The Dixie Chicks

by Stan Conroy 110 Replies latest watchtower scandals

  • undercover

    She had the right to say whatever she wanted. Will it hurt sales of their albums? Maybe. That's a chance she took. And that's a personal decision by each music buying customer whether to buy their album or not or whether to go to their concerts or not. What I find irritating is that the radio stations are o so patriotic and have banned them from being played. What makes them my conscience? It's their job to play the requested and popular songs and sell their advertising time. I don't need them to censure my music or decide for me if one pop star, rap star, rock star or country star should not be listened to because their views go against what the owner of the radio station believes.

    Clearchannel is going to be the death of radio in the USA. They own over 1200 radio stations and they decide what's gonna get played or not played. They have jumped on the pro-war bandwagon and rammed it down everybody's throat. Yea, I can change the dial when I don't like what they play, but they are putting a death grip on independant stations, leaving less and less choices for real music fans to find real music.

    Remember John Lennon's comment about Jesus? Look at the fervor that it created. Radio stations prompting zealot teenages and young adults to burn albums because of one comment. Looking back at it, you have to admit how short-sighted these ultra conservative types were. And in time, the same thing will happen about the mess with the Dixe Chicks. I used to not like em, but since everybody's started hating them, I think I'll go buy one of their albums.

  • Billygoat

    Just re-stating a point Maverick said earlier...

    I don't think people were so upset that she spoke her views against President GWB. As Americans we understand that having the freedom to voice our opinions comes with a price. Most of us are willing to pay that price. But I think people were upset with two things: one, that she spoke against the President in a foreign country. To me that is cowardly. It's like being nice to a person to their face, but stabbing them in the back once they're out of the room. Why couldn't she have the courage to speak her viewpoints here on a stage in her own country? Even if I were in her shoes, I'd know to have the respect for MYSELF to do that. Two, that she was unwilling to pay the price of her freedom. I think back-peddling hurt her more than if she hadn't retracted her statement.

    Just my thoughts.


  • Stan Conroy
    Stan Conroy

    "Well,I agree with freedom of speech and if people stop buying their music because they don't agree.So be it. Death threats and vandalizing their homes...nawww.Thats not right."

    Thank you Shera. Finally someone addressed this issue. A lot of comments, but no one seems to want to address this.

    "In my opinion, when you actively intend to damage someone's livelihood, reputation, or person, just because of their view, you are engaging in ultra nationalism that really has no place in our country and is very far from being patriotic. It verges on some kind of jackboot mentality that is very dangerous...much like the McCarthyism(SP? )of the 50's..."



  • Jayson

    So what is your point? Only Euro and dubtype thinking can say that what people say and do is not relevant. If I do not like the person that will effect my wanting to listen to what they sell as entertainers. I do not contribute to people/organizations who work against my morals.(Minus Aunt Sam) If you agree with them then by all means support them. If you don't then boycott them if it makes you feel better. That is the beauty of capitalism and freedom. Next the socialists will be crying to force the public to listen to their music their points of view rewarding those who will use their talents to further their political agendas. Oh wait, they already do that.

    The mentality of "Well maybe I'll boycott American goods" hey go for it. I doubt you could if you tried. All this hate of Bush is not good for the soul. [IMHO] Or maybe Toby Keith should be banned by the entertainment industry. Oh wait he WAS! The Dixie Chicks were boycotted by the consumer and you antiBush people cry freedom of speech and Toby Keith was banned from performing and there is silence. OH the agenda is in play here again.

    People need to get over the election of 2000. Gore lost, he lost he lost he lost. <------ Warning this is an anti Al Gore page. It is the offical Al Gore is a dick page. It does however explain the reason for the electorial college and just how many states Mr Gore took compaired to Mr Bush. It is worth looking at unless you are in love with Mr Gore.

