Just got this e-mail from Dave Seidman. Being out in the sticks, I doubt I’ll have the opportunity to see this film in theaters, but…
“Back in 2003, when one of the Dixie Chicks criticized President Bush,
conservatives denounced the Chicks, and radio networks and radio
networks refused to play their records, I think you announced on your
website that you bought a Dixie Chicks CD, just to support their right
to free speech and defy the denouncers.
I just got back from a screening of SHUT UP AND SING, a documentary
about the controversy. The directors (who were at the screening) said
that — in a replay of 2003’s radio blackout — the film is facing some
of the same resistance that the Dixie Chicks did. For instance, NBC is
refusing to accept or air paid ads for the film.
So I’m passing on a recommendation to you and others to see the film.
I don’t think it’ll disappoint you. It’s an interesting story well
told. Besides, the music’s terrific (and I’m not a Dixie Chicks fan).”
A week from today, we’ll have a chance to see just how much the rest of the population has caught up with the sentiments the Chicks expressed.
PAD
• 
While I am totally in their court and look forward to the film, I noticed that the Weinstein Company is talking about a possible lawsuit. Is there really a case there? Do broadcasters have NO say in who advertises on their networks?
I think the best part of this film is the title. I respect everyone’s right to have an opinion, But I’m to the point where I really don’t care what actors and musicians have to say.
Has anyone ever noticed how professional atheletes, 99% of the time, keep their opinion private? Do actors and musicians just have such big egos, they need the cheer that is acccompanied by their statements at the time?
I can completely understand, if you write a song about a certain topic, explaining it. And if its about politics, so be it. It has merit and justification then, bringing the topic up. Once again, I hold nothing against these women for expressing themselves.
As I have seen on video, and partially stated above…it was a throwaway comment made basically for ego. They got a cheer, had a huge smile/laugh. And it ended up backfiring in the long run.
In the same vein that I do not feel the egotistical desire to share my opinions with 5000 people, and be applauded for it…I don’t understand why these people do. I want to hear you sing or I want to watch you in a movie.
You don’t see Derek Jeter stop the game in the 5th inning to pronounce who he is voting for, right?
Mike
I support the “Chicks” and their right to say what ever they want to who ever they want. What seems to escape them is that speech may have consequences from those who disagree. I support private radio stations and others who speak out against the Chicks as well or refuse to play or buy their stuff because of what they said. In a recent interview one of the Chicks said “why are people trying to destroy our careers?”, well look at your fan base,then look in the mirror, that is who’s to blame.
Has anyone ever noticed how professional athletes, 99% of the time, keep their opinion private? Do actors and musicians just have such big egos, they need the cheer that is accompanied by their statements at the time?
We have Lynn Swann running for Governor here in PA, so athletes aren’t immune. As for celebrity causes, I’m of two minds on it. First of all, I think if I had the fame that made people interested in what I felt about certain issues, I would probably attempt to use that fame to heighten awareness of issues I felt were important. For example, how much attention would have been given to the plight of Ethiopia in the 80s without Bob Geldorf? The only problem I have with the situation is when people base their own opinions on the fact that a celebrity is for or against something. In other words, I think celebrity causes should be treated like Wikipedia; their great for getting a feel for something, but use more factual sources to form your thesis.
Having seen the commercial, about 90% of it is a pure anti-bush political spot, with the last couple seconds plugging the movie itself. It’s a joke of a spot, and I’m curious if NBC refuses to advertise this movie at all, or just run this specific ad.
There are some issues with running what could be seen as a political ad this close to an election. I mean, 20 seconds of Bush with the word “Liar” flashing on the screen is not a movie commercial, but a political spot.
That being said, I hope this movie does well. I’m all for anything that encourages discourse.
It was part of the “Coming Attractions” for “Running With Scissors” this week.
AFAIK the singer in question was a mother of a young man that had to go to Iraq to fight in a morally questionable war and she expressed her fear and displeasure of The Man at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue! While it can be argued that music and politics don’t mixed, some people forgot about those country lyrics “We’ll put a boot in your ášš! It’s The American Way!”
When musicians spout The Party Line, they’re praised! When they don’t, they’re “boycotted!” These ladies are the ONLY ones who are “playing politics” IMHO!
