Whatever happened to free speech? - Page 8

Ming · March 18, 2003, 02:44

Oh... so radio station can't run their businesses as they want...

They are promoting themselves... they see what the listeners want, and deliver it. They are in business to make money. PERIOD. They have the "decency" to provide value to their stockholders and give their listening audience what they want.

But no... you want them to LOSE MONEY just so musicians don't lose money.

Double Standard... AGAIN.

Jaguar · March 18, 2003, 02:47

Quote:

Originally posted by Ming
Double Standard... AGAIN.

It's the same double standard as last post.

We've just heard it 17+ times.

Flubber · March 18, 2003, 02:49

Willem

Lets take the flip side-- Do you accept that individual consumers, djs and radio station owners each have the individual right to purchase or play music as they choose? Do they not also have the right to try to convince others to join in some form of expression of political opinion??

This is something you have to live with in a free society. If a store owner in a small town expressed an extremely unpopular opinion ( blatantly racist for instance) he could lose his business if enough people are disgusted enough and boycott his products. The dixie chicks thing is the same . . . and the character or nature of an opinion is irrelevant . . .

You might think its Mccarthyism and the suppression of unpopular opinion BUT what is your solution? Lets say I personally hate what the Dixie chicks said and want to express my digust. Should I not be free to do so ?? On what basis do you stop me? Is my opinion less worthy of expression that the Dixie Chicks??

Willem you seem to be ignoring the rights of others in your disgust at the boycott. IMHO even if you hate the boycott you have to respect the people's right to do it . . . and be happy to be in a country where such freedom is possible

Imran Siddiqui · March 18, 2003, 02:50

Quote:

So by trying to speak out against a war that they don't believe in, the Dixie Chicks are now at the same level as Hitler? Now that's tolerance!

It's in effect the same thing. They are saying something that the majority does not agree with and finds objectionable.

Funny seeing someone speak about tolerance when wishing to deny a group free speech (the KKK).

Willem · March 18, 2003, 02:54

Quote:

Originally posted by Ming

They are promoting themselves...

So this is how they're promoting themselves?

"In Kansas City, Missouri, WDAF-AM set trash cans outside its offices for listeners to toss their Dixie Chicks CDs." CNN

Or is that just pandering to the lowest common denominator?

Ming · March 18, 2003, 02:56

He doesn't seem to care that some radio station general manager who has four kids in college might lose his job because ratings are good... or that some radio time salesman who is falling behind his mortgage payments might get fired because people aren't buying time on the station... Or that maybe the receptionist at the radio station will have to be fired because of budget cuts...

But he does seem to care that some wealthy band may lose a few bucks, and have to buy their own recording company to publish their next CD...

What's wrong with this picture

Ming · March 18, 2003, 03:00

Quote:

Originally posted by Willem
"In Kansas City, Missouri, WDAF-AM set trash cans outside its offices for listeners to toss their Dixie Chicks CDs." CNN

Gee... sounds like a damn good promotion to me. I'll bet they provide a daily count on the air... And I'll bet people are cheering... AND LISTENING TO THE RADIO STATION.

In the advertising business, we call that smart.
And it's not even costing them anything... simply brilliant. Probably more effective than all the paid advertising they are doing...

I'll have to remember to include that in my examples when I lecture at the next University I'm asked to speak at. I lecture about MEDIA around the country... I'm considered an expert

Shi Huangdi · March 18, 2003, 03:03

Ming is correct, this isn't a violation of free speech, it is about making money in the business. If say, a black rapper were to come out and say that Affirmative Action was bad and the problems of African Americans are their own fault, they might experience a similar reaction.

Pyrodrew · March 18, 2003, 03:07

Quote:

Originally posted by Ming
Gee... sounds like a damn good promotion to me. I'll bet they provide a daily count on the air... And I'll bet people are cheering... AND LISTENING TO THE RADIO STATION.
In the advertising business, we call that smart.
And it's not even costing them anything... simply brilliant. Probably more effective than all the paid advertising they are doing...

And I bet they never expected someone like Willem to be giving them free public announcements online for their radio station's promotion (with location & station name)... then again, maybe they did.