    <Jayson gets off soapbox before someone pushes him off>

  • peacefulpete

    Site Search Today's News Archives I found this artile today, it reflects my views well. It also exposes the real issue of misuse of corporate power to inflict financial harm upon those with unpopular or politically incorrect views. And how this is a growing concern for as we all know the trend toward ever greater consolidation of power and money in the hands of the few. Fredom of speech is at issue, not in that she was imprisoned or shot, but she was publicly attacked with intent to harm and slander. This boycott campaign was NOT the result of healthy orinary public reaction but rather the manipulation of the media (in this case the radio) for a political adgenda. From Michael Moore to the Dixie Chicks March 26, 2003 By PETE GOLIS THE PRESS DEMOCRAT You could imagine the cheers from the terminally alienated Sunday night when Michael Moore delivered his anti-war harangue -- "Shame on you, Mr. Bush" -- during Sunday night's Academy Awards. But the audience in Hollywood booed. Even people who oppose the war in Iraq knew two things about this moment: (1) this was the wrong time and the wrong place for Moore to inflict his views on the rest of the world, and (2) Moore, accepting the Oscar for "Bowling for Columbine," was only proving one more time that he is a shameless self-promoter, a fellow who makes a ton of money pretending to be a victim of the corporate conspiracy to silence him. We should all be so victimized. Here is and NPR (and former Village Voice) movie critic David Edelstein: "It would have been different, I think, if a non-blowhard had gotten up there and bellowed, 'Shame on you!' -- had put his or her career on the line to say that Bush was a liar. But that kind of boorish grandstanding comes too naturally to Moore, a man who didn't have the intellectual honesty to add that Saddam Hussein is a 'fictitious president,' too -- and one who has killed a lot more people than George W. Bush and his father combined. Nothing has ever shaken my faith in my own politics like having Michael Moore in the same camp. When he invoked the Dixie Chicks, I'll bet they wanted to stick their heads in an oven." Speaking of the Dixie Chicks and proving that bigotry is not confined to one ideology or another, we are witnessing this week jingoist attempts to destroy the popular country-rock trio because lead singer Natalie Maines was heard to deliver an off-the-cuff criticism of President Bush. It is not necessary to share Ms. Maines' analysis of American foreign policy to grasp the McCarthyesque aspects of this campaign. This is nothing more or less than an attempt to create 2003's version of the blacklist. But it gets worse. As New York Times columnist Paul Krugman noted this week, the campaign to boycott the Grammy-winning trio -- including CD-smashing parties -- is being orchestrated by radio stations owned by Clear Channel Communications. That's the Texas-based corporation that controls more than 1,200 radio stations nationwide and which also has organized pro-Bush rallies across the country. In published reports in recent months -- including a series of articles by Eric Boelhert of -- Clear Channel has been accused of a variety of offenses, ranging from programming banality to payola to bullying artists and recording companies. The business practices of Clear Channel, of course, flourish only with the blessing of the Bush administration and its Federal Communications Commission. And Clear Channel, as the Wall Street Journal explained in January, "is rapidly becoming the lightning rod for concerns about media consolidation as the FCC moves forward with a sweeping revamp of its media-ownership rules." For Clear Channel, what better way to ingratiate itself with the White House than to drop the big hammer -- access to more than 1,200 radio stations -- on any artist who dares to dissent? This becomes the landscape upon which Americans this week are trying to debate legitimate differences about the war. We hear every day from dozens of people of abiding conviction who cannot imagine that anyone could come to any other conclusion about this war -- any other conclusion, that is, than their conclusion. They filter every headline, every story placement, every crowd estimate, every editorial, every letter to the editor through the prism of their own beliefs. They beg us to print this commentary or that story, certain that its publication will resolve the issue once and for all. For all Americans, this is a difficult time, punctuated by uncertainty and fear, anger and heartbreak. I watched the anger on the streets of Santa Rosa last week and worried that in the hostility and confusion, someone could be killed. In one example, a young woman convinced that the war is immoral placed herself in front an automobile, and a man just as convinced that opposition to the war is immoral urged the driver to run her down. As the war in Iraq ebbs and flows, here, in microcosm, is the bitter conflict that Americans must manage during the coming days and weeks. This much is certain: It will be difficult enough to sustain an honest disagreement about a complicated war without the noisy clatter of bigots and profiteers.

  • WildHorses

    I just watched their interview on Primetime and they said they were never against the troops. Just the fact that the war started before they found WMD. Their criticism was solely directed toward the President. Then they quoted President Roosevelt. This is what he had said.

    "To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." - Theodore Roosevelt
  • wednesday
    To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." - Theodore Roosevelt

    well, i wonder who is helping them? They didn't know that , i'm quite sure. What is so amusing is that anyone would take anything thay say seriously.

  • blacksheep

    Poor, poor Chicks. Say something incredibly stupid and have to pay for it too?????

    Anyone catch their interview with Diane Sawyer last night. Pathetic to say the least. They had absolutely NO credible, cogent, legitmate reason for saying what they did. But they were obviously trying to "apologize."

    Like BUSH said, the Chicks can say what they want. This IS America, after all. But just don't get their feelings hurt (esp their materialistic feelings, I might add) because people who ALSO have the freedom of speech, belief, and action stop buying their records.

    Ah, riding the crest of fame. Hubris. Some think that means you can say anything you want. And not pay for it.'

    FTR, I never bought their stuff before, and I certainly won't now. Bimbos.

  • freedom96

    The Dipsy Chicks have every right to say any stupid thing they want to, and I have the right not to buy their albums or listen to them.

  • peacefulpete

    Freedom96.. of course that is your right. And we hope and are fighting that that continues to be the case. The issue is not whether she or anyone else has the ABILITY to dissent. Rather it is about 2 things, whether our society is being manipulated by the big buisness and media moguls to supress that "freeness of speech" thru heavy handed tactics like what is happening in radio and entertainment And 2ndly whether our culture in general is becoming more violently intolerant. The two are connected of course because culture is shaped by leadership example. It is quite relevent that noone is boycotting or blacklisting those hollywood and music celebrities who have supported the war. I am not suggesting that many have not personally done so in exercise of their freedom, but due to the fact that the industry belongs to the Right has prevented any real dissenting views being largely broadcast. And in fact many celebtities have spoken about fear to express themselves due to this undue influnce that political correctness has on their careers. This is largely due to the deregulaton of the media that Reagan initiated. It has done the same thing that California saw in the utilities. A monopolizing of power in the hands of the greedy and politcally connected.

Share this