Mike, I’ve heard comments like yours before.
The problem is that music, and celebrity, has always been part of the national dialogue. And I do mean, always, long before the Dixie Chicks, since well before the point where Woody Guthrie wrote “This Land Is Your Land” as an angry, despairing response to Kate Smith’s “God Bless America.” I think it was Leadbelly who did a protest song called “De Titanic,” about his refusal to see the sinking as a tragedy, after the White Star Line refused to allow black boxer Jack Johnson a first-class berth.
Complain about celebs offering their opinions on stage, and you go to the next step, complaining about writers offering their opinions on the printed page. Nobody except the most kneejerk of all idiots says that Stephen King’s out of line when he composes an op-ed, on the grounds that he’s “only” a novelist; why are we then so anxious to complain about those like the Chicks who express themselves via music, rather than prose? And, by and by, who decides what pundits and TV personalities are more qualified to publicly express opinion than any others? Rush Limbaugh and Keith Olbermann, on opposite ends of the political spectrum, both started as sportscasters. Would we be justified in telling both, “Shut up and report those scores?” Or are we respecting their right to concoct opinions, off the tops of their heads, because that’s their official job description now? What makes them more qualified now than when they were telling us who just scored a touchdown?
My Father-In-Law complains about Hollywood leftists who make movies expressing their opinions. He finds it arrogant and improper. Who complains, though, about those who make movies of conservative bent? (I’m a liberal, and I sure don’t. I have my Tivo set for John Wayne.)
The real problem is that, in practice, it’s the liberals people say “Shut Up And Sing” to. You don’t wanna know how many staunch Reagan admirers of my acquaintance have complained bitterly and without any sense of irony that Alec Baldwin and Tim Robbins and Al Franken are “just actors” and have no business fooling around with politics. The fact that a lot of these people are well-educated, informed folks who come to their positions via activism and direct involvement, and who thus might actually know what they’re talking about, is lost. Thus comments (from TV sources!) to the effect that Angelina Jolie started her hunger activism only to distract the press from the Anniston/Pitt mess (a good trick, since she’s been working hunger relief causes for years). Or, more recent, and more hateful, commentary to the effect that Michael J. Fox doesn’t know what he’s talking about when he spreads the word about Parkinson’s research. Both arguments are stupid. At a certain point, you have to credit these people with having the same right to speak up that we all do, and understand that using their celebrity to do so is just one of the advantages that comes with the job.
EITHER WAY, the issue here should not be whether you agree with the Dixie Chicks, or respect their music, or think they’re a bunch of talentless harridans — or whether you think it’s right, in this country, for radio stations to organize a boycott of their music, that in some places extended all the way up to burning their CDs, because one of them dissed the President on stage.
The alternative is to say: flense your art of all political and societal opinion.
And if you do that, what happens next?
You get the other complaint, which is often spoken at the same time, by the same people who complain when an artist expresses interest in the world.
“It’s just vapid and empty-headed and brainless.”
You can’t win.
Correction: These ladies AREN’T the ONLY ones who are “playing politics” IMHO!
“We have Lynn Swann running for Governor here in PA, so athletes aren’t immune”
And I have no issue with that, nor did I have an issue with Bill Bradley being a senator from New Jersey. I didn’t mean retired atheletes tho, with political aspirations.
I meant people that are current atheletes are much much quieter on the politial front than musicians and actors.
I’m wondering if the ad is running afoul of McCain-Feingold or another of the so-called “reform” laws…
That being said, the Chicks deliberately chose to take a stand that a huge portion of their fan base disagrees with. To aggravate matters, they made it a major sticking point, and conflated their BELIEFS with their PRODUCT.
A similar example would be if PAD were to mock Star Trek and comic book fans as a bunch of social misfits and virgins, and then… um, never mind. He did that, didn’t he?
Seriously, the difference is that PAD did it in the context of a comic book, and the affection and respect he has for his fans was evident. Now, if he’d given a talk somewhere and delivered the same kind of message, but without the jocularity and identifying with the audience as he did in that issue of Captain Marvel, saying that Star Trek and comic book fans were all a bunch of fat, stupid losers living in their parents’ basements and trying to decide if their Star Fleet uniform clashed with their Batman cape, then a lot of his readers would most likely stop buying his stuff — myself included. Because separating the creator’s BELIEFS from their PRODUCT is one thing; having it shoved in your face that the creator you’re supporting has open contempt for the fan and the fan’s beliefs, and by buying their product you’re supporting that ongoing insult, is something else entirely.
