new column on the dixie chicks

[stannard67]

Hoping to go for a perfect two for two, I submitted a new column to the Star Tribune...I know some of you will violently disagree with my musical assessment of the Dixie Chicks, but I hope you appreciate the political sentiment and enjoy the piece nonetheless...

http://hometown.aol.com/stannard67/m...e/profile.html

stannard

[Rebeccah Sharp]

What do I do if i dislike the dixie chicks but agree with the sentiment?

I never would have bought the cd, but i want to support them. . .ARGGGGGGGGGGG

[NonEcdicus]

Vote Green.

[NonEcdicus]

I would be "embarrassed" were I from Texas. Andrea is probably looking for her Lakers jersey as we speak. So Matt didn't quote accurately in the name of poetic license . . . His argument still seems pretty valid. Where's the double stannard?

I didn't read the column as part of some "overpowering" political agenda. Why should I?

[patio11]

I'd also chime in that "special interest groups do not make a movement" would be an extremely interesting line to take with ANSWER and Not in Our Name, at least if you want to be consistent. NR did a series of pieces on the Dixie Chicks -- they got burned because they were incredibly, incredibly stupid with commentary that was too vacuous to approach political and yet still incidentary for their fans.

Lest we forget, corporations get burned for idiotic actions by their agents ALL of the time (cough... Enron... cough), and generally I've heard you call on them to be more corporately responsible. Are they supposed to turn off that imperitive if being responsible means disagreeing with you? It seems to me like this is much like baseball disowning that foulmouthed idiot (dang, thats too generic -- the foulmouthed idiot who made some comments about NYC at a press conference a few years ago) -- I don't see why they have to associate with someone who is radioactive to their business interests, in addition to being morally obtuse, just to assuage their pampered ego and Encourage Dissent Against Orthodoxy.

Patrick McKenzie

[L&CJoe]

I think Matt's point (and a valid one) is the fact that institutional entrenchment (Cumulus and Clear Channel) created the uproar, not the grass roots movement as it was portrayed to the country. I have problems with this, just as I have problems with liberal institutions that intend to silence conservative voices (newspaper editors, professors, etc.)

Both sides of the political spectrum are certainly guilty of pleading for tolerance when their views are criticized, but then are eager to pounce on others when given the opportunity. That pattern is a sad reminder of the lack of reasoned public discourse in the US.

Joe

P.S. I think embarrassment is a strong term for what I feel as a Texan about Mr. Bush. It is funny- he's a different guy in Washington than he was as governor. As governor, he was really a bipartisan leader, a calming force on the state's politics. I wasn't about to vote for him, but I respected him. In Washington, however, all of his strengths have been squandered in policies and attitudes that don't seem like the guy we got used to for six years here. However, I'm much more embarrassed by Tom Delay.

[jeff]

i think the thing i love most about the situation with the dixie chicks is that they claim their "1st amendment right to freedom of speech" was violated because people won't buy their records now... last i check the 1st amendment only gauranteed that the government would let you say what you want, it never says anything about people reacting positively to whatever it is that you have to say... maybe they planned all this because they knew their cd would flop and they needed something else to blame it on other than the fact that their new cd is the worst of all of theirs

jeff atriot

[steinguitar]

Dude, these people boycotting the dixie chicks are such poseurs. I've been boycotting them ever since they mutilated "Landslide." I will not stand idly by while a bunch of upstarts and whippersnaps disgrace classic and great songs. Politics is important at all, but who stood up when Madonna destroyed Don Mclean's "American Pie"? Who spoke out when Britney Spears ripped the soul of rock and roll to shreds when she tried on a Joan Jett phase?

Boycott the talentless! We need letter writing and phone campaigns behind that movement.

[stannard67]

Jason:

Hey man, I agree that there are discourse problems on all sides, but surely you can't mean that calling the Dixie Chicks "sluts" or banning them from the airwaves constitutes reasonable "criticism." And that was the target of my editorial--not the reasoned discourse that's out there. In fact, my editorial explicitly lamented the lack of reasoned discussion on the role of dissent in wartime.

