NBC Censors Dixie Chicks Ad

[Psychoblues]

I’m a stock car (local dirt short track real race nut) fan. In pretty weather on Saturday nights I can be found at one of a number of dirt tracks within 300 miles of my home. Each night there is a prayer and some rendition of the Star Spangled Banner is played on the facility P.A. system. Early this season a rendition by the Dixie Chicks was played to the consternation of a few disgruntled and overly, in my opinion, ignorant and/or intoxicated patrons. To the credit, as at least I give them, the management recognized the beauty of the Dixie Chicks rendition and they have repeatedly played it along with several other renditions during the season. The nuts never left but their complaints still resonate with me. How can such a beautiful and sincere approach to our Star Spangled Banner be so unjustly criticized due simply to political disagreement? FOXNEWS told them is all I can surmise.

Here is another insult to common sense.


“Natalie Maines and the Dixie Chicks were ant-Bush before anti-Bush was cool. Now the Chicks have a documentary film, "Shup Up and Sing." chronicling the vicious reaction of the Right to Maines' remarks about Bush just prior to the Iraq invasion....

NBC admits that it refused to run the ad because it is "disparaging to President Bush."

more:

http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117952760.html?categoryid=14&cs=1

NBC and those nuts at the racetrack can kiss my American ass. I’ll continue to frequent the racetrack and I’ll probably continue to view NBC occasionally but I will never understand the uppityness that they so envision for themselves in denying any freedom of speech that they so claim to embrace. Beats me?!?! Does it beat you?!?!?!?!

Psychoblues

 

[Stephanie]

I’m a stock car (local dirt short track real race nut) fan. In pretty weather on Saturday nights I can be found at one of a number of dirt tracks within 300 miles of my home. Each night there is a prayer and some rendition of the Star Spangled Banner is played on the facility P.A. system. Early this season a rendition by the Dixie Chicks was played to the consternation of a few disgruntled and overly, in my opinion, ignorant and/or intoxicated patrons. To the credit, as at least I give them, the management recognized the beauty of the Dixie Chicks rendition and they have repeatedly played it along with several other renditions during the season. The nuts never left but their complaints still resonate with me. How can such a beautiful and sincere approach to our Star Spangled Banner be so unjustly criticized due simply to political disagreement? FOXNEWS told them is all I can surmise.

Here is another insult to common sense.





“Natalie Maines and the Dixie Chicks were ant-Bush before anti-Bush was cool. Now the Chicks have a documentary film, "Shup Up and Sing." chronicling the vicious reaction of the Right to Maines' remarks about Bush just prior to the Iraq invasion....

NBC admits that it refused to run the ad because it is "disparaging to President Bush."

more:

http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117952760.html?categoryid=14&cs=1

NBC and those nuts at the racetrack can kiss my American ass. I’ll continue to frequent the racetrack and I’ll probably continue to view NBC occasionally but I will never understand the uppityness that they so envision for themselves in denying any freedom of speech that they so claim to embrace. Beats me?!?! Does it beat you?!?!?!?!

Psychoblues

:gross2:

 

[Psychoblues]

I really didn't know but I always suspected that you were a booger picker and, to be honest, I always considered you one to be a booger eater. Thanks for the verification of my suspicions!!!!!!

:gross2:

Warning 1 to PB-Ed.
Psychoblues

 

[Stephanie]

I really didn't know but I always suspected that you were a booger picker and, to be honest, I always considered you one to be a booger eater. Thanks for the verification of my suspicions!!!!!!




Warning 1 to PB-Ed.
Psychoblues

:gross2: :gross2: :gross2: :gross2:

 

[MtnBiker]

No censorship involved NBC was simply practicing their right to choose which commercials to have on their station. It is a free market. By claiming that this is censorship distorts the very basics of free speech.

 

[CockySOB]

No censorship involved NBC was simply practicing their right to choose which commercials to have on their station. It is a free market. By claiming that this is censorship distorts the very basics of free speech.

Damned straight! Maines and friends are free to speak their minds, but the public has the right to speak their minds as well. In a capitalistic society, that means speaking with their pocketbooks. (Something McCain-Feingold failed to recognize, hence our problems with campaign financing have gotten worse.)

 

[Avatar4321]

Only the government has the power to censor. Private entities can play or reject playing anything they want.

 

[jillian]

No censorship involved NBC was simply practicing their right to choose which commercials to have on their station. It is a free market. By claiming that this is censorship distorts the very basics of free speech.

It ls not about free market because the ad was being paid for and it is up to the consumer to decide what they respond to and what they don't.... NBC shouldn't be determining that for me. Isn't that the argument when they don't want to air things that are part of the agenda of the right?

