Primetime Thursday used up an entire hour on the Chicks thing this past Thurs.
My comments can be found at:http://blogs.salon.com/0001963
The Dixie Chicks
by Stan Conroy 110 Replies latest watchtower scandals
-
-
blacksheep
"I take it then, from your reactions, that were people to organise say ... a boycott of American goods, that you sould see nothing wrong with that and would not complain about it at all?"
Yes, these people DO have the right to organize a boycott if they want. And anyone who feels they want to participate in the boycott is welcome to do so. Personally, I've seen a few wacko websites from people who have an entire list of Hollywood "traitors." I assume the massive list is composed of entertainers who at any time during the current war or past wars dared to express their views against it, the administration, the government, etc. Personally, I think that's hogwash, and most reasonable people will see this.
For most American consumers, boycotting and/or expressing our views are pretty much limited to individual purchase choices we make, airing our opinions on the internet and informally with friends. Maybe calling in on a radio or tv talk show....
The problem with the Dixie Chicks, the Sarrandons, and a FEW others is that they exploit totally non-political forums to air their personal political views. Whats worse, as in the case of the Dixie Chicks, they haven't even an *intelligent* word to say that people can even respect. Their vapid comments were simply stupid. They are paying the price for it. And now are trying to lamely defend themselves.
-
peacefulpete
Have you even read the comments here? Do you really know what Sarandon and Tim Robins have said? Man I get so sick of this ignorance of the issues! If people like them don't sound a public alarm you may well loose the freedom of speech you say is precious to you. And how ludicrous to suggest that there is some inappropriatness to a public entertainer to express a political view. I guess that Charlton Heston had better shut up! Anyone has the right to speak about anthing other than 2 things: 1 to call for armed overthrow of the government, and 2 to threaten the presidents life. Neither of these things was done and therefore a tolerant public should hav simply acepted that as an individual's view worthy of acceptance or dismissal. However the real reason for concern in this case is that the reaction was orchestrated by a politically connected media conglomerate that gobbles up radio stations everyday. The average citezen unfortunately simply parrots the views presented to them. Words like "anti-American, Terrorist Lover, Saddam Lover, unpatriotic, coward, communist, etc" epithets thrown at a woman whose comment expressed pride at being an American an a Texan, but disgust in a president. This kind of power to destroy careers and lives and squelch free speech ought not be ignored. The role of large coroporations in shaping public opinion has yet been defined by our society. It is time we start to consider if we want coersion and blackmail by corporate powers determining what we hear in the news and in entertainment industry.
-
dubla
still going.........
-
freedom96
I think it is funny that the Dipsy Chicks got booed at their own country awards show!
People still will attend their concerts, and buy their c/d's, but perhaps this was a good lesson to keep their yappers shut about politics.
-
ashitaka
People have a right to be as stupid and close-minded as they want, especially at this awards show, where it is encouraged! LOL
ash
-
Yerusalyim
Several have made the comment that organizing boycotts that affect someone's livlihood is wrong. There used to be a law to that effect. There was a time in the US that organizing a boycott that financially affected a business was illegal. It was in the southern states, it was used against the civil rights protestors in the 50's and 60's. Specifically, the Montgomery Bus Boycott. were these brave Americans anti-american for boycotting a bus company that enforced racial segregation?
Those organizing the boycott against the Chicks are acting in a great tradition of freedom of expression. They're not forcing others NOT to buy Chick CD's, that would be wrong.
Threats of violence? I hadn't heard that, but that too is wrong. As wrong as the violence perpetrated by some of the Anti-War protestors in some locations.
Damage to property? That too is wrong, just as it was wrong when some of the anti-war protestors damaged property at some locations.
-
Reborn2002
Specifically, the Montgomery Bus Boycott. were these brave Americans anti-american for boycotting a bus company that enforced racial segregation?
That is an unfair analogy. The Montgomery Boycott was a racially motivated issue, and these people were struggling to win basic human rights.
Comparing that to a boycott of a country music band is a tactic to seek support by invoking emotion in my opinion. The two boycotts and circumstances are incomparable. One was a boycott during the Civil Rights Movement in which African-Americans were fighting racial discrimination to garner basic freedoms any person should have. The other is people are boycotting a country music band for using their right to freedom of speech and stating how they felt about the current political climate and war. The only common thread is both are "boycotts."
Those organizing the boycott against the Chicks are acting in a great tradition of freedom of expression. They're not forcing others NOT to buy Chick CD's, that would be wrong.
I agree.
Threats of violence? I hadn't heard that, but that too is wrong. As wrong as the violence perpetrated by some of the Anti-War protestors in some locations.
I agree. Violence by either side (anti-war protestors or otherwise) is deplorable and wrong.
Damage to property? That too is wrong, just as it was wrong when some of the anti-war protestors damaged property at some locations.
I agree. Applies to either side.
I just have a problem with the censorship and the one-sided bias which seems to be prevalent currently.
People are afraid to speak against Bush it seems.
The Dixie Chicks used their right to freedom of expression to state how they feel about the war, and they are subsequently censored on some radio stations who refuse to play their music because they stated an opinion that happens to go against the current Administration. Then they are labeled as unpatriotic and rallied against. They support the troops, just not the war or President Bush.
Rush Limbaugh criticizes Democrats and Bill Clinton every day for decades. He is labeled patriotic and encouraged for his comments.
Is there not a double-standard here? Let's be real.
-
144thousand_and_one
It's one thing when fans boycott an entertainer, it's entirely different when bloated, powerful media conglomerates use their muscle to snuff out the work of successful artists like the Dixie Chicks, solely for their stated political views. The Dixie Chicks have recently found it very difficult to get airplay, despite overwhelming past success at it. Allowing a few big media conglomerates to censor artists for their political views is unamerican, and we, the consumers, ought to express our indignation with their conduct by boycotting radio stations that don't respect the values this country was founded upon.
-
dubla
....it's entirely different when bloated, powerful media conglomerates use their muscle to snuff out the work of successful artists like the Dixie Chicks, solely for their stated political views. The Dixie Chicks have recently found it very difficult to get airplay, despite overwhelming past success at it. Allowing a few big media conglomerates to censor artists for their political views is unamerican....
i could be mistaken, but from the programs i saw on this, the radio stations quit playing their music because they would be boycotted otherwise. in other words, perhaps the stations couldnt care less what the dixie chicks political views are, but they sure arent going to sit back and lose half (1/2 is probably a conservative estimate in some areas) of their listeners over one group..........makes sense to me.
aa