I love PAD’s writing, but can’t stand his politics. But I don’t depend on him for political commentary. Until he starts pushing that into the stuff I do pay for, I’ll keep reading and keep being entertained.
J.
Current athletes – such as Cardinals pitcher, Suppan, who recorded the anti-embryonic stem cell ad?
My guess (though it might be unfair) is that the average iq of actors/musicians/writers is higher than the average iq of athletes. And the more intelligent you are, the more you want to participate in the political process.
As someone else mentioned…most people who have a problem with Barbra Steissand/Dixie Chicks/etc don’t have a problem with Charlton Heston. And the country music crowd loves the pro-Bush/pro-war music being released. They just don’t like it when it comes from the Left.
To aggravate matters, they made it a major sticking point, and conflated their BELIEFS with their PRODUCT.
When you’re an artist, your beliefs are part and parcel of your “product”.
What are you trying to do? Buck for a job with a movie studio or the RIAA?
“Now, if he’d given a talk somewhere and delivered the same kind of message, but without the jocularity and identifying with the audience as he did in that issue of Captain Marvel, saying that Star Trek and comic book fans were all a bunch of fat, stupid losers living in their parents’ basements and trying to decide if their Star Fleet uniform clashed with their Batman cape, then a lot of his readers would most likely stop buying his stuff — myself included.”
Well, that’s probably true. Then again, if I felt such detestation for my core audience, then that would probably mean that I feel equal contempt for the subject matter that I’m writing about. In which case that loathing would probably have shown through long ago. Certainly such an anti-fan attitude would damage the work itself, and that alone would be enough reason to cease supporting it.
None of which is analogous to the Dixie Chicks. It’s not like they put out a new album called, “My God, If You Like Our Work, You Must Be Stupid.” In the concert they insulted Bush, not the intelligence of the voters. (And frankly, considering some of the codswollop GOP politicians and pundits are expecting their supporters to follow without hesitation, I think THEY have been far more insulting of conservatives’ intelligence than anyone. And it’s starting to show. I think more and more conservatives, rather than wondering just how stupid the Dixie Chicks are, are wondering just how stupid their leadership thinks their supporters are.
As I said, a week from today, we may see the answer.
PAD
Well, musicians and actors have been doing this for a great deal longer than these chix have been alive (John Lennon anyone?) So I’m surprised when people think it’s out of line.
Personally, Natalie Maines gets on my nerves, Earl Had to Die being a GREAT song aside.
But hey, more power to her. She can say whatever she wants, but I won’t be paying any attention to her.
I suppose I would respect the Dixie Chicks more if the resulting protest had been about their actual work, but they are hardly Dylanesque artists or even in the same camp as Ice T when he recorded “Cop Killer.” It seems like Maines made a tossed-off remark — an insult — that backfired. The death threats, of course, are inexcusable but she didn’t really open the door for civil debate. I don’t know — it just seemed rude, and I’m someone who abhors what Bush has done to this country and the world at large.
Also, given the demographic of Texas, saying publically that you’re ashamed that Bush is from Texas is like my saying that I’m ashamed Spike Lee is from Brooklyn. It’s sort of a given that I’m going to be in the minority.
The problem is that too many Americans can’t tolerate disagreement. I’ve never liked the Dixie Chicks so it wasn’t really an issue with me (c’mon, their band name sends shivers up my spine — not intentionally, but as a black guy, I don’t jump up and down when I hear the word “dixie”). It’s ridiculous that people who liked their music would stop buying it or seeing their concerts because of something they said.
That said, free speech rarely is, well, free. The repercussions the Dixie Chicks faced were nothing compared to what might have happened in another country (the death threats aside — and even I’ve gotten death threats for things I’ve written; it’s almost part of the process). If your business is the public, you have to accept that there are consequences to potentially alienating them. It looks like that’s what the Dixie Chicks learned and in the process managed to go mainstream, for which I say good for them.
