Shut Up & Sing- Freedom of speech is fine, as long as you don't do it in public.

[thirdwarning]

@ITR champion

Bingo.

This is “such a big deal”, but not because the Dixie Chicks have suffered greatly. While countless commentators assured in back in '03 that their career as musicians was surely over and they’d spend the rest of their lives selling shoes, they don’t seem to have done half-badly in reality. Every album they’ve released since then has been #1 for several weeks, if I recall correctly.

According to the website they’ve only released *Taking the Long Way * and *Not Ready to Make Nice * since then, and I think those were both this year. So they really were out of the public eye for a while. And part of the publicity for *Not Ready to Make Nice * was the hype about how they’d been so persecuted but they couldn’t be held down.

This is such a big deal because it’s emblematic of how a smaller and smaller cabal of conservative media owners controls more and more of what gets said on the airwaves. There was no mass popular uprising against what Natalie said. Few people heard what she said. There were no boycotts that forced radio stations to takes the Dixie Chicks off the air. There were executives who decided to take the Dixie Chicks off the air. The entire situation is emblematic of so much that goes on these days. We have the outrage of the Republican Party and their allies masquerading as mass outrage. There were never millions of people erupting with anger at what Natalie said. There were, rather, thousands of people erupting with obedience when right-wingers on hate radio and elsewhere told them to do so. In as much as there were (small) crowds burning Dixie Chicks CDs, most of them probably didn’t know what Natalie said and didn’t care.

Apparently you hang around with a whole different group of people than I do. There were plenty of people expressing outrage over what Natalie said. Mostly because of where she said it. Oh, and I love the sneaky way of saying that nobody who disagrees with the Chicks’ point of view can think for themselves. They all just blindly follow the guys on “hate radio”.

Personally, I’d just rather the Chicks keep talking if it will keep them from singing.

[jacquilynne]

@thirdwarning

According to the website they’ve only released *Taking the Long Way * and *Not Ready to Make Nice * since then, and I think those were both this year. So they really were out of the public eye for a while. And part of the publicity for *Not Ready to Make Nice * was the hype about how they’d been so persecuted but they couldn’t be held down.

Taking the Long Way is actually the only studio album they’ve released since then. Not Ready to Make Nice was a single from that album. They’ve also released a live tour disc from the Top of the World tour, which only sold Gold, but live discs are hard to judge since they typically don’t sell as well as new material.

That said, in 5 months, Taking the Long Way has only gone platinum - more than 1M but less than 2M units moved. Their first 2 albums sold over 10M each. Home was still selling very well, and was over 6M units moved when this whole thing started and sales stagnated.

Here’s how their tour is going:
A number of shows were cancelled due to poor sales, and in Houston, Texas, tickets never even went on sale when local radio stations refused to accept advertising for the event [11]. In August, a re-routed tour schedule was announced with a greater emphasis on Canadian dates, where Taking the Long Way had gone five-times-platinum.

I appreciate the re-emphasis on Canadian tour dates, personally, since it meant I scored some really excellent seats to their second Toronto date, but nobody can honestly look at the numbers and say they haven’t been hurt by this controversy.

[Gary_Robson]

@Voyager

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.

You’re not looking at the big picture, Voyager. I’m an author, and I’d absolutely love to have a big book burning orchestrated where they tossed my books on a bonfire. I’d invite every media outlet on the planet to attend. The plusses include:

• Free publicity on TV/Radio/Newspapers
• All of the burned books/CDs are paid for, so the author and publisher benefit financially
• People who’ve never read/heard the material get curious and buy a copy

Anybody who’d not buy a product because of a book/CD burning probably isn’t in the target audience anyway. I just don’t see a downside.

[Mister_Rik]

@InvisibleWombat

• All of the burned books/CDs are paid for, so the author and publisher benefit financially
• People who’ve never read/heard the material get curious and buy a copy

And then there are all the people who later regret burning their copy and go out and buy a new copy

[rjung]

@Telemark

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?

I don’t think anyone has said that companies should not be allowed to advertise wherever they like (well, okay, maybe not a big glowing neon billboard on top of a nunnery, but you get the idea ;)). On the other hand, if they choose to avoid a show/station/whatever for political reasons, they should also be willing to accept the consequences of that decision, whether it’s a boycott or just a general “Company X sucks” response.

It’s also worth noting that one company on the blacklist, REI, says it has never refused to have their ads on Air America. Which makes the ABC list even more curious, IMO.

[Miller]

@InvisibleWombat

It’s not a red herring. It’s the entire point. Entertainers criticize politicians in the U.S. every day, and although it annoys me, it’s never angered me. This one did, because they left the U.S. to make disparaging statements to a foreign crowd about our government. I think that’s tacky, cowardly, and makes the U.S. look bad. 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. If you want to live here, step up and perform your political activism here. Try to fix the problem rather than whining about it overseas.

@InvisibleWombat

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.

Does anyone else see a huge contradiction between these two paragraphs?

[Gary_Robson]

Perhaps you can explain the contradiction to me, Miller. I don’t see it. The opinions I expressed in those two paragraphs are:

1. American political activism should be performed within U.S. borders, and if you’re going to gripe about U.S. politicians, you should do it here.

2. Natalie lives in Texas. That doesn’t, in any way, make her responsible for the actions of any other person who ever lived in Texas, and she should never feel the need to apologize (inside or outside of the U.S.) for the actions of anyone else who lives/lived in Texas.

3. If you vote for someone and they do something outrageous, it isn’t your fault, but I can see why you’d feel guilty and feel the need to apologize from time to time. I don’t feel that this applies, because I strongly doubt that Natalie voted for Bush.

4. In my humble opinion, if you don’t vote, you shouldn’t bitch about who gets elected.

Where’s the conflict there?