The argument that it isn't censorship is a bit disingenuous when they have no qualms about airing ads about male sexual aids, so it's not that they care about what might "offend'. This is clearly a content-based decision. I don't think it's any network's job to "shield" us from things that may offend the folks in the white house. I'd also remind you that the networks are all reliant on the FCC for approval to buy and sell stations and media outlets. Bush's FCC has a particular reputation for acting negatively, or not acting at all, with regard to requests made by outlets who don't play ball.

 

[jillian]

Only the government has the power to censor. Private entities can play or reject playing anything they want.

Ummmmmm.... no. The airwaves are held in the public trust and media are not allowed to censor political speech. Go take a look at FCC v Pacifica which does a pretty good job of setting out the standards about where the limits are.

 

[pegwinn]

It ls not about free market because the ad was being paid for and it is up to the consumer to decide what they respond to and what they don't.... NBC shouldn't be determining that for me. Isn't that the argument when they don't want to air things that are part of the agenda of the right? NBC has the right to pick and choose what they will and won't air. It's a business decision. Before you try the public airwaves tack, remember that "public airwaves" is a philosophical notion that isn't based in reality.

The argument that it isn't censorship is a bit disingenuous when they have no qualms about airing ads about male sexual aids, so it's not that they care about what might "offend'. This is clearly a content-based decision. I don't think it's any network's job to "shield" us from things that may offend the folks in the white house. I'd also remind you that the networks are all reliant on the FCC for approval to buy and sell stations and media outlets. Bush's FCC has a particular reputation for acting negatively, or not acting at all, with regard to requests made by outlets who don't play ball. This para just demonstrated you understand the pragmatic role of a business decision. Like it or not, it isn't censorship. It is the owners call. Looks like the DC lost out.

Media outlets base a huge percentage of content decisions on what will or won't garner ratings. NBC understands that a large percentage of Americans regard the DC as spoiled, anti-American, idiotic, brain dead, dumb ass barely talented singers. It is thier job to entertain. So I must say that the movie title sums up my opinion perfectly.

 

[CockySOB]

It ls not about free market because the ad was being paid for and it is up to the consumer to decide what they respond to and what they don't.... NBC shouldn't be determining that for me. Isn't that the argument when they don't want to air things that are part of the agenda of the right?

Then turn the channel. See how easy that is? You get to exercise your right to choose, just like the decision-makers at NBC have the right.

The argument that it isn't censorship is a bit disingenuous when they have no qualms about airing ads about male sexual aids, so it's not that they care about what might "offend'. This is clearly a content-based decision. I don't think it's any network's job to "shield" us from things that may offend the folks in the white house. I'd also remind you that the networks are all reliant on the FCC for approval to buy and sell stations and media outlets. Bush's FCC has a particular reputation for acting negatively, or not acting at all, with regard to requests made by outlets who don't play ball.

Yes it is a content-based decision. So? NBC is a private corporation and not part of the government. Hence, NBC has the right and the duty to its shareholders to make decisions it deems to be in its own best interests.

Don't like it? Send funds to a broadcaster/publisher whose interests align with your own. Perhaps you'd like to bail out Air America since their views seem to correspond to your own? Or perhaps you should broadcast your content via the government-subsidized public access channels (think CPB). Of course, NBC has its viewer numbers BECAUSE it manages its content.

Now I can understand how you might feel threatened by allowing the consumers to make their own choices, and by allowing companies to make their own decisions. Liberalism is after all, totalitarianism with a face, just as Mr. Sowell states.

 

[Mr. P]

Ummmmmm.... no. The airwaves are held in the public trust and media are not allowed to censor political speech. Go take a look at FCC v Pacifica which does a pretty good job of setting out the standards about where the limits are.

Yes, but that was about an actual broadcast and dealt with obscene or offensive language. I think the key is "it was broadcast", I don't see any real relevance to this in this situation.

I didn’t read awfully close, but what I did pick-up was the FCC can’t approve or disapprove a censored broadcast before it is broadcast. Nothing about the radio/tv station censoring if they choose to that I saw.

Regardless, the airways may be a public trust but they are privately held. As such they are free to broadcast or not broadcast as long as they remain within the broadcast regulations. All I can think of here is the political candidates equal time requirement. Other than that they don't "have to" broadcast anything they don't want to.

IMO, as far as this being considered censorship, it would only be if they edited it then broadcast it, which would have been their right to do, sense the Dixie twits aren’t political candidates.

 

[Gunny]

Yes, but that was about an actual broadcast and dealt with obscene or offensive language. I think the key is "it was broadcast", I don't see any real relevance to this in this situation.