I agree with the Chicks, but I don’t own any of their albums. I disagree with almost everything Charlton Heston says, but I watch Planet of the Apes several times a year. I think Ezra Pound was one of the scummiest folks still taught in literature, but “In a Station of the Metro” is pure, concentrated genius.
I don’t understand how people can’t differentiate the work from the worker. Are you going to stop driving you car if you found out one of the assemblers was a skinhead?
Do actors and musicians just have such big egos, they need the cheer that is acccompanied by their statements at the time?
Maybe some have forgotten that Reagan was an actor? Or the Governator?
The hypocracy of those in politics to say that actors and musicians shouldn’t be allowed to express their opinions is incredible. Just because they’re actors doesn’t mean that their opinion is any less valid, nor is it automatically invalid just because they have a better platform (ie, because they’re famous).
Bono does all sorts of stuff that transcend politics, but maybe it’s just the fact he’s not an American that people here aren’t ripping him for it.
Or maybe it’s the ridiculous generalization that the media and Hollywood are liberal.
Posted by Jay Tea at October 31, 2006 10:37 AM
That being said, the Chicks deliberately chose to take a stand that a huge portion of their fan base disagrees with.
So, what, then? Should performers only take political stands that are popular?
Posted by Jay Tea at October 31, 2006 10:37 AM
To aggravate matters, they made it a major sticking point, and conflated their BELIEFS with their PRODUCT.
Using art as a vehicle for political commentary is in no way a “conflation.” Art has been a means for political commentary for as long as both art and politics have existed.
The film is out in NYV and LA. Has anyone here besides me actually seen it yet?
Posted by: michael at October 31, 2006 09:25 AM
I respect everyone’s right to have an opinion, But I’m to the point where I really don’t care what actors and musicians have to say. Has anyone ever noticed how professional atheletes, 99% of the time, keep their opinion private? Do actors and musicians just have such big egos, they need the cheer that is acccompanied by their statements at the time?
Mike, forgive me, but when you imply that politically active performers are egotists, you demonstrate that you are merely paying lip service to the idea that “everyone is entitled to an opinion.”
Posted by: michael at October 31, 2006 09:25 AM
In the same vein that I do not feel the egotistical desire to share my opinions with 5000 people, and be applauded for it…I don’t understand why these people do. I want to hear you sing or I want to watch you in a movie.
Yet here you are, posting your opinions in a very public forum. If you didn’t want to share your opinions with “5,000” people or however many people are reading this, why did you not keep them to yourself?
If you can do it, why can’t they?
Posted by: michael at October 31, 2006 09:25 AM
You don’t see Derek Jeter stop the game in the 5th inning to pronounce who he is voting for, right?
You’re comparing apples and oranges. Art has long been used as a vehicle for political commentary. Athletics have been used as a political tool to be sure (like the propaganda value assigned to the Olympics), but sports themselves are not commentary, they’re a contest of physical strength, stamina, and skill.
I think Alice Cooper said it best when he questioned why fans wanted to know what he thought about this or that item in politics. “Why do people want to know our opinion on these things? We’re not political science majors, we’re rock musicians. We beat drums all day for a living. What do we know about politics?”
Dave Seidman. It’s an interesting story well told. Besides, the music’s terrific (and I’m not a Dixie Chicks fan).”
Luigi Novi: What really pìššëš me off about this movie si that the market research company I work for had a free screening of it this past August in Manhattan, and recruiting for it was hëll. I tried to emphasize to all the people I could that it was not a documentary about their music, but a political documentary about the censorship and persecution they suffered after they criticized Bush, thinking that the type of moviegoers who watch political documentaries all the time (One of the places I tried recruiting as was the Angelika), would flock to it. Instead, I got more than one reaction along the lines of, “I’m not into country music,” or “I’m not into the Dixie Chicks.” Whether this was sheer ignorance of the points I had tried to make about the film, or a the dismissive reaction that what happened to the Chicks wasn’t important because they weren’t “fans” of them, I’m not sure. Either one is frustrating.
Jay Tea: I love PAD’s writing, but can’t stand his politics. But I don’t depend on him for political commentary. Until he starts pushing that into the stuff I do pay for, I’ll keep reading and keep being entertained.
