Quoth Philip Stortz <spam_OUTmadscientist.at.largeTakeThisOuT
earthlink.net>:
>in any case, i'll stop debating people who just don't get it because
>they just don't want to get it.
Au Contraire! I get your point completely. I just refuse to agree
with it! :^)
<snip several points concerning McCarthyistic behavior>
Agree that the blacklisting was a "bad thing". Corporations exist to
make money, as you say. Therefore, if someone wants to use NBC's
facilities to broadcast something that NBC knows will cause people to
stop watching, how is that good for business. I would also suggest
that, for the most part, the broadcasters have a fairly good idea of
what is and is not popular. Nielson ratings, focus groups, and
polling is an excellent way to get that info, and don't think they
don't use them.
>corporations don't get to have opinions or political views
Why? Says who? The board of directors is elected by the
shareholders. If the shareholders are unhappy with the board's
actions, then they can elect someone else to the board who won't "push
their morals" on them. Apparently, following the mainstream helps
promote the bottom line. Evidence this by the fact that most
publications that publish radical viewpoints are (thankfully) very
obscure.
> clear channel stopped playing the dixie chics after one of them said
> she was ashamed of bush, this wasn't based on the general audiences
> wishes, it came down from corporate people who liked bush and didn't
> want to help any one who didn't make money, they wanted to punish the
> dixie chics for what they said.
And the fact that many, many, many people called into several of the
clear channel stations after Natalie made the comment, and told the
station that if they heard any dixie chiix music, they would change
stations. After several thousand of these phone calls, clear channel
apparently decided that the numbers were great enough that they should
listen to the "customers" who were voicing their opinions.
In Greenville, SC. (just about 30 minutes up the road from me, so I
can speak from 1st hand knowledge) there was a very successful
concert, arranged after Natalie made her statment, that was held the
same night as the Dixie Chix concert, and promoted solely as an
alternative to the DC concert. Anyone holding DC tickets got into
this one using them. As I said, the concert was successful, and many
people who had bought DC tickets were upset enough to skip their show
and attend the alternative insetead.
> in fact most of the audience still
> liked the dixie chics but were deprived of the opportunity to hear them
> on the radio which cost the dixie chics money and likely reduced the
> number of listeners (it also cost their agents, record companies, and
> all associated with them, people who weren't remotely involved in one of
> the 3 making a candid statement).
Which was the objective of those who were voicing their displeasure in
the first place. HOORAY! Grass roots efforts *DO* still work! We
can make a difference, despite the corporate propoganda machine.
{Quote hidden}> it was not a business decision, it
> was one group of people forcing their will on the public independent of
> what it meant to their bottom line. the dixie chics were and are one of
> the most popular groups in country music circles, the decision was
> solely based on the desire to punish the dixie chics and prevent people
> from listening to any possible new songs that might echo a similar
> attitude towards bush, and to scare other's into not expressing those
> views for fear they might lose their lively hood or a portion of it.
> this kind of thing has a chilling effect on music groups, particularly
> those just becoming popular and really need the money.
Given that the core country music audience is conservative (this is a
fact. Older, more conservative people listen to country music than
the younger, more liberal. Some groups attain crossover, such as the
dixie chix, for example, but remember that they are still country
performers, and trying to get their money from the country music
marketplace). Given that, it seems silly to make comments that are
going to alienate you from this group. I have no problem with free
speech. Natalie was perfectly free to say whatever she wants.
*HOWEVER* I do not think that you should say whatever you want, and
expect to be rewarded for it. If I call you personally a bunch of
offensive names, then ask you to contract me for some programming
work, and you (rightly) tell me to get stuffed because I offended you,
does that mean you are consoring me? Or am I simply having to live
with the effects of my actions?
> it legitimizes
> this sort of decision and to some extent makes listeners refrain from
> saying the same type of thing where they work etc. or being politically
> active in a way that some might not approve of.