You're attacking me rather viciously right now, and with all due respect, I think you're barking up the wrong tree. Will you at least admit that Michael Savage was wrong to call Natalie Maines a slut? That's the kind of thing I was talking about--not more reasonable criticism.

Please?

stannard

[airassault101]

i totally agree with jason on this one. the left will trash and bash anyone who takes up oppisition to their p.o.v. the left element likes to jump on any who speak out against them like they are the only ones allowed to have a thought...or of course that they are all knowing...i do not profess to be all knowing but i can have thought of my own that is not shoved down my throught by political puindits or entertainers who think they should be policy makers as well....if they believe so strongly let them run for office and let the real entertainers entertain us like they are paid to do....let the bashing begin
peace,
ken

[stannard67]

(Edited to remove all the ad homs...with my apologies)

Ken:

It's nice to know that you think the "Left" will trash and bash anyone who disagrees with them. Your obvious implication being, perhaps that nobody on the right ever does this? No, you would (being, I suppose, a reasonable person) respond that you can't judge the right by its worst examples...to which, of course, I would say the same thing about the left. Then you are in a quandry, unless you want to do the empirical work to prove that there is MORE trashing on the left than on the right, which is pretty much impossible to prove. But hey, when you actually produce some kind of quantitative study on the matter, let me know.

Jason and I can agree to disagree about the relationship between ethics and political discourse. If you want to contribute to the conversation, please make a coherent argument, with warrants. Your argument (as I interpret it) is that the Left has more trashers and bashers than the Right. I say: Prove it.

stannard

[thedecline]

Further, it is disingenuous and hypocritical for the left to complain about how thought is being "disciplined" when it is the far left that works tirelessly to exclude and prohibit expression of the thoughts and words that are deemed to be "offensive" to various "victim" groups. To me, Matt's column lacks credibility and integrity specifically because he is silent about "silencing" when it is his ideological allies that are engaging in the "silencing".

That argument sound a bit like ad hominemto me.. A simplified form of your argument is, "You're a liberal, and some liberals have attempted to silence others, so you shouldn't complain when the right silences someone." It is insane to say that just because Matt and I are part of what you call "the left" that we're guilty for what a few liberals (a.k.a. "The P.C. Police") have done. Who have I silenced? Who has Matt silenced? Furthermore, what place would a statement about liberal silencing have in a column about the Dixie Chicks?

The fact that a few people refused to buy Dixie Chicks albums does not disturb me. In fact, even though I disagree with their cause, it's probably a good thing. It's really our right to boycott products from people whose ethics we disagree with. I don't wear Nike shoes because I don't think child labor is ethical. They don't listen to the Dixie Chicks because they don't think insulting the President is ethical (which, in my opinion, is insane in a democracy, but that's beside the point). They certainly have every right to do that. I'm not even going to complain that much about Michael Savage's characteristically immature comments. He's an idiot, but he has the right to be an idiot.

However...

What does disturb me is that so many of these protests and boycotts were organized by Clear Channel, who own most of the radio stations in my area. My fear is that artists who don't agree with the corporate bigwigs are going to be suppressed while...well, while Darryl Worley rises to the top. That bothers me as an artist, a consumer, and a person who is interested in politics.

Side note: Where is that "liberal media" that I keep hearing about?

[airassault101]

just look at our little forum here and you will see that anytime anyone takes a pro bush stance they get thrashed by the "other side". on balance in the public i think that matt has a valid point...but at net bene-fits......also...jason...i am not sa far right as u think...i don't listen to rush et al....i formulate my opinions myself and let the pundits do what they will to get their ratings....gotta go feed a kid...peace,
ken

[stannard67]

Jason:

It seems to me that the jist of most of your arguments on this thread amount to: "You don't mention EVERYTHING on every side, so therefore you are distorting the facts, and being unfairly selective."

