Just wanted folks to know the source. Editorials often present opinion and speculation and down right misrepresentation as “facts”. If someone cares to look up the matter in a conventional source, they are welcome to do so.
Plus, I don’t know if I consider the statement that Clear Channel is “spearheading” the movement a factual statement.
At the very least, the quote uses loaded words and intentional language to lead the reader to a conclusion. That IS the point of an editorial!
Um…free-thinking, ferociously anti-mindless sheep militant here. Someone please help me; I’m incredibly confused by all this.
Specific queries:
Since when is any president, let alone an incredibly brazen dolt like George W. Bush (c’mon, let’s face the damn facts, people), an annointed righteous protected one whom no one must ever do anything to hurt the feelings of? Jeeziz, it was open season on even the most trivial of Bill Clinton’s faults for nearly his entire presidency. (I’m no fan of Clinton, but at least he had to face some heat.) We have to support him…WHY, dammit? I’ve yet to hear one halfway coherent explanation for this.
Okay, I admit that I don’t really know all that much about country or Southern music (I had no idea Hank Williams Jr. was hated, let alone that freaking much, and my favorite country singer for about two decades was Willie Nelson), but since when does it appeal to slavish, unquestioning followers of the current administration? Particularly one that defies world opinion to spearhead a war that gets many brave servicemen killed and is at best marginally successful in accomplishing its nebulous objectives du jour. Frankly, this doesn’t sound at all to me like the kind of administration or war the good-'ol-fashioned-values crowd would endorse.
What the frag does a radio station have to gain by banning them? That’s just dumb. Music is music. I might not agree with the politics of Jamiroquai, K.D. Lang, Sting, or Enrique Iglesias…doesn’t mean I’m deleting their songs from my mp3 list. Besides, if you ban one potentially controversial viewpoint (and please refer again to question 1…Jesus M. Christ, it barely made sense for Elian Gonzales), will you do the same to every artists who has one? And if not, what’s your criteria? And are you ready to deal with accusations of discriminiation? You get the idea.
Someone’s gotta have the answer…the idea of George W. Bush being immune to criticism makes me ill.
Sorry, not Willie Nelson. Kenny Rogers. Even worse.
All right, carry on.
stuyguy says:
This quote sums up my feelings EXACTLY. Natalie Maines made the statement that they were ashamed that George Bush was from Texas to a european audience. Would she have made that statement to a texas audience? I don’t think so. She also apologized for the statement and disavowed it, IIRC. The Dixie Chicks weren’t arrested for making that statement, they weren’t fined, and they aren’t in danger of being prosecuted for making that statement. The fact that people aren’t buying Dixie Chicks merchandise is democracy in action, not censorship.
If you’re going to make inflammatory statements, please have the guts to really think about what you want to say, and stick up for your beliefs. I would respect the Dixie Chicks more if they had held a press conference in Texas, read a prepared statement, and answered questions from the press and from their fans.
For what it’s worth, I like the Dixie Chick’s music, and I think they did a great job singing the Star Spangled Banner at the Super Bowl.
And after looking into the CNN blurb, I found a full quote of the section in question. I follows directly after the above quote:
Short leap.
I saw some of their interview with Dian Sawyer last night and was disgusted. Natalie had the guts to make a statement but not to hold to it. She didn’t even have the guts to defend herself for questioning the wisdom of the “authority” du jour. She was whining and apologizing and begging forgiveness for having an opinion. That was the impressio that I got. I found myself yelling at the TV for her to act like a goddamn rock star and not like such a little girl. The whole interview made me sick.
My take on this whole “issue” is it’s just another example of how we in America, and to a lesser extent the rest of the developed world, put WAY too much focus on the words, acts and outlooks of famous people.
I couldn’t give two shits about the Chicks’ stance on the war. They’re singers. They aren’t foreign policy experts or experts on anything else other than how to perform pop country in three part harmony. Do they have a right to their opinions and views? Of course. Are those opinions any more relevant than the clerk at my corner convenience store? Not in the least.
By far the worst example of this is Bono’s constant pandering for third world debt forgiveness. You’re a friggin’ singer, not an economist, and you seem to have an incredible weakness at math for whatever that’s worth.
His opinion is without value one way or the other. He hasn’t done even a remotely decent album since Joshua Tree and he talks out his ass at any forum he can nose into. For this they’re talking about giving him the Nobel Peace Prize?
If that’s the case, let’s give the Chicks the prize for art and appoint Bob Golthwait to the Supreme Court.
Only when we stop listening to and promoting entertainers chattering about things they know nothing more about than the average citizen will the coverage stop.
Are you seriously equating criticizing the president, even in a somewhat personal fashion, during a obviously minor war whose result is a foregone conclusion, with fraternizing and publically supporting the enemy government during the Vietnam War ?
Heck, I’m a liberal, I opposed the Iraq war, I would have opposed the Vietnam war had I been alive at the time, and I think that what Jane Fonda did was utterly despicable, and very arguably treasonous. What the Dixie Chicks did was, at worst, in poor taste.