This is simply not true. I cannot make the leap that if Dan Rather
thinks I am wrong, then I am going to be afraid to do something. Dan
Rather can get stuffed, for all I care. If you are so simple minded
that you are affected by something that remote, I doubt you will have
much to contribute in the first place. (Note I don't mean *you*,
personally, but you in the broader sense of "some person out there").
> the media play a very
> important/large role in how people view the issues, things like this
> distort that view by reducing, sometimes sharply, the ability of the
> public to hear and understand the view that management doesn't like.
> it's un-American and unsound business practice to try and tell the
> audience they can't listen to the new album or old stuff that they want
> to. it hurts advertisers as many have already negotiated fees for ads
> well into the future with a good faith expectation that the corporate
> management won't do things to reduce the size of the audience.
It is completely American (or at least, was at one time) to have to
live with the consequences of your actions. I realize that the
"touchy feely, warm and fuzzy, self esteem above all else, woo woo
psycho babble" crowd is trying to change that, but I like to think
that there is still a modicum of accountability in this country and,
hopefully, the world.
<snip skinheads with websites is good bit>
{Quote hidden}>
> my point is that this is a form of censorship, it's not just the
> government that can practice sensor ship, any one in a position of power
> can. in the case of radio and tv stations they can shape people's views
> to some extent and move the collective opinion in the direction they
> want to an extent by reducing people exposure to opposing views, and
> they can do this even when it hurts business which they certainly have
> no right to.
>
> as i said, i once worked in a print shop, i'm delighted that we offered
> services to the KKK, yes they are reprehensible, but they have just as
> much right to pay their money and get their media as any other customer does.
Meanwhile, there are those who are willing to put their morals and
beliefs ahead of the Almighty, worshipped above all others, dollar
bill (euro, yen, whatever). These people, are even willing to let go
of a few of those glorious bits of currency to do what they feel is
better, in the long run, than profiteering from moral decay. The
market place will decide whether their efforts are rewarded, or
punished.
>
> the stations in question should be obliged to run
>
And here is where we hit the core of my disagreement. The word
"obliged". How, exactly, would they be "obliged"? Who would "oblige"
them? Would this be a legal "obligation"? Who would be "obligated"?
Everyone? What if a conservative church refused to put abortion
advertising in their newsletter? Shut them down and lock up the
preacher? Personally, I think there are too many legal "obligations"
as it is. The last thing I want is the government to tell me that I
am not allowed to make moral decisions. Keep in mind that many (most)
churches are incorporated, since that is a requirement of receiving
non-profit status for tax purposes. Since they are now a "public
entity", are you going to ram dollar worship down their throat?
Chick-Fill-A was founded and is run by a very christian individual.
Are you going to tell him he has to hang abortion posters on his
billboard?
> what if all those who run the discovery channel decide that space
> exploration or super coliders aren't worth running and push program
> producers not to cover them?
Then someone else probably would. They are free to decide their
programming as they see fit.
> if the media executives decided that video games cause violence and are
> a curse on society do they have the right to refuse to run ads for
> playstations as christmas approaches? from a purely profit motive
> standpoint the certainly do not.
THANK GOD NOT EVERYONE WORSHIPS MONEY!
<snip>
> what if a local tv executive and his pals over at the other tv, and
> radio stations and the local paper decide that nazi's are good? what
> if it's like this for decades? children would grow up not realizing
> that while many that there was another way and other ideas. these
> children later adult citizens having grown up in ignorance will tend to
> believe the one true version of the truth they are told without
> question, they may even tend to not learn how to question the official
> version of things much less why it's important to do so. that's an
> extreme case, but one i suspect most on the list are on the same side of.
If they did this, they would most likely fall quickly out of the
mainstream, another would take their place, and they would become a
fringe media company.
>
> yes, it is a slippery slope,
I would suggest that your belief is at least, if not more, slippery...
>
> i may disagree with your opinion, but i will fight to the death to
> defend your' right to say it.
Then why won't you defend someone's right to *not* say something?
--Joe Jansen
_______________________________________________
http://www.piclist.com
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist
