As I said in the post you’re quoting: “And I see this coming, so I’ll head it off at the pass: it doesn’t matter whether the politician you’re attacking is making us look bad. That’s no excuse to provide more bad P.R. for the U.S.” You need to read the entire post before responding.
I in no way equate GWB with the U.S., but you must admit that GWB is a part of the U.S. government. Is the guy who gripes all day long about the lousy fuel pump in his Chrysler not criticizing Chrysler? If I complain about the president of Enron, am I not at least partially complaining about Enron itself? I said clearly above that I have no problem with criticizing the President of the U.S. I do it myself. I’m not a GWB fan. But I do it here. At home. With other Americans. When I travel abroad, I don’t make public disparaging comments about our President or any other part of the government.
Yep. I actually read the newspaper. Imagine that.
That’s ridiculous. First of all, where you live doesn’t make you responsible for others who live there. The citizens of London didn’t have to apologize for Jack the Ripper. Second of all, there’s nothing to apologize for. I very much doubt that Natalie voted for George W. Bush. She participated in a democratic election and someone she didn’t like got elected. That happens all the time and doesn’t make her responsible for the actions of the president. At least I assume she voted. If not, I think she should shut up.
Sure. The first one represents a plausible reality. The second is a conspiracy theory.
Why, of course they did! Well, they needed to, that is. And IIRC, they never bothered to do it. Limey barstids.
Tellyawhat, until those remorseless creeps come up with that apology, not a morsel of black pudding, spotted dick, or blood sausage shall pass my lips.
But why should Americans refrain from doing something abroad that other foreigners frequently do when they’re visiting the U.S. (i.e., criticize their leaders and/or a particular policy of their home governments)? From my personal experience, I’ve often heard people from other countries badmouth their presidents and prime ministers while in the U.S. I’m not going to suddenly do a political 180 and start defending the Bush Administration and its domestic and foreign policies just because I step across the Canadian or Mexican border and discuss politics with a Canadian or Mexican citizen.
Anyway, I have a strong feeling that if it had been 1998 and Maines had made an anti-Clinton crack while abroad, there would not have been one-tenth of 1% of the outrage expressed by the right-wingers after the 2003 incident.
Absolutely not all of them are like that. For better or for worse, however, that is how marketers see them. Marketers think in statistics, and demographics…you may see this as reductionist, but that’s how marketing works.
Of course. I love Pearl Jam, and I would go to see them again in a minute, no matter what they had to say about the President. That doesn’t mean that everyone has that attitude, however, and if I wasn’t AS big of a fan, I might well pass on them, because the enjoyment I would get from the show wouldn’t be enough to counteract my annoyance at hearing their political opinions. Barbra is a perfect example…I actively avoid her, because she irritates me to no end, and while I think she has a beautiful voice and I enjoy hearing her sing, I don’t enjoy it enough to want to support her with my entertainment dollars. So, I agree…not everyone would boycott. But maybe enough would suddenly lose interest enough to have an effect.
I remain unconvinced of this, as 1) I haven’t seen any evidence that currently it is impossible to find the Dixie Chicks being played on the radio (I don’t listen to C&W at all), and they are clearly still able to get records made on a major label, and 2) I don’t see what makes the corporate desires to curry favor with the administration any different from a rock station’s desire, or any other type of station’s desire. The benefits of having the FCC on one’s side would be the same for both. And, as I said, these stations are likely owned by the same conglomerates, anyway. The only reason I can see that those two types of stations would react differently to the same situation is the perceived differences in how the audience would react.
This supports my point above. Why is Pearl Jam still being played on the radio?
Exactly. Just what political gains would the owner of a radio station expect? “Okay, I’m not playing the Dixie Chicks anymore–now the White House will arrange for me to get a huge tax break.” Sounds farfetched.
Especially when you consider that most radio stations these days are owned by groups that have multiple stations with multiple formats. Are you really telling me that the management would find significant political capital in not playing Dixie Chicks on one station while still playing anti-administration punk rock or Bush-bashing comedians on another?
Not by the right-wingers, anyway
The rabid pro-Clinton forces were no less loud and closed-minded than the rabid pro-Bush forces. Far too many people in this country fail to see that both men have good and bad points to them.
Fans not buying their CDs I have no problem with. Radio stations attempting to stifle their opinions (and hurt their livelihoods) but not playing their music for purely political reasons I do.
Book burning (CD burning in this case) I have a big problem with - we all know who did it 70 years ago. I’m not going to buy any books by Ann Coulter, but I’m against burning her books also.