Luigi Novi: Guess you didn’t read Captain Marvel. 🙂
1I agree with their position and their politics (and I’m even a registered Republican!) and I even like their music . . . but boy, I can’t STAND that loudmouthed Natalie Maines. Drives me INSANE. I’ve passed on opportunities to see them live simply because I don’t want to listen to her between-song prattle. Ugh.
Anyway . . . other than that, rock on, Chicks.
As you were.
Not all of the antipathy toward the Dixie Chicks is their politics–they have also actively dissed their old audience: “”I’d rather have a smaller following of really cool people who get it, who will grow with us as we grow and are fans for life, than people that have us in their five-disc changer with Reba McEntire and Toby Keith. We don’t want those kinds of fans. They limit what you can do.” Martie Maguire,
I’ve already said all I had to on the Chicks (here) but that’s not why I’ll be missing their film. I just don’t get out to theaters very often. I probably will, however, review it once it comes to DVD.
R.J. (in my Green Lantern costume today)
Know why the politicians don’t like artists speaking out? Especially if they disagree with the politicians?
Art.
Makes.
People.
Think.
Now, if the politicians can use it to fire up their base, I’m sure they ADORE the artists. But, if the artist(gasp!) DISagrees with their positions, which, as we all know, are handed to the politicians on plates of beaten gold from on high, well, they’re two steps over from Satan.
Do I like my artists to shut up and do…whatever they do? No. Do I support every cause they espouse? No. But that’s kind of getting away from the point. The thing that seperates any celebrity’s opinion on anything from all of us lowly masses below them(relax, I’m being sarcastic)is the fact that they’re RECOGNIZED. That’s why endorsements can make people so much money. You could have the worst product in history, but shove Celebrity X next to it spouting how great it is, people will buy it.
Actually, I would LOVE to see someone put out an album called “If you buy this, you’re stupid.” Surely it would be a comedy album, or a recording of Rush Limbaugh. Either way it’d be pretty funny.
The Dixie Chicks kind of remind me of the Beatles. Before all you music afficianadoes out there come to my door like the peasants in Frankenstein, let me explain. There was a big backlash against the Beatles because of the “bigger than Jesus” comment. Someone I know had all of her Beatle records smashed in the street 32 seconds after that comment was heard. The context of the comment was irrelevant. The fact that the person was just speaking their mind was irrelevant. Most people like to feel that the artists they like are like them, and anything that shows differently is anathema.
From Rich Drees:
I have, but then I’m the guy who recommended it.
Side note to Zeek, who wrote:
If you haven’t watched the movie, then you and your nerves ain’t seen nothin’ yet. Ms. Maines is even more outspoken in the movie than she was onstage in 2003.
David Seidman
From Rich Drees:
I have, but then I’m the guy who recommended it.
Side note to Zeek, who wrote:
If you haven’t watched the movie, then you and your nerves ain’t seen nothin’ yet. Ms. Maines is even more outspoken in the movie than she was onstage in 2003.
David Seidman
Double hëll. Not only did my post get posted twice, but the quotes that I dropped into it didn’t appear in it. Let me try again:
From Rich Drees:
Yep, me, the guy who recommended it.
Side note to Zeek, who wrote:
Ms. Maines is, as I said, even more outspoken in the movie than on stage.
David Seidman
That’s it. I give up. Silly machine won’t print what I write. Reminds me of some of my editors.
David Seidman
There have been lots of interesting comments about the accepting the ramifications of free speech. “If you say something people don’t like, people have the right not to buy your music.” OK. I accept that.
But what bothered me, to the point that I stopped listening to my local country music station, is that they were BANNED. A ban is a great tool to get someone to do something. You ban grapes until the farmers pay the pickers a better wage. Farmers do that and you start buying grapes again.
But (if I remember correctly) the Chicks apologized for the way they presented their opinion, not the sentiment behind it. So when they were banned, after their apology, I got the sense that country music stations were saying, “Change your political opinions and we’ll start playing you again.” And that is not free speech.
Jester
This situation is just nuts. That’s the only way it can be summed up.
Regardless of their viewpoints, I just found that they (especially the lead, Natalie), came across as obnoxious. I won’t be paying to see it.
Being a regular poster on several car-related message boards, I occasionally see people say things like “Harrison Ford’s a hypocrite because he’s always acting in action movies and in real life he’s anti-gun!” and “Who does [insert name of liberal-identified celebrity] think he/she is, saying things like that? He/she ought to be charged with treason and deported!!”