Can you give me an example of a political editorial that meets your radically utopian, Habermasian an infinitum criteria?

stannard

[stannard67]

I understand what you're saying, Jason, but again I think you're barking up the wrong tree. I did not take a position "from the left," in the column, and in fact I praised those who supported the war and still supported the chicks' right to speak out. The only time I used the word "conservative" was in the phrase "the practiced hyperbole of conservative talk radio," a phrase which you agree is accurate in this context (I looked for counterparts on the VAST array of leftist talk radio, but you know, it was funny...I couldn't find any!). I also pointed out that disciplinary corporate/media practices target both pro-war and anti-war factions. If your sole criticism is that I didn't put in some kind of caveat, or footnote, somewhere that said "Oh, by the way, there are a lot of unfair characterizations coming from the left too" (when I never explicitly mentioned right or left in the piece), I guess that's a criticism I can live with, because including something like that would have been rather awkward from a writer's point of view, and I just don't think it was necessary.

As for applying that criticism to my first piece, on the nuns, that's just plain unreasonable. That piece was satire, and where in the hell would I have injected a "balancing" phrase in a fake letter lampooning the Colorado U.S. attorney?

Having not heard from the opinion editor of the CST, I am guessing this new piece won't run. That's okay; it isn't the best piece of writing...a bit inconsistent in tone and style, and probably a little too long as well. And in the future I know that whatever I submit to this list will have to withstand the scrutiny of Jason "Stern Discursive Schoolmaster" Steck.

You always have had a way of making me feel like a naughty schoolboy, Jason.

stannard

[stannard67]

Hey Jason, if you tried really, really hard, do you think you could be just a bit more HYPERSENSITIVE?

Remember, mockery is the sincerest form of flattery...or something like that.

Changing into my schoolboy uniform...walking with dread to Headmaster Steck's office...knowing I've really gone too far this time...

stannard

[thedecline]

When I said that your argument was ad hom, I was referring to your statement that "it is...hypocritical for the left to complain about how thought is being 'disciplined' when it is the far left that works tirelessly to exclude and prohibit expression of the thoughts and words that are deemed to be 'offensive' to various 'victim' groups" It sounded like you were saying that Matt's claims should be ignored simply because he's member of "the left." If I misunderstood, I'm sorry.

I think that Matt's article didn't have the "balance" you wanted simply because it's not a column about mob censorship in a broad sense, it's a column about the silencing of the Dixie Chicks. "The left sometimes tries to prohibit free speech too" simply wouldn't fit with the main idea of the article.

I'm not really sure how you read my post to mean that I only support free speech when I agree with the cause. In fact, I believe I mentioned that boycotting the Dixie Chicks was just fine. I never advocated censoring anybody.

If these protests would have been organized by the Eagle Forum, or the Christian Coalition, or even Clear Channel executives, I would not have complained. However, the Clear Channel corporation has one power that public interest groups do not--they own the majority of mainstream radio stations. What bothers me is not Clear Channel executives expressing their opinions, it is that a corporation that owns so much of the media instructed their DJ's not to play the Chicks' songs on the air. In other words, "support the president, or you won't get any air time."

Also, please note that my calling your argument ad hominem is NOT a limitation on your right to free speech. Please cool the rhetoric and keep your responses mature.

[thedancingbear]

Well, merely as a factual observation, in most markets "boycotting Clear Channel" is effectively "don't listen to the radio." They are an absolute behemoth (and a decidedly evil behemoth at that) and own far more than you might think.

IS

[thedancingbear]

Originally posted by tutakai
Doesn't the FCC have rules that prohibit one company from owning ALL the radio stations in a market (as you claim, Ian)?

Yep. And for an informative look on how Clear Channel is fraudulently evading those rules, take a look at:

http://archive.salon.com/ent/clear_c...fcc_complaint/

Salon has done some excellent journalism wih regard to Clear Channel. It's well worth reading.

IS

[thedecline]

To be fair, it would be more like "don't listen to anything except for NPR."

[airassault101]

like npr isn't one sided

[PancreasMatt]

there was a good nyt article on clearchannel and how they organized all the anti-peace/pro-war[sic] protests. but you have to buy it now because its archived.

[stannard67]

College Education: Untold thousands of dollars
New Computer: $900.00
Subscription to various leftist journals: $60.00
Morning coffee: .95 cents

Pissing off Jason Steck: Priceless.

