More on "Censorship"...

[Brad Spangler]

I partially disagree.

I see the radio stations as responding to the
loudmouth  pro-war fools within their listenership.

I doubt the broadcasting corporations "per se" have a
horse in this race, so to speak. It's about the
stations attempting to reflect the views of their
listeners.

Example:

Alternative rock station 96.5 the Buzz is 61 Country's
sister station, owned by the same company. When 61
Country had an anti Dixie Chicks event the other day
in which people were encouraged to come down and trash
all their Dixie Chicks CDs and merchandise, the
morning crew at 96.5 enmcouraged their listeners to
comne down and publicly protest it as a free speech
issue! Word has it, they outnumbered the country music
stations people. Again, the rock station is owned by
the same company as the country station.

In order to make the point that the war is against
true American interests and contra to American values,
I think those of us who value peace and liberty need
to convince the broadcasters (and the broadcasters
advertisers) that coming down on an artist because
they criticize the president will not be in their best
interests business-wise. And remember, business is
what they are all about.

 

--- Jim Herrmann <kclug at ItDepends.com> wrote:
> Thank you Jason for reframing the issue in such an
> articulate manner. 
>  It really is about the corporate media
> conglomerates weilding it's 
> mighty economic power to punish an individual's
> freedom of speech.  Just 
> like the DMCA, MPAA, RIAA, DRM and the other nasty
> three and four letter 
> words that infringe on the freedom of individual
> rights.  
> 
> However, that being said, I think that in the end
> this will go down in 
> history as one of the greatest marketing ploys of
> any band, at least any 
> country band.  Censorship never works in the end. 
> How many of you would 
> have ever even heard of "A Catcher in the Rye" had
> it not been banned? 
>  How about Salmon Rushdie's Satanic Verses? 
> Censoring someone or 
> something usually makes them martyrs.  When you
> consider that 80% of the 
> world's population is against the war in Iraq, and
> would be sympathetic 
> to someone being ashamed that the (p)resident (and
> the vice (p)resident 
> for that matter which is wholly unconstitutional but
> that's for another 
> thread) is from their home state, I'd say that they
> are playing the odds 
> pretty well.  The Dixie Chicks were big in country
> and bluegrass music 
> circles, but now they are world famous!  They will
> go down in history! 
>  I'm telling you, censorship nearly always
> backfires.
> 
> Just like Microsoft's FUD about Linux has backfired,
> this childish 
> behavior on the part of corporate media will
> backfire.  Like the saying 
> goes, there's no such thing as bad press.
> 
> My $.02
> Jim Herrmann
> 
> Jason Clinton wrote:
> 
> > In defense of Jeremy's post:
> >
> > The majority of radio stations in America are
> owned by these two 
> > corporations in question. So, in this case,
> because our government 
> > failed to prevent a media monopoly from being
> created in radio 
> > broadcasting, our government has effectively
> "allowed" a small group 
> > of invididuals to hold control over the reigns of
> radio media.
> >
> > What the Dixie Chic said was with in her rights.
> What the two mega 
> > media conglomerates did was within their rights.
> The problem lies in 
> > that Big Radio is more powerful that little Dixie
> Chic. When an entity 
> > with lots of power crushes one with a little
> because they don't agree, 
> > it's called oppression. When it's
> institutionalized: It's censorship. 
> > Censorship is NOT limited to government.
> >
> > IMHO, the idea of "corportate right to free
> speech" is just 
> > ass-back-wards. There are two forces at work in
> economics: the 
> > employers and the laborers. Our constitution
> grants individuals 
> > (laborers) certain human rights to citizens of
> this country. It DOES 
> > NOT grant these rights to organizations
> (corporations) /at the expense 
> > of individuals/. To see how this thinking can go
> horribly wrong, see 
> > these two links:
> >
> >
>
http://yro.slashdot.org/yro/03/01/11/1848248.shtml?tid=123
> >
>
http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=03/01/30/1444252&mode=nested&tid=158&tid=98&tid=123
> >
> > What happened isn't illegal. It IS something that
> concerned citizens 
> > SHOULD do something about and for that, I applaud
> Jeremy's efforts.
> >
> 
> 
> 
> majordomo at kclug.org
> Enter without the quotes in body of message

=====
Brad Spangler

******************************************
"We cannot be a republic and
an empire simultaneously. It is either
Jefferson, or Caesar."   -- Justin Raimondo
******************************************

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Web Hosting - establish your business online
http://webhosting.yahoo.com