.

[Ming]

I've said this before... you are the broken record.

First you claim censorship... but there is no censorship involved... There music is still being played across the country.

Then you claim the high moral road... but in reality, you want different standards of morality for different people.
Musicians can do what they want with out excepting responsibilities for their actions, but radio stations have to pay the price. And they are in the wrong by listening to their audience.

Then it's all about the war... but the war isn't really involved since nothing is stopping discussion of the war.

Then it's the radio stations are sleazy... yet the band felt so serious about their war views, they backed down the second they realized it was costing them money. So is really sleazy here...

So what is the real issue now. Do you even have one?

What is the real problem you have so that all of us can address it... just like we've done with EVERY ONE OF YOUR POINTS SO FAR.

[Willem]

Originally posted by korn469


it sounds like you are saying "hey a couple people were offended, we must keep this song (landslide for example) off the market even though other people want to hear it, so as not to offend the sensitive patriots out there"

Yes Ming, you never did answer my question regarding the rights of the Dixie Chicks fans that weren't offended, and might actually support their views. What are their options in all of this? Should they as well have have to kow tow to the official line because of a vocal minority?

[Willem]

Originally posted by Ming


What is the real problem you have so that all of us can address it... just like we've done with EVERY ONE OF YOUR POINTS SO FAR.

I've already spelled it out several times now, to bad you missed it.

[Arrian]

They can call the station & complain. They can say "screw that station, they suck. I'm not listening to them anymore." Then they can go out and buy the CD and listen to the songs whenever they want.

That's why I would do if, I dunno, say Phish said something that got them pulled off the air... oh, wait, the radio stations never play their songs anyway. Nevermind.

-Arrian

[Japher]

Yes Ming, you never did answer my question regarding the rights of the Dixie Chicks fans that weren't offended, and might actually support their views.

Rights? Where does one have the right to have what they want played on the radio? There is no such thing it has nothing to do with freedom of speech if the ban is imposed by the investors.

What are their options in all of this?

They can:
a) change the channel (there's a novel idea)
b) buy the album
c) get off of Kazaa
d) go to the concerts

Should they as well have have to kow tow to the official line because of a vocal minority?

If it were a vocal minority nothing would of been done. If it was done in error than it is well within those peoples freedom of speech to speak up.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I want the radio stations to accept the responsibility of showing both sides of the issue

So, what you are basically saying is that radio stations do not have free speech rights. By making them accept their 'responsibility' (which they don't have), you violate their free speech.

your argument is that corporations should have the right to ignore civil liberties to increase profits, which is simply untrue

As long as it doesn't violate any laws, it IS true.

depending on what area of the country you live in, you will only have certain radio stations to choose from, and if they are all playing (or blacklisting the same songs) which is quite possible because of mega media corporations who control mdia outlets then you have no choice at all, even if you retain the ability to turn the dial

You can't watch CMT? Or listen to radio stations on your computer? Come on now!

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Willem
Yes Ming, you never did answer my question regarding the rights of the Dixie Chicks fans that weren't offended, and might actually support their views. What are their options in all of this? Should they as well have have to kow tow to the official line because of a vocal minority?

My rights are constantly being trampled by the evil radio stations who refuse to play tracks from Space Ghost's Musical Bar-B-Q. Clearly Brak's political messages are being silenced.

[Ming]

Originally posted by korn469
it seems that in this case it is censorship, up until they made a rather tame comment over an emotionally charged issue people wanted to hear their landslide cover, and the dixie chix are an established country music act that is popular (measured by album sales)

No... the fact that people changed their opinion and decided that they no longer wished to support them after their comments is the RIGHT of the listener...
The fact they no longer felt comfortable listening to the music after knowing more about the people that produce is acceptable. Music Taste is not a science, it depends on the feelings of the individual... this changed their feelings.

They then complained with letters to the stations... and the stations did what radio stations always do when they get more than a handfull of complaints... they responded in the BEST INTEREST OF THEIR AUDIENCE...
They were doing what they are supposed to be doing, playing music that people want to hear. That's not censorship...

a few people complain then a radio station blacklists them, depending on the scope of the corporation it can effectively take them off the air in a number of markets, that is de facto censorship

Find me a single market where you can't pick up a radio station that is still playing their music. De facto NOTHING. Since you can still find them on the air EVERYWHERE, it's not even close to being censorship.

i never said that, it's not like i said the government should pass a law that says every country music station should play Fischerspooner every hour

But you are saying the they don't have the right to pick what is played or not played on their OWN STATION... talk about censorship...

the dixie chix makes country music songs people like, if they make songs people don't like then the market and not a blacklist can take care of it right? if enough people boycott their albums or refrain from requesting a song then it will go away on it's own, a blacklist isn't needed

Once some people heard their views, they no longer wished to support them. It isn't the the right of a consumer? What, they should buy and listen even if they don't like them anymore?

it sounds like you are saying "hey a couple people were offended, we must keep this song (landslide for example) off the market even though other people want to hear it, so as not to offend the sensitive patriots out there"

Not at all.. I'm saying it's the right of the station to play whatever they want to... If more people sent letters saying they want to hear them, they would change their mind... but Hmmmm... that hasn't happened yet.

this is incorrect. depending on what area of the country you live in, you will only have certain radio stations to choose from, and if they are all playing (or blacklisting the same songs) which is quite possible because of mega media corporations who control mdia outlets then you have no choice at all, even if you retain the ability to turn the dial

Again... find me a market that doesn't receive a station that still carries them... You won't be able too..

first you have to prove that the government is forcing them to play the dixie chix and that the people really don't want to listen to them, both of which sounds like an opinion and not a fact

Again... more people have sent letters asking they not be played than people wanting it. That's not an opinion, but the only fact the stations have.

your argument is that corporations should have the right to ignore civil liberties to increase profits, which is simply untrue

Excuse me... they are violating nobodies rights here.
They are following the law, and answering to their public... and without their listeners, they are out of business...

It seem like you are the one arguing that musicians shouldn't be held to the same standards as other public figures. That they can have whatever opinions they want, and it won't effect how people perceive them or support them. Do these people have special civil liberties that none of the rest of us have?

Anybody with a brain know that when you talk "on the record" it can come back to bite you... which in this case it did. And as their lame apology proves, money is more important to them as well...

[Chemical Ollie]

Originally posted by Japher
By the radio supporting their art by playing it on the air they are saying that they support the Dixie Chicks and all that they encompases, including a hatred for the American way of life...

Are you saying that Chicksie Dixs have expressed a hatred against American way of life? Didn't they just express their disliking vs a certain politician, which is something completely different?