Love you, man.

stannard

[thedecline]

Yes, NPR is biased, but they're biased in a good way!:P (joking)

[airassault101]

not that this forum ever shows any bias but:
do you all really believe that one corporation that controls 10% of the radio outlet this nation can control everything u see and hear....oh but cnn and fox and nbc are all biased too.....does clearchannel control them...or how about the vet groups that had pro iraqi freedom rallies???? does anyone still question the end result of that operation??? was a dictator not removed...were people not set free to express themselves for the first time in decades? just think if the dixie chicks where from iraq they couldn't have ever formed a group or spoke out against the gov't. i may not like what one mamber of that group said but at least they are free to say it....however they must be ready to except the good the bad and the ugly of their words....be it outrage and boycot or praise....obviosly both happened. i have never owned one of their cd's nor will i ever buy one..their words on politics did not influence that....for that matter other artists like eminem gets lambasted by the press all the time...and i buy his albums because of his talent not because npr has a problem with him...people need to relax and take art fo art and leave the political pundacy out of the art...oh well music on deaf ears...(well maybe not matt and jason)
ken

[thedecline]

I don't think any of us ever claimed that Clear Channel was reporting false news, or that they manufactured all the support for the war (a lot of that was done by their sister station--the Bush Administration). I'm not sure what your point is.

[stannard67]

You wrote:

"people need to relax and take art fo art and leave the political pundacy out of the art" (sic)

Ken:

That's a rather provocative statement about the relationship between aesthetics and politics. I am wondering if you might engage a few philosophical questions about this. Do you think all art is inherently political? If so, how does one tease out particular meanings in art? Is it a matter of interpretation, or is there something more objective at hand? Would you consider yourself a historicist when it comes to the art-politics dialectic, or are you more of a Platonist?

And what about artists (including musicians) and their social responsibilities? Do the antecedents of market distribution tend to commodify both the artistic expressions AND the political utterances of artists? Or are artists autonomous when it comes to politics? I'd really appreciate hearing your responses to these questions.

And no helping, folks. Let Ken answer these questions himself, okay?

stannard

[airassault101]

if politics is apart of the art then so be it...but when the artist goes on t.v. or to a reporter and aspouses political ideals that are not the art itself then i believe its wrong... i don't need armie or martin sheen telling me how to feel...now if they make a movie with political implications...fine...its art...but to go on cnn or like the dixies to tell and audiance something that is not in the art but is political in nature is an abuse of their stature,,

[stannard67]

Ken, you wrote:

"if politics is apart of the art then so be it...but when the artist goes on t.v. or to a reporter and aspouses political ideals that are not the art itself then i believe its wrong... i don't need armie or martin sheen telling me how to feel...now if they make a movie with political implications...fine...its art...but to go on cnn or like the dixies to tell and audiance something that is not in the art but is political in nature is an abuse of their stature,,"

Okay, but that's not really what I asked you. I am perfectly aware of your political opinions about this issue. I am wondering if you can elaborate on the deeper philosophical issues behind some of your words.

You say that artists espouse political views that are not part of their art. You talk about politics "not in the art." I am wondering how you would establish a threshold dividing an artist's work from their politics, especially since you say "if politics is a part of the art, so be it..." Again, do you take a Platonic view of art, that it exists outside of historical or material considerations, or is your view more historicist (and if so, how would you reconcile that with your statements)?

When you say "wrong," what sort of ethical framework are you using?

As far as I know, the Dixie Chicks did not go on CNN to state their political views; rather, the media quoted those views. Now, Charlie Daniels sings a lot of political songs; is it his place to do so? If so, why would such a perspective exclude Natalie Maines making a political remark between performances of her songs? I'd be interested to know your own threshold of when songs end and commentary begins.

I also asked you about whether you think artists' political views are commodified along with their art. Can you address this as well, and warrant your own philosophical approach to the matter?

Again, don't help him, folks. It's obvious he's doing a great job on his own here.

stannard

[PancreasMatt]

i really really appreciate this alot. matt, you are appreciated.