Whatever happened to free speech? - Page 12

Ming · March 18, 2003, 17:54

Quote:

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?

And what rights of loyal Dixie Chicks fans are being trampled here. They have all the same options they had before... choose what radio station they want to listen to... and buy whatever CD's they want to... the same rights as the people who are no longer loyal..

Sounds fair to me.

You are the one that seems to missing something... like any defense for your point of view except for musicians should be treated better than everybody else

Willem · March 18, 2003, 17:55

Quote:

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

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.

How does having the courage to acknowledge both sides of an issue violate their freedom of speech?

Ming · March 18, 2003, 18:00

Quote:

Originally posted by Willem
How does having the courage to acknowledge both sides of an issue violate their freedom of speech?

Because you want to force them to an acknowledge something they may not believe in... talk about a violation of free speech...

You call it courage... but all it really is, is you wanting to cram your point of view down their throats.

But I guess you are allowed to have opinions, but radio stations aren't.

loinburger · March 18, 2003, 18:00

How does forcing a radio station to play songs by a given band not violate the station's freedom of speech?

Willem · March 18, 2003, 18:12

Quote:

Originally posted by Olaf Hårfagre

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?

Exactly, all she did was express her dissatisfaction of the current president and his policies. It reflects poorly on the American public if they can be so offended, so easily. At least Jane Fonda had to travel all the way to North Vietnam in order to get villified in the same way that they are being now. I'm sure there's more than a few people calling her a traitor simply for exercising a political right that I thought all Americans were entitled to.

Arrian · March 18, 2003, 18:14

They may be wrong, but they have the right to villify the Chick for her PoV, as much as the Chick has the right to express that PoV (which was to villify Dubya).

Christ! This isn't rocket science.

-Arrian

Ming · March 18, 2003, 18:18

Yeah Arrian... His point of view is that nobody else is allowed a point of view... only musicians

Willem · March 18, 2003, 18:20

Quote:

Originally posted by Ming
Because you want to force them to an acknowledge something they may not believe in... talk about a violation of free speech...

What, they can't state somewhere that they don't support a view even while airing it? Radio station owners have the same opportunity to express their views through their media as an editor for a newspaper. I fail to see a violation of their rights here, sorry.

Japher · March 18, 2003, 18:22

Quote:

I fail to see a violation of their rights here, sorry.

really? what happened? did I read that wrong?

Verto · March 18, 2003, 18:23

Quote:

Originally posted by Willem
At least Jane Fonda had to travel all the way to North Vietnam in order to get villified in the same way that they are being now. I'm sure there's more than a few people calling her a traitor simply for exercising a political right that I thought all Americans were entitled to.

Maybe you should learn a bit more about what Jane Fonda did. When some of the captured American POWs gave her their social security numbers, what did she do? She turned them into the North Vietnamese.

If that is a political right, I'm ashamed to possess it.

EDIT: Thanks.

Willem · March 18, 2003, 18:26

Quote:

Originally posted by Ming
Yeah Arrian... His point of view is that nobody else is allowed a point of view... only musicians

Oh give it a rest Ming, now you're getting tiresome.

Obviously you've been involved in the industry so long you're incapable of being impartial. Can't be biting the hand that feeds you now can you? And no I don't make my living playing music, I do it solely for my own satisfaction. You however have a blatant conflict of interest on this issue.

Arrian · March 18, 2003, 18:26

I assume you mean the North Vietnamese (not NKs), Verto?

-Arrian

Willem · March 18, 2003, 18:31

Quote:

Originally posted by Verto

Maybe you should learn a bit more about what Jane Fonda did. When some of the captured American POWs gave her their social security numbers, what did she do? She turned them into the North Koreans.

If that is a political right, I'm ashamed to possess it.

Jane Fonda is irrelevant. The point I was trying to make is that the American public seems to be suffering from a severe bout of intolerance for any view other than that espoused by George W. Bush.

Verto · March 18, 2003, 18:31

Oops!

Danke

Arrian · March 18, 2003, 18:32

This thread has become tiresome.

And I've gotta go.

Like I said before: at the very least, this thread remained vaguely civil. Notwithstanding a couple of shots here or there (edit: such as the several ones Willem has been taking at the American public, notwithstanding the fact that the complainers are just a vocal minority in the deep South).

-Arrian

Ming · March 18, 2003, 18:35

Quote:

Originally posted by Willem
Oh give it a rest Ming, now you're getting tiresome.

I think that if it was put to a vote... you would be the one called tiresome

Quote:

Obviously you've been involved in the industry so long you're incapable of being impartial. Can't be biting the hand that feeds you now can you?

And you are being impartial? I'm saying that everybody deserves the same rights of free speech. And you are saying that some don't.