How about “Okay, I’m not playing the Dixie Chicks anymore–now the White House will arrange FCC approval for me to buy more radio and TV stations and become the nation’s biggest media conglomerate”?
And Clear Channel owns NO stations that play other artists that are vocally anti-war/anti-Bush? Seems to me if they are trying to stifle left-wing political commentary in order to make the administration happy, they could do a much better job than they are doing.
Don’t you think that if they were trying to curry favor with the Bush administration, they would get a lot more mileage out of refusing to carry Air America than refusing to play the Dixie Chicks?
Yes, Clear Channel carries Air America, and they own stations that carry artists that are also critical of the administration. I don’t contend that decisions about programming are made purely for political reasons, I just don’t buy that they are always made for purely economic reasons (at least for marketing reasons – obviously if you’re sucking up to an administration hoping for favorable decisions from the FCC, that’s economic).
Hard as it is to believe, the political climate now is different from what it was in 2003. And in the right climate decisions can be made for purely political reasons: when MSNBC cancelled Phil Donahue’s show on the eve of the war – it was the highest rated show they had at the time – the executive in charge actually said “we can’t afford to be perceived as the anti-war network at this time.”
My big issue in this thread, one which no one has really addressed, is: as media becomes more consolidated, and the public’s choices become fewer, democracy dies a little more. This is not about music, it’s about information – local news has pretty much been reduced to car chases, celebrity gossip, product placement, and promos for the prime-time programming – you know, “news you can use.”
Americans (present company excepted) are generally more ignorant about the rest of the world than they are of us. 35-40% of the American public still believe that we found WMD in Iraq. I just see this getting worse as consolidation continues. Not because the corporations involved are all necessarily evil or right wing, but because they control the flow of information and there’s no market for creating an informed public – news for profit is not profitable (Fox News may be making money now, I’m not sure, but they are not profiting by reporting “news.” Their profits come from the Talking Heads shows like O’Reilly and Hannity).
Oh, and P.S. – someone at ABC just leaked a memo with a list of ~90 companies who have purchased bulk advertising on ABC radio, but requested that their ads be blacked out from all Air America programming on stations owned by ABC. Now there are certainly companies on the list who may not feel that the audience at Air America falls within their target demo, but would that include Microsoft, FedEx, Coke and Pepsi? Someone, somewhere is making decisions based on politics and not on whether they can sell their product to this audience.
Hers was an opinion that was crushed under the propaganda machine. When her statement was made, it was during the long and lying, black drumbeat of the Neo Con psyoperations that rode our fervor into this war. Yes, I do think that the media was propagating her opinion in an unfair way. When the stations are holding rallies to crush and burn your records, ideological and hence wars of propaganda are inflamed and treatised. Your treatise sucks.
Actually, I can think of lots of non-political reasons why they would not want to advertise on Air America. Heck, didn’t they file for bankruptcy just recently? I might not want to spend money on a media outlet that I fear might not get a chance to air the ads.
While mainstream radio is certainly being consolidated, here in Boston for example I have access to 50+ radio stations, many smaller independent and college ones that play pretty much anything under the sun. The music is out there, people may have to work a little harder to find it, but I don’t see how that invalidates the business decisions made by radio station owners. Even if the decisions are politically motivated and take place on publicly licensed airwaves, that’s all part of free speech.
If those little stations are forced off the air then it’s more of an issue. But if people don’t listen to them and they go out of business, I don’t think the case holds water. Should we subsidize unpopular music? How would you propose we get this music out to the people?
I could be wrong, but the wording of the memo seems to indicate that the list has been around prior to Air America’s bankrupcy declaration (since the memo talks about an “update” to the list), which suggests that the list might be the cause of the problems and not a result of them.
I’m not accusing them of being responsible for Bush so much as trying to get inside their heads as to why they say they are ashamed he’s from Texas. Surely there’s a certain sense of collective responsibility when “one of us” inflicts something heinous upon the world. Like with the Germans and you-know-who. People closer to Mr. Bad Guy had a better chance of stopping him than people further away, so it’s not suprising some of them would express a certain regret for not having done more.
They’ve been in a shaky financial state since Day 1, so I could definitely see a business questioning signing a big sales contract with them. But I could see a variety of other valid business reasons for those big companies deciding that the audience of Air America wouldn’t be a good choice. It’s not that big a stretch.
But even if it was for political reasons, don’t companies have the right to political speech? If a company decides to advertise on Air America, is that political speech as well? If a company sponsors a political activity, isn’t that a valid use of their resources?