My reaction to the first is usually, “It’s called ‘acting,’ dimwit.” To the second, I’d say, “Maybe he/she thinks he/she’s an American citizen who votes and pays taxes, just like you do, freely expressing his/her opinion, just like you are.”
By the way, the Harrison Ford thing was real. Paraphrased because I didn’t have the exact quote handy, but the gist is there.
Jerry C, I wholeheartedly agree with you.
On the one hand, the First Amendment says “Congress shall make no law… abridging the freedom of speech…” (emphasis mine). So, from a strictly legal perspective, media outlets are well within their rights to ban an entertainer because they don’t like their political views.
This may be within the letter of the law but it sure as hëll violates its spirit. Moreover, it is hypocritical for us as a nation to declare that we are fighting here, there, and everywhere for “freedom” when so many of us don’t embody those values in our daily lives.
On “This Week With George Stephanopoulos,” George interviewed Michael J. Fox about his recent advocacy efforts for candidates who support embryonic stem cell research. He asked Fox how he would respond to those who believe that Fox’s view is wrong because embryoes represent a human life. Fox said he would “go to war” for their right to say that, and simply asked that they respect that he and others with his view have also thought and prayed long and hard about it.
God forbid that we follow Fox’s example of passionately disagreeing while respecting the rights of those with whom we disagree.
It’s not that she’s outspoken- kudos to her for being strong our little sisters need to know it’s ok for them to speak up.
I just personally feel that the other two chix are better musicians, and Natalie’s a glory hog. But I suppose all front men (or women as it were) have that in them.
(ok yeah, them dissing their fans kind of irked me. As much as I find the hags on The View annoying, I think their being insulted by The Dixie Chicks comments in the Time magazine interview was a correct reaction. The View was one of the first ones to pimp them- slapping them in the face the way they did was a bit arrogant.)
A little humility would make her words easier to swallow. Just sayin.
Speaking of Michael J Fox … THAT’S humility and THAT’S why people are hearing what he has to say.
//Well, musicians and actors have been doing this for a great deal longer than these chix have been alive (John Lennon anyone?) So I’m surprised when people think it’s out of line.//
I remember seeing another “Coming Attractions” for a documentary (or retrospective) that will be coming out next year about The Life of John Lennon. According to some of the clips, a branch of the government were considering having Lennon deported after one of his public appearances. Urban legend or untold story about an even more controversial performer than Ms. Maines? We’ll find out when that film is released.
Well, musicians and actors have been doing this for a great deal longer than these chix have been alive (John Lennon anyone?) So I’m surprised when people think it’s out of line.
Ahem. Swift. A Modest Proposal.
And I’d add the Gershwins, Strike Up the Band. Always wondered why there hasn’t been a revival of it lately….
“And I’d add the Gershwins, Strike Up the Band. Always wondered why there hasn’t been a revival of it lately….”
Isn’t it amazing how every generation thinks they’ve done it first? And wouldn’t you think we’d learn from history? I guess we are indeed doomed to repeat it.
Michael wrote:
Has anyone ever noticed how professional atheletes, 99% of the time, keep their opinion private?
Oh, sure. But just try to get them to shut up about jesus whenever they score a gøddámņ touchdown.
Religion is opinion, too.
Bill, I have to disagree with you on one thing. When you said “it sure as hëll violates its spirit” I’m not sure that’s true. Freedom of speech also includes freedom of silence. There’s nothing that says a certain station has to play Dixie Chicks songs. Although, if I were a PD, I wouldn’t make a big stink about it. You’re bound to lose listeners either way, so if you just keep your mouth shut, you’re not seen as this opinionated loudmouth trying to impose YOUR ideas on the listening public. (BTW, that’s different from artists being percieved as opinionated loudmouths. Stations are just the messengers.)
Bill, I have to disagree with you on one thing. When you said “it sure as hëll violates its spirit” I’m not sure that’s true. Freedom of speech also includes freedom of silence.
Huh????
Don’t see that at all. Not when the freedom lies in someone else’s hands, not your own.
I see the marketplace of ideas. Those who would act as gatekeepers should tread very carefully.
