Whatever happened to free speech?

[korn469]

Third, and more to the point, even if the numbers were comparable... so what? Clearchannel (whose programming I generally dislike and thus do not listen to more than once and a while) is a business.

maybe expenditures would have been a better comparison, but what i'm trying to show is that corporations have quite a bit of economic power, oftentimes greater than that of many governments throughout the world

[Arrian]

What I was saying is "so what?" I'm not disputing the "economic power" wielded by big companies. What I'm saying is, what is your solution to the perceived problem (said corporations using that power in a manner which you dislike)? Legislation? If so, what, exactly?

If not legislation, you're basically limited to complaining about their dastardly corporate ways. Which is fine and all, and quite fashionable.

-Arrian

[korn469]

as far as solutions go, i doubt there are any satisfactory ones

like you suggested i know that you can't rely on the government, and all we can do is hope that people stand up for civil liberties, and work against censorship in any form, but i have very little faith in humanity as a whole

also i don't complain to be fashionable, i seriously hate any type of abuse of liberties, but that's just my nature

[Ming]

Again... this is not censorship... They aren't playing music that people don't want to listen to. It's that simple.

Are you saying radio stations MUST play songs that people don't want. OH PLEASE....

Again... people have a free choice what to say... people have a free choice what to listen too (again, you can pick up radio stations in EVERY MARKET that play their songs) and radio stations not only the right, BUT THE OBLIGATION to play songs that people want to hear.

You are saying that the radio stations should LOSE money for what SOMEBODY ELSE said... That's not only NOT FAIR... It's CRIMINAL

[Willem]

Originally posted by Arrian
Businesses are motivated by profit. If you want them to abide by a higher standard, you are going to have to legislate what they can, cannot, and/or MUST put on the air.

I guess it's to much to ask that they abide by a moral code of their own making, and act responsibly just because it's the right thing to do.

[Ming]

Only in YOUR OPINION is it the right thing to do.

They are following the law, and serving the best interest of their audience... In their opinion, that far out weighs your opinion that musicians deserve special rights to maintain their earnings at the cost of somebody elses...

I guess it's asking to much that musicians live up to the same moral code as other people... that they should except responsibility for their own actions instead of causing economic harm to others.

[Chemical Ollie]

Wow, this is getting hot-headed!

I think it's a far thought that radio listeners would stop listen just because the station plays a non-political song by an artist that made a mild political comment in an interveiw.


But there are some artists who have more integrity vs journalists who ask stupid questions that has not to do with the art. I remember Gene Simmons in KISS taking a Swedish journalist down to earth:

- You have come to the wrong press conference. Do I look like a person who would answer questions about politics? Go ask the president!

[Japher]

Morals and Money?

I guess it's to much to ask that they abide by a moral code of their own making, and act responsibly just because it's the right thing to do.

The same thing can be said about the Dixie Chicks.

People were offended, and they will react accordingly, and if the great stars of hollywood get hurt in the process oh well! It happens all the time. The stations did abide by a moral code of their own making one that says "Don't Demean The Country That Has Made You Stars".

[Japher]

Stars reflect and image upon everything it touches. Why do you think the all have image consultants and PR managers... So stuff like this doesn't happen. By the radio supporting their art by playing it on the air they are saying that they support the Dixie Chicks and all that they encompases, including a hatred for the American way of life... and I tell you what, that just ain't gonna float in Texas.

[Arrian]

Originally posted by Willem


I guess it's to much to ask that they abide by a moral code of their own making, and act responsibly just because it's the right thing to do.

Yes, it is. Corporations are by their very nature amoral organizations. To the extent you wish them to behave in a moral manner, you must force them to (whether by legislating it... or perhaps threatening to not buy their product: in this case, the people who called up to complain about the Dixie Chicks).

-Arrian

[Static Universe]

Originally posted by Japher
By the radio supporting their art by playing it on the air they are saying that they support the Dixie Chicks and all that they encompases, including a hatred for the American way of life... and I tell you what, that just ain't gonna float in Texas.

They're from Texas...

[Willem]

Originally posted by Japher
"Don't Demean The Country That Has Made You Stars".

Don't criticize government policy would be much more accurate.

[Japher]

They're from Texas...

duh, and it sunk.

Don't criticize government policy would be much more accurate.

Not if you want there money for doing so.

[Ming]

Yes.. ignoring the issues again...

This is about perceived censorship... even though no censorship has actually occured.

Why should musicians get special treatment. And why should somebody else lose money because of the muscians actions...

You haven't really answered that yet except to say it's the radio stations that are in the wrong for just doing their job in a legal manner.

[Willem]

Originally posted by Arrian
Corporations are by their very nature amoral organizations.

Corporations are made up of people, people have morals. Or is sacrifising your humanity a necessary byproduct of being a member of a corporation?