The fact remains that the Dixie Chicks spoke out against the president, and got slapped down for it. The question is if the rancor is from the public, or generated by big-business media who wish to control what is said?
Ads for the documentary “Shut Up & Sing” also were rebuffed by the smaller CW network, though local affiliates of all five major broadcasters, including NBC and CW, ran promotional spots for the film in New York and Los Angeles, the two cities where it opened on Friday.
The ladies in the band certainly think political interests are behind the action, not concern for fans:
“…I think it was originally started by the “Free Republic”. And they were very organized in calling radio stations across the country and telling them that they would never listen to their station, when they didn’t even live in that town. And we knew that.
At the beginning our manager tried to explain that to some program directors and they were not willing to listen. It looked like we were grasping at straws, so we just sort of kept quiet and let it happen because they are a powerful, organized machine, and they wanted to take us down. And they did.”
I think both points have merit from their points of view. There are a lot of underinformed people who believe that Iraq was behind 9-11 and therefore feel that the Dixie Chicks’ action was treasonous, but the radio and TV stations blocking the band are all owned by Big Media.
I do believe that media consolidation will make things like this happen more often, and not just in the political arena. More and more decisions about what you can see and hear are made by fewer and fewer people.
Their fans have already spoken with their dollars. Sales are as strong as ever. They may have lost a few rednecks and superpatriots. They gained mainstream Americans.
It’s the media barons who suck — as usual. Plus the meager number of apologists who grovel for the rich and powerful.
Piss on the Dixie Chicks.
Why does almost everyone who achieves some degree of celebrity think their political views are important to anyone else? Same could be said as well for everyone on this blog.
I certainly feel bad for them in some regard, but I wish that somebody would explain to them that outside of what the government does, there really is no such thing as “free speech.”
It has already entered the left-bashing lexicon…
It has simply been added to the list i.e. birkenstock wearing, latte sipping, volvo driving, dixie chick listening…LIBERAL!!!
Voted for Kerry!
Will vote for Hillary!
Anti-Family!
Supports murdering unborn children!
Anti-Christian!
Godless!
yada yada yada…
It looked like we were grasping at straws, so we just sort of kept quiet and let it happen because they are a powerful, organized machine, and they wanted to take us down. And they did.
I’m glad to see that while they may have been taken down, they haven’t been taken out.
2
You are absolutely correct. Your political opinion is as valid as their’s, and you have just as much of a right to present it to as large an audience as is legally possible. The same goes for my and everyone else’s opinion here. That’s one of the reasons we’re all here in the first place. So why bash them for saying what they think?
Whatever happened to disagreeing with someone but respecting them as people? Why must we de-humanize our interlocutor by denigrating, demonizing or disrespecting them? I realize this is not a new issue, but just because it’s always been done doesn’t mean it’s right.
The bigger issue, IMNSHO, is that if we let our media consolidate to the extent the industry wants is a Very Bad Idea. Not only will it result in thousands of jobs lost in content generation, it will result in a propaganda machine (social, political, commercial) of incomprehensible power, fueled by special-interest dollars.
I believe they won a few , lost a few.
They likely lost a few neo-conservatives and Bush bible thumpers that listen to alternative country music. Our government media outlets such as GOP-TV (Fox News) and similar have likely hurt their concert tickets by labeling them as commie, terrorist loving lesbians. In addition, GOP Dad would be furious if the children would have an opinion of his own and chose to see the Dixie Chicks in concert (I know, trust me).
On the other hand, they won new fans and new respect for exercising bold free speech. I don;t agree with everything they say, but thrilled to see debate and challenge to those in power as (still) allowable inthis country. Good for them, good for us.
Politics aside, media has had an aversion to any entertainment which looks at it too closely. For example, the cancellation of the TV series Max Headroom. From that standpoint, the cold shouldering of a movie which looks in detail at media’s reaction to a celebrity political statement–whatever its stripe–should not be a surprise.
Its big media of course. most radio and some rock don’t play anybody with a point of view. I don’t care if I hate the people that are singing, if they sound good, which in this case they do, then put them on the air.
Why are we surprised? All media are swinging one way or the other. But this is quite extreme. And as for the Dixie Chicks… only fools still don’t agree with their opinions on Bush and the invasion of Iraq.
Media consolidation could make this happen more often, but this looks more like a clever marketing ploy by the Weinsteins.
all i know is.. it’s a sad day when i have to read about the dixie chicks on this blog
This has been good for their career. The day the country music channel dropped them, MTV and VHF ran their videos to an audience that would have never heard them. I don’t think they ever had great appeal to the traditional older country fan base. I heard them referred to the white trash chicks long before the Bush remark. Yes there’s free speech, but anyone has to realize there’s a distinct possibility you’ll piss someone off and make enemies when you open your mouth in public.