Sean, Roger Tang took the words right out of my mouth. It’s one thing to silence yourself — it’s quite another to silence someone else.
The courts have upheld the idea that freedom of speech includes the freedom NOT to say something. And certainly that includes the freedom for a newspaper not to print a letter to the editor, or for a radio station not to play a song.
I fully support, for example, those newspapers that have refused to run ads that claim the holocaust was a myth. That is intellectually dishonest claptrap. But I don’t think the Dixie Chicks come anywhere near that kind of extreme.
“ok yeah, them dissing their fans kind of irked me.”
That would actually be funny if it were true. Still, I’ll give you that it is a POV thing.
My POV:
They said something at a concert about Bush. This got picked up and spun around the media by the dim bulbs of Fox and talk radio as an attack on America and an outrage in a time of war. A number of the chicks’ “fans” began to write newspapers, call radio stations, call talk radio and get on “man on the street” blips on TV news talking about how the Chicks said bad things about “America” in a time of war, were Saddam’s little angels, supported the terrorists and so on. They then went on to trash their Chicks collections at home (if you can take their word for it) or in public displays that showed that some people ain’t that far removed from the trees.
Then the Chicks had a few words about the stations, the companies that owned them, the dim bulbs of Fox and talk radio…
…and the people who used to listen to them and were now trashing them and their CDs.
Those people who, by my POV, stopped being fans the second the claimed the Chicks attacked America, demanded they be banned from airplay, threw out their Chicks stuff and swore that they would never buy another Chicks related item in their lives.
I don’t know. Maybe that’s still a fan by your POV. it’s not by mine and I’ll wager it’s not by theirs.
The first word of the First Amendment is often ignored, but is extremely important. “Congress” as in “Congress Shall Make No Law”
Private businesses (radio stations, newspapers, magazines) have every right to decide what they promote. As long as Congress doesn’t step in, no rights have been violated. Not even the spirit.
The example I enjoy using is if someone sends a pornographic short story to Highlights Magazine for Children they are not required by law to publish it.
Of course, every action has an equal and opposite reaction. Newton taught us that. If a radio station decides to play controversial artist X, or decides not to play controversial artist Y, there is likely to be a response from listeners. They have a decision to make. But it is their decision to make.
Freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences, nor freedom from rebuttal. It simply means that the government cannot stifle you.
The Dixie Chicks have the right to say whatever the hëll they please. That includes making cheap personal attacks on the president while abroad. But they have no Constitutional right to demand radio stations play their songs, stores to stock their CDs, and people to listen to them.
The way they handled the matter also stunk to high heaven. As others noted, they dismissed a large chunk of their upset fans, saying they’d prefer “quality” over “quantity.” So they were taken at their word, and the quantity plummeted.
Then they had a chance to either put it all behind them or try to shape it into something more palatable. Instead, they kept up the defiant, in-your-face attitude with their last single, “Not Ready To Make Nice.”
I loathe country music as a rule, but I actually watched — and loved — their video for “Goodbye Earl.” (My fondness for NYPD Blue got me to see it, and Dennis Franz was PERFECT in it. I cheered when he got it, and I thought it was a pretty good song.)
But every step of the way, the choice has been theirs (well, apparently Natalie’s). Others have made similar statements and taken similar positions, and avoided alienating their base.
Their audience is considerably smaller now. I hope that means it’s also “better,” by their definition.
J.
Au contraire.
“I’d rather have a smaller following of really cool people who get it,” says Maguire, “who will grow with us as we grow and are fans for life, than people that have us in their five-disc changer with Reba McEntire and Toby Keith. We don’t want those kinds of fans. They limit what you can do.”
Some fans were not burning their cds and issuing threats, but liked what the Dixie Chicks used to do and still liked Toby Keith and Reba. They just dissed them with that statement (along with Reba and TK- though TK did deserve it! hee!).
They also snubbed the average American woman who watchs The View …
“They’ll tour starting in July and flog the record on a few select talk shows. “Natalie’s new motto is, ‘What would Bruce Springsteen do?'” says Robison, laughing. “Not that we’re of that caliber, but ‘Would Bruce Springsteen do The View?'” They’re not doing The View.“
Sorry, the “au contraire” was to Jerry C … you guys jumped in ahead of me.