I didn’t read awfully close, but what I did pick-up was the FCC can’t approve or disapprove a censored broadcast before it is broadcast. Nothing about the radio/tv station censoring if they choose to that I saw.

Regardless, the airways may be a public trust but they are privately held. As such they are free to broadcast or not broadcast as long as they remain within the broadcast regulations. All I can think of here is the political candidates equal time requirement. Other than that they don't "have to" broadcast anything they don't want to.

IMO, as far as this being considered censorship, it would only be if they edited it then broadcast it, which would have been their right to do, sense the Dixie twits aren’t political candidates.

She's purposefully trying to confuse two issues. The Dixie Chicks are entertainers, not politicians. Networks cannot discriminate against politicians of one party in favor of another. Networks CAN discriminate against entertainment that doesn't sell. And politics under the guise of entertainment isn't covered.

For some reason, the Dixie Chicks and folks such as Jillian can't comprehend the simple concept that if you exercise your right to freedom of speech, there's this thing called consequence that goes with it. The DC's are being held accountable for their piss-poor judgement in exercising their right to free speech to a fan base they probably should have tried to better understand before opening their yappers.

 

[Dr Grump]

For some reason, the Dixie Chicks and folks such as Jillian can't comprehend the simple concept that if you exercise your right to freedom of speech, there's this thing called consequence that goes with it. The DC's are being held accountable for their piss-poor judgement in exercising their right to free speech to a fan base they probably should have tried to better understand before opening their yappers.

From I've seen, Maines et al doesn't give a shit about those so-called "fans"...nor should they.

 

[Hobbit]

The first ammendment gives you the right to speak and the right to hear. It does not give the right to be heard or spoken to.

 

[Mr. P]

The first ammendment gives you the right to speak and the right to hear. It does not give the right to be heard or spoken to.

Good point, Hobbit.

 

[Abbey Normal]

From I've seen, Maines et al doesn't give a shit about those so-called "fans"...nor should they.

On the contrary, judging by their new "film", I'd say they care vewy, vewy much:

Now the Chicks have a documentary film, "Shut Up and Sing." chronicling the vicious reaction of the Right to Maines' remarks about Bush just prior to the Iraq invasion.

 

[Avatar4321]

Ummmmmm.... no. The airwaves are held in the public trust and media are not allowed to censor political speech. Go take a look at FCC v Pacifica which does a pretty good job of setting out the standards about where the limits are.

The "public trust" theory hasnt been viable for nearly two decades.

The fact is broadcasters are running a business. They shouldnt be forced to air anything they dont want to air and would be bad for business.

Of course, you guys were completely in favor of censorship with "The Path to 911" was about to be aired. We cant play anything that actually tells the truth to us.

 

[pegwinn]

Ummmmmm.... no. The airwaves are held in the public trust and media are not allowed to censor political speech. Go take a look at FCC v Pacifica which does a pretty good job of setting out the standards about where the limits are.

This isn't censorship at all. That's a .gov thing. This is a free market thing.

I thought you had a unique view until I continued to read. The airwaves may be owned by the people (I would need to see the deed) but access to them is owned by the stations that build the transmitters and supported by the folks that advertise on them. That would be why it is still free. Your point would carry a bit more weight if you were discussing the satellite radio or cable TV industries where subscribers pay to listen an/or watch.

Face it, music and movies are a business just like a body shop. You sell a product. Success is neither assured nor a right even before you cut your first record or the director yells "that's a wrap".

I'd be interested in what "right" you feel is being violated though. Might make for an interesting sidebar.


Did that help?

 

[Gunny]

From I've seen, Maines et al doesn't give a shit about those so-called "fans"...nor should they.

Y'think? Let's put this in perspective ..... one day prior to Maines' opening her big yap, they were one of the hottest groups in country music, just coming off two VERY succesful CD's, and attempting to market a third.

From there they went to no country radio stations playing their music, and nobody buying it. They've tried the defiant "we don't care" crap since, and call themselves "pop" or something now, but they no longer have a REAL fanbase.

About six months or so after Maines' comment, the radio stations tentatively started playing a few of their songs again. Within a week, Maines came out with her "we don't care" and "it's not fair" bullshit.

But the little troll doesn't have to care. I hope they invested wisely from the fortune they made prior to turning their backs on the fans who made them. Last I heard, they're struggling to sell out small venues.

But I disagree with your statement. An artist BETTER care about his/her fans or they'll never get past playing the local watering hole. So yeah, she SHOULD care about her fans ....she's just too young -n- dumb to realize it.