White Lightning put it in a nutshell:
“It was a personal insult against the President, plain and simple. That’s what I think has gotten the ire of so many Bush-supports raised against them. It was a remarkably stupid thing to do, and I’m sure they are sorry that they did it. I fully endorse any actions taken against them by consumers, up to and including boycotting or bulldozing their albums.”
You don’t have to like the man but DO respect the office.
“Very arguably”? I think the bitch should have taken a ride on Ol’ Sparky 30 years ago.
That said though, comparing the DCs to Jane Fonda is absolutely ridiculous. I don’t even know the full story behind what the 'Chicks said (nor do I really care) and I can still say that with confidence.
It’s pretty clear that you, FallenAngel are the one talking out of your ass about Bono, as your blatent misrepresentation of him clearly shows. You apparently have the impression that Bono does nothing more then write songs, have sex and do drugs, and then spout off about the 3rd world debt.
Not hardly.
You don’t have to be an economist to talk about reducing the 3rd world’s debt; the Pope isn’t an economist, Jesse Helm isn’t an aeconomist, and yeah, Bono isn’t an economist. But unlike you he has done some long hard studying of the issues surrounding the 3rd world debt problem. Long, hard and detailed studying.
After all, you do that sort of thing when you are going to talk to the head of the World Bank and various members aof Congress about trying to get the US to forgive a large portion of the 3rd world debt. You don’t just go in there talking like a man with a paper asshole, which is what you you were doing about Bono.
Try doing some actual research outside of the Internet and learning some actual facts about a person before you go about playing character assasination with them.
Hey now… that almost bordered on Pit material :D.
–
Hey, I don’t mind what the DCs said, but people have the right to boycott their music. It hasn’t hurt much though. Their album is still #3 of ALL Albums out there. The dip in sales haven’t been much (most of the people ‘boycotting’ already bought the album, I’m sure).
Man, if I boycotted every artist who disagreed with me politically, I’d have nothing to listen to.
The Dixie Chicks are amazingly talented. Did you hear them sing the Star Spangled Banner a capella at the Superbowl? And they’re also superb musicians. This makes them a breath of fresh air in an era of packaged ‘artists’ who don’t play instruments, write songs, or sing well without electronic massaging.
I disagree with everything they stand for. But then, I disagree with Wilco, Billy Bragg, Don Henley, Springsteen.
Would you appreciate Tiger Woods less if you found out he was a liberal (or conservative, as need be)? If so, may I suggest that you need to seriously get a life. Politics are not the sole defining characteristic of a person.
But I have to say, that picture is seriously airbrushed. I just saw the Dixie Chicks live on TV a couple of weeks ago. Natalie Maines is at least 30 pounds heavier than she appears in that photo. Not that it really matters.
I know that everyone has an opinion, and I’m sure there are tons of people that I don’t agree with, that I just LOVE to either listen to or watch, however, heh…
…the deal with the Dixie Chicks is not so much about them speaking their mind with me, I’m actually GLAD they like to speak their mind. My problem is simply where, how, and when they did it. They waited to “speak on it” when they were not only NOT in the USA, but also waited to do so while the USA was at a certain type of dissention over the war and the such. My problem with them is that they did it like they did, NOT that they simply did it.
Not only was it just stupid business, but also just flat out disrepsectfull towards those that are fighting to provide the 'Chicks with the right to do so.
Oh, so no one’s entitled to an opinion unless they can meet your standards of intelligent discourse? Charming.
:rolleyes:
Thanks, dittohead. Your opinion will be given all the consideration it deserves.
:::Plonk:::
I have heard this same sentiment from so many conservatives lately that it has to have issued from La Limbuagh, who prolly got it from the Republican National Committee’s list of talking points.
Clear Channel is the nation’s largest owner of radio stations – a figure I found said they had more than 1,200 radio stations, and there have been well-founded accusations that they have been illegally “parking” stations under shell companies in cases where they are not legally able to acquire a station.
The main link between Clear Channel and the Bush admin. is Clear Channel Vice Chairman Tom Hicks, who has a long history of close dealing with Dubya:
http://www.takebackthemedia.com/radiogaga.html
Clear Channel is a distinctly conservative organization, as indicated in the article. They would very much like to own all radio stations, and the Bush admin. would love gto let them, for obvious reasons.
Any other questions? I thought not.
That clears it up.
You’ve tracked down the vast right-wing conspiracy™ by citing:
An opinion …
In an editorial …
In a liberal newspaper that is itself owned by a media conglomerate …
Whose board of directors has included or includes Donna Shalala, Carl Rowan and Roslyn Carter …
And is headquarted in McLean, Virginia, where …
The median housing value is $349,500 …
And the Average income Families with Children is $165,702
An area so elite that it requires its homeless to wear tassled loafers.
Thanks for the cite from a group that obviously has its hand on the pulse of the average American.
Nobody is entitled to an uninformed opinion. (Not that that applies to the Dixie Chicks’ it’s just a useful general principle.)