Not to mention the free publicity CNN gave them for it.

Willem · March 18, 2003, 03:09

Quote:

Originally posted by Flubber
If a store owner in a small town expressed an extremely unpopular opinion ( blatantly racist for instance) he could lose his business if enough people are disgusted enough and boycott his products. The dixie chicks thing is the same . . . and the character or nature of an opinion is irrelevant . . .

The store owner is not in the business of dessimating information and culture, a radio station is. Maybe I've been watching the CBC to long, but I feel that those in the media business have a responsibility, especially at this moment in time, to act in a responsible and non-partisan manner so that everyone has the opportunity of hearing both sides of the issue.

By immediately caving in to a small group of vocal critics, they've abrogated that responsibilty. As has been mentioned by someone else on this thread, they're pulling songs because of the complaints of a few hundred people, with a listener base of several thousand. I don't believe that's the way a public broadcaster should act, especially with an issue like war. It's a serious matter and debate should be encouraged, not silenced.

Ming · March 18, 2003, 03:10

Getting covered on CNN... simply priceless...

Beyond their wildest dreams...

Willem · March 18, 2003, 03:12

Quote:

Originally posted by Ming

In the advertising business, we call that smart.

I call that sleezy. Let me know what radio stations you sell that idea to, I'll be sure to boycott them. That's my right isn't it?

Ming · March 18, 2003, 03:16

Quote:

Originally posted by Willem
By immediately caving in to a small group of vocal critics, they've abrogated that responsibilty. As has been mentioned by someone else on this thread, they're pulling songs because of the complaints of a few hundred people, with a listener base of several thousand.

First... their "responsibility" is to their shareholders, owners, and listeners...

Second... the numbers mentioned by someone else were simply "made up" with no proof given.. while they may be true, they may also not be true. If people are throwing cd's in garbage cans, it's probably MORE than a few hundred people...

Third... even using the non proven example... we are talking about possibly 5 to 10 % of a stations audience.
The difference in terms of profit with even a 5% loss of audience will put people out of work. And do you think it's going to put the band of of work?

Ming · March 18, 2003, 03:18

Quote:

Originally posted by Willem
I call that sleezy. Let me know what radio stations you sell that idea to, I'll be sure to boycott them. That's my right isn't it?

Radio stations have done far sleezier promotions than that... And they worked

Remember, radio stations are allowed to make money too, not just musicians.

Oh... and when you can find even a few hundred people to go along with your boycott, I bet the radio station will listen to you as well... Fair is fair...

Willem · March 18, 2003, 03:25

Quote:

Originally posted by Ming
Second... the numbers mentioned by someone else were simply "made up" with no proof given..

The article mentioned that one station pulled their songs after only 250 complaints.

Quote:

The difference in terms of profit with even a 5% loss of audience will put people out of work. And do you think it's going to put the band of of work?

Sometimes people have to suffer because of principles. And I'd say that freedom of expression is a pretty important principle to suffer for.

Willem · March 18, 2003, 03:27

Quote:

Originally posted by Ming
Radio stations have done far sleezier promotions than that...

Maybe in your country!

Ming · March 18, 2003, 03:34

Yes... freedom of expression is VERY IMPORTANT... the fans have that right too

Or are you saying only musicians should have that right....

Ming · March 18, 2003, 03:39

Quote:

Originally posted by Willem
Maybe in your country!

I've bought media time in your country as well... Some of your radio stations are as bad as ours.... Our Toronto Office must think I'm good at it too... because they sold a client on the fact that I knew Canadian Media better than their own people did.

But again, you must have lost the argument if all you are trying to do now is play the "we are better card"...

Radio stations are in business to make money. That is their right. And you want to take that away from them so some rich band doesn't lose a little income. Instead, you want them to lose money so a rich band doesn't.

That's really all you are saying...

Willem · March 18, 2003, 03:45

Quote:

Originally posted by Ming
Yes... freedom of expression is VERY IMPORTANT... the fans have that right too

Or are you saying only musicians should have that right....

Haven't I already mentioned that my beef is with the radio stations? A few times now? If the fans don't want to buy the CDs or listen to their songs that's their affair, but the radio stations should not be the ones leading the fray.