2 Why does almost everyone who achieves some degree of celebrity think their political views are important to anyone else?
Why does anyone think the political views of a celebrity are important enough to get worked-up about? To “retaliate” or “backlash” against?
Smartalix Wrote:
“There are a lot of underinformed people who believe that Iraq was behind 9-11…”
From the Washington Post:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A47812-2004Jun16_2.html
“Shortly after Cheney asserted these links, Bush contradicted him, saying: “We’ve had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with the September 11th.” ”
Holy Crap! Please Please don’t tell me that there are people that still believe Iraq was connected to 911. And if you tell me that it is true and that these people are also voters, I will put my fingers in my ears and say ‘La La La La” until you stop talking.
Steve
When the dixie chicks first talked against Bush. I wanted to see someone kill one of them in retaliation; but because I wanted to see people either say “That’s horrible! What has become of us!” OR “This is what you get for opposing George W. Bush!”
#2. “Why does almost everyone who achieves some degree of celebrity think their political views are important to anyone else?”
Heck, some celebrities even think their views are important enough to make them governator of California!
How is it that I literally can’t go a day without seeing a media story about the Dixie Chicks and their album did great in sales, but still people try to paint them as being “silenced?”
It’s bull. Anyone who thinks the Chicks are being silenced is an idiot. Or they’re lying because of their own agenda.
There maybe a a few, but Smartalix likes to exaggerate. It’s nowhere NEAR the problem he claims that it is. More people believe 9/11 was an inside job.
Good question. So when you do it to conservatives and Republicans through snide comments and name-calling in your posts, do you ask this question of yourself? Or are you exempt from your own rules?
I believe you have all missed the point here, it is not that they spoke out against our leader and in doing so our country, it is where they did it
I can complain about my family all I want, but some one insults my sister and I’m there to defend her
They degraded our leader and President in a foreign land and that is a big NO NO. They could have solved this whole problem with a simple apology but her (Natalie) had an ego the size of a small country (I know this because I am from Lubbock and know her family) stubbornly stood her ground and cost the group millions
You be right and still loose, and hopefully she will figure this out soon and just sing (I like their music still) and keep her political views to her self
I believe you have all missed the point here, it is not that they spoke out against our leader and in doing so our country, it is where they did it
I can complain about my family all I want, but some one insults my sister and I’m there to defend her
They degraded our leader and President in a foreign land and that is a big NO NO. They could have solved this whole problem with a simple apology but her (Natalie) had an ego the size of a small country ( I know this because I am from Lubbock and know her family ) stubbornly stood her ground and cost the group millions
You can be right and still loose, and hopefully she will figure this out soon and just sing ( I like their music still) and keep her political views to her self
You are free to call me on what you consider bullshit, just like everybody else.
[–ed: unless you are blacklisted from the site for consistently violating comment guidelines, then you can go to the Cage Match and plead your case.]
21,
She said it in friendly territory. England is our ally in this endeavor, so criticizing the leader of a policy supported by both countries is a far cry from sitting on an anti-aircraft gun in the enemy capital.
Hopefully not many people actually need The Dixie Chicks or Toby Keith to help them reach important conclusions on what is best for America. But apparently pop media does. Since there are probably 10,000+ experts (political scientist, generals, reporters who have been to Iraq, Afghanistan etc. or even people who uses their library card regularly) better qualified to editorialize on the subject, picking Toby and the Chicks are the obvious best choices. That’s why when I’m looking for information on a motherboard I hit the Food Channel or Delta Burke’s site first. Aside from that minor relevance thing, they get an A+ on shit-storm fueling. What a bunch of savants.
wowee
you are very wrong smartalex , England may be our alley but you dont go to any foreign country and badmouth your home and President. Her opinion was about her country and president and she should have had the guts to say it here ( she made a snide comment in a foreign land thinking it would get her a cheer kinda like the expression “do you wanna rock” by any rock band on stage but she didnt think and it cost her dearly )
When you make your living off of redneck bible belt folks it pays to keep ones mouth shut about Bush
Is it more that most folks would prefer to have their entertainment and politics kept separate, and less of knowing what celebrities personal views are? Somehow I think personal opinions, expressed in a quiet, matter of fact manner, carries more punch than one screamed from the rooftops. Celebrity only magnifies the effect, causing more emotional reaction and less rational discourse.
BTW, the “media” couldn’t care less what the Chix or anyone else thinks. If it sells albums…
28 check your constitution
Free speech is something the govt can not impede it doesnt say anything about business or public opinion and last I saw the govt was not imprisoning them for their foepaw
faux pas?
Mr Pmitchell
“foepaw”
Priceless
I thought that faux pas was the correct spelling but the frikin spell checker in firefox 2 gave me the spelling I used
I thought firefox was the smarter
go figure