Quote:

And no I don't make my living playing music, I do it solely for my own satisfaction. You however have a blatant conflict of interest on this issue.

I don't work for a radio station... So exactly what is the blatant conflict of interest. I get NO income from radio stations... how they act has no effect on me what so ever...

So now your are resorting to saying that you can be impartial and I can't... sounds a lot like the rest of your argument that only musicians are allowed freedom of choice and speech, while others aren't

Ming · March 18, 2003, 18:38

Quote:

Originally posted by Willem
The point I was trying to make is that the American public seems to be suffering from a severe bout of intolerance for any view other than that espoused by George W. Bush.

A broad sweaping generalization that is also incorrect.
While a slim majority of the public supports the war, many do not.

People are welcome to their own opinion, something you don't seem to understand.

Willem · March 18, 2003, 18:39

Quote:

Originally posted by Ming

So now your are resorting to saying that you can be impartial and I can't... sounds a lot like the rest of your argument that only musicians are allowed freedom of choice and speech, while others aren't

It's hardly a debate if you just keeping harping on the same issue over and over. One that I've already clarified my position on several times now. I agree to disagree, it was nice sparring with you.

Ming · March 18, 2003, 18:49

Again... let's put it to a vote and see who which one of us is making sense.

Lets go back to the beginning... your first post.

In a thread you titled... "Whatever happened to free speech?"

Quote:

Originally posted by Willem
Is America suddenly developing a culture of intolerance? I thought you people took so much pride in being able to speak your minds. What the hell are you doing to yourselves?

First, you are blaming all of America of developing a culture of intolerence, when even you admit that it is only a minority of people...

And then you come on with your holier than thou attitude like Americans don't take pride in their right to free speech... yet, you are denying free speech to the fans and radio stations...

And last... Your title is funny considering it seems you aren't really interested in free speech for everybody, just people with your views.

Look through the thread... the majority of the people don't agree with any of the of the points you are making... only one or two find any logic in your POV's...
So it's just not me

That should tell you something...

Have a nice day... it was a pleasure ripping apart your POV's....

korn469 · March 19, 2003, 01:13

Ming,

I have no problem with people organizing boycotts, protests, dixie chix effigy burning, whatever, that's all good to me. My problem is this, as the media outlets consolidate, there may be more radio stations, channels on tv, etc. but the programming decisions are being made by fewer and fewer people. This is creating an illusion of choice. I think you are from chicago, though i don't remember for sure, but I bet that clear channel and infinity broadcasting (iirc they are the 2nd largest radio station owner and they are a subsidiary of viacom) own a good deal of the stations there. If there are no checks on their power to limit speech, they could silence any person who spoke out against their political agenda. That to me is censorship.

Saying that a corporation doesn't have to honor freedom of speech is like saying that they wouldn't have to honor due process of law or freedom of religion. If a corporation said that it wouldn't hire Jews or Catholics I'm sure there would be an outcry against it, and to me it seems like an identical violation of civil rights.

I don't know enough about this particular case to know if there is any organized effort on the part of the Big Media to make the Dixie Chix shut the hell up, or if it is just some stations trying to gain publicity. If it is the former it is a sad day in America, if it is the latter it's really not that suprising. That being said, if the Dixie Chix really weren't proud of Bush, then they should have stuck with their convictions. If I was from Texas I'd be ashamed of them for backing down so quickly.

Imran Siddiqui · March 19, 2003, 01:19

Quote:

My problem is this, as the media outlets consolidate, there may be more radio stations, channels on tv, etc. but the programming decisions are being made by fewer and fewer people.

What are you talking about? MOST of this is being done by individual radio DJs on their shows. You have a only a small few that are banning it entirely. I hear *****ing about the Chicks on hour, but the next person comes on and plays 'Travelling Soldier'.

I really haven't heard of this 'censorship', it is simply some offended DJs, who are deciding what they want to play. No biggie.

korn469 · March 19, 2003, 01:38

Imran,

I'm not sure exactly how much you know about the radio industry, but very few DJs get to actually pick the songs they play. Most of the programming is done by computer now, and with the Scott system many of the DJs go in on a single day and record all of their on air work for the entire week. A live DJ with full authority over their play list is an exception, and not the rule. Yet, if this is an example of those DJs or other DJs voicing the programming directors' oppositions then this thread is much ado about nothing.

However, I still think that fewer and fewer media companies are controlling a greater percentage of the programming than ever, and that if they wanted to they could take actions that for all intents and purposes would have the same effect as government censorship. Of course there are ways to get around any attempt by a company to silence you, but the same could be said about the government. So I think that there should be some kind of safeguards in the system, even if it is simply the ability to sue, because this could lead to restrictions on what we can say. That does not mean that I am in favor of the government telling companies which songs to play on the radio, it is simply I don't want the CEO of Clear Channel to say "such and such spoke out against pending legislation that would help our bottom line, lets see what happens to them when they aren't played on the radio anymore!" Then suddenly all Clear Channel stations drop them. Remember the rules changed in 1996 or 1997 so all of this consolidation in radio at least is a very recent development.