And what about the fans of Dixie Chicks that weren't offended by her comment, and still want to hear them? What about their rights in all of this?

Ming · March 18, 2003, 03:51

So you are saying that Radio Stations don't have rights... but musicians do...

And Dixie Chicks fans can just listen to other radio stations that do play their music, because MOST STILL DO. They can choose to listen to any radio station they want to... that's their right.

So again... you are arguing that somebodies rights are being limited. And in reality, the only rights that you really want limited are the radio stations... the people you are complaining about

Pyrodrew · March 18, 2003, 03:53

Quote:

Originally posted by Willem
The article mentioned that one station pulled their songs after only 250 complaints.

And perhaps those Canadian radio stations pulled Stern after less than 250. But I can understand your desire to play dictator over radio stations for your fellow musicians.

Quote:

this isn't a violation of free speech, it is about making money in the business.

Exactly. If Willem ever sees his double standard then maybe he'll see this too.

The Vagabond · March 18, 2003, 03:54

Since Bill Maher was kicked out, there has been no real freedom of speech on American TV.

But OTOH, TV is so hellishly powerful thing that it would be self-destructive for a country to allow a complete freedom of speech on TV. Perhaps, freedom of speech should be relegated to newspapers and Internet, but what happens on TV should be carefully controlled (preferably in a non-intrusive manner).

Willem · March 18, 2003, 03:55

Quote:

Originally posted by Ming

Our Toronto Office must think I'm good at it too... because they sold a client on the fact that I knew Canadian Media better than their own people did.

Toronto is hardly indicative of the rest of Canada. In fact there's a lot of people here that don't like the place at all. Ask an Albertan what they think it.

Ming · March 18, 2003, 03:56

It's really funny... here he is whining about free speech.

Yet nobody had ever said that the band doesn't have the right to voice their opinions.

Yet he is the only person that thinks the radio stations don't have the right to voice their opinions.

What's wrong with this picture

Ming · March 18, 2003, 03:58

Quote:

Originally posted by Willem
Toronto is hardly indicative of the rest of Canada. In fact there's a lot of people here that don't like the place at all. Ask an Albertan what they think it.

Again... ignoring the issues and trying to side track the discussion.

You want freedom of speech, but only for the musicians, and not for the radio stations.

Address that.

Willem · March 18, 2003, 04:03

Quote:

Originally posted by Ming

Yet he is the only person that thinks the radio stations don't have the right to voice their opinions.

No, I'm saying that radio stations have an obligation with an issue as serious as war to present both sides of the debate, and not immediately cave in to just one view. Economic censorship is just as damaging to free speech as government intervention.

Ming · March 18, 2003, 04:07

If the stations were government owned, I would agree you. But for a radio station, ECONOMICS is their obligation. You are saying that's it's going to cost the band money... well, the same can be said about the radio station. The radio station has a right to make money too.

Willem · March 18, 2003, 04:15

Quote:

Originally posted by Ming
If the stations were government owned, I would agree you. But for a radio station, ECONOMICS is their obligation. You are saying that's it's going to cost the band money... well, the same can be said about the radio station. The radio station has a right to make money too.

Well I guess the issue of whether the death of thousands of people is right or wrong will just have to take a back seat to the almighty dollar. A sad world I've ended up in.

Ming · March 18, 2003, 04:20

Again... you are trying to change the subject.

The thread was about censorship... and there is NO CENSORSHIP here.

Just a multi million down band vs multi million dollar radio stations. BOTH HAVE THE RIGHT TO THEIR OPINIONS AND EXPRESSION.

You are the only one that thinks one should be censored, and the other not

BOTH have the right to their opinions... It's that simple.

But you seem to think that only musicians have that right.

Ming · March 18, 2003, 04:27

Quote:

Originally posted by Willem
Well I guess the issue of whether the death of thousands of people is right or wrong will just have to take a back seat to the almighty dollar. A sad world I've ended up in.

But now... you have put your cards the table.

You only want people that disagree with you censored.

People that support your view should be allowed to say what they want. But people that don't, need to be censored.

And this thread is all about censorship...