Imran Siddiqui · March 19, 2003, 01:42

korn, if DJs didn't have any control over music, it would make it very interesting why some DJs say the Chicks won't be played on my show, and then on another show they are played. Obviously the DJs have some power over their own programs.

Zero · March 19, 2003, 01:45

Quote:

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
korn, if DJs didn't have any control over music, it would make it very interesting why some DJs say the Chicks won't be played on my show, and then on another show they are played. Obviously the DJs have some power over their own programs.

im sure a higher authority tells them not to play the chicks first.

obviously DJs dont have freedom. If they did, I would be playing something like Barney's "children's dance bebop mix" all day long. And then I would probably be fired.

Imran Siddiqui · March 19, 2003, 01:48

Calc, but that makes NO sense if one show on a radio station doesn't play them, but another does. If it was a higher authority, wouldn't he ban the Chicks from ALL shows?

korn469 · March 19, 2003, 01:50

Imran

Some DJs do get to pick the songs they play but many don't, I've done research on it, plus I have a little first hand experience with it because my cousin was a DJ for two years. It depends on the prestige of the DJ, plus the owner of the station.

Here is a link for the scott system
http://www.scott-studios.com/ss.html

With this equipment, you can have a single person run multiple radio stations at once with seemingly live DJs, but in reality it's all prerecorded on a harddrive.

EDIT: here's a quote from there site

Quote:

Four hour Shows take 20 minutes to Track

http://www.scott-studios.com/vt.html

Ming · March 19, 2003, 01:55

Quote:

Originally posted by korn469
However, I still think that fewer and fewer media companies are controlling a greater percentage of the programming than ever, and that if they wanted to they could take actions that for all intents and purposes would have the same effect as government censorship.

I don't know how much you know about the radio business, but there is one simple truth to it. Make money or die. They could give a damn about politics... they could give a damn about whether people disagree or not agree with the government... they only care about making money... which if fine since they are a business...

Just like any rap singer... or country singer that plays to their audience, so do radio stations. And within the corporate structure of ownership, each station has to find it's audience, and keep it... and make it profitable to advertisers... otherwise, the key people get fired, and we see a "format change"... Yes, in Chicago, infinity does own a lot of stations... representing a decent percentage of the total listenership... however, they are all seperate entities that live an die on their own decisions... The Infinity Station I listen to make fun of their "Corporate Nipple" all the time... and never do as they are told... the do what they want, because that's what the listeners want... and it keeps their ratings higher, and they all get to keep their jobs.

So I kind of chuckle when I hear people think that "corporate" can dictate across all the stations... Sure, maybe they can for accounting practices, but that's about it.

This whole thread is about a some stations, and some DJ's who don't want to play somebodies music... and it's because they have received lots of letters from people saying they don't want to hear it... Sure, you can claim that the letters represent only a small percentage of their total audience, but they are the ones that took the time to write the letters. As I've said before, if the stations received MORE letters from people who disagreed with the decision, the station would roll over and play dead in a heart beat... they are in business to make money... and that means keeping their audience listening... It's as simple as that.

All I see is personal choices and business decisions being made here... no censorship what so ever.
The radio stations have the right to play whatever they want, and what they think people want to hear. That is THEIR RIGHT!

Imran Siddiqui · March 19, 2003, 02:02

Btw, I just saw 'Travelling Soldier' by the Dixie Chicks on VH1 Country. Just thought I'd say that

.

And AFAIK, CMT hasn't banned them yet. I'm sure they have a greater viewership than any radio station has listenership.

edit: JUST switched to CMT, and look, the same song

korn469 · March 19, 2003, 02:05

Quote:

I don't know how much you know about the radio business, but there is one simple truth to it. Make money or die. They could give a damn about politics... they could give a damn about whether people disagree or not agree with the government... they only care about making money... which if fine since they are a business

as long as they don't engage in this behavior then there isn't a problem, but if they do, then to me it's wrong. Also as fewer companies own a bigger slice of the pie, each company has a greater potential to engage in de facto censorship, which to me is a bad thing for America. This may never happen, and I may be too paranoid for my own good, but that my take on things.

Night guys, talk to you laterz

Imran Siddiqui · March 19, 2003, 02:09

I think you might be too paranoid

. Just because a company owns many different stations doesn't mean it gets involved in the nitty-gritty with all of them (that would take too much money).

NIGHT

.