Censorship or Freedom of Choice? by JCKnife

I think manufacturers are sticking to the safe lane. If it's controversial, don't have it on your label! Get rid of it. I don't believe it's a statement one way or the other as far as right and wrong go, or popular sentiment. They're protecting their profit margins.

(Oh - and as far as the Dixie Chicks "going down in flames" - didn't they have a sell-out tour?)

****
“Once you’re finished killing each other, we can plow under all the buildings and plant rows of flowers that spell out the words “Too Annoying To Live” in letters big enough to be seen from space. “ G’Kar

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 20, 2004 9:13 AM

STLOUISPHILE

Quote:
Originally posted by MiloraDell:
(Oh - and as far as the Dixie Chicks "going down in flames" - didn't they have a sell-out tour?)

I think Elton John was referring to the very nasty negative publicity the Dixie Chicks received from the press and fans who didn't agree with their sentiment. I for one enjoyed their take on the negative press when they did their cover for People magazine or was it Time?

"Enjoy every sandwich." Warren Zevon

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 20, 2004 9:18 AM

CONNORFLYNN

Quote:
Originally posted by MiloraDell:
I think manufacturers are sticking to the safe lane. If it's controversial, don't have it on your label! Get rid of it. I don't believe it's a statement one way or the other as far as right and wrong go, or popular sentiment. They're protecting their profit margins.

(Oh - and as far as the Dixie Chicks "going down in flames" - didn't they have a sell-out tour?)

Depends on who you listen to in terms of ticket sales. I think they suffered alot more then folks are hearing.
My problem with Natalie Maines (I personally love the Dixie Chicks music and will continue to buy it as long as the music doesn't go political), is the fact that she criticized our country and our President outside of the US. She has the right to express her opinion, however she also has the right to suffer the consequences.

Quote:

****
“Once you’re finished killing each other, we can plow under all the buildings and plant rows of flowers that spell out the words “Too Annoying To Live” in letters big enough to be seen from space. “ G’Kar

I love it

On the chance that I may be shot for this..Who is G'Kar?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 20, 2004 9:22 AM

Slim-Fast and the Vegas casino are hardly what one would call "fanbases". I don't recall the Dixie Chicks pissing off any particular company as much as pissing off everyone, but it might also be fair to say it wasn't their fanbase as much as it was just everyone who heard (and wanted to scream back).

In all fairness, Linda Ronstadt royally pissed off the crowd she was playing for, and the casino could easily have let her go for that. That's a fairly different situation though - she was "on the clock" as it were, entertaining and such, and brought politics into it. Bad move. The rest were gigged for things they did off on their own.

Is it censorship? It's not *government* censorship in its most blatant or obvious form, no. But it's hard to ignore that only one side seems to be stepped on in this way. Otherwise, the three examples cited are a little too unique to all treat the same way.

And G'kar is from Babylon 5. One of the more quotable characters in existence.

Radhil Trebors
Persona Under Construction

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 20, 2004 9:24 AM

KNIBBLET

Quote:
Originally posted by MiloraDell:
(Oh - and as far as the Dixie Chicks "going down in flames" - didn't they have a sell-out tour?)

My friend, Maureen, ordered 8 tickets. She paid for the tickets with the understanding that the folks she bought them for would reimburse her.

Some knee-jerk decided that she didn't want her ticket and wouldn't pay for it --- despite the fact that she had an obligation to pay Maureen who had already laid out the dough.

I had tried to buy tickets but it was sold out. Imagine my delight when Maureen told me about her friend's lapse of logic and concience. I snatched that ticket up in about .385 of a second.

The Chicks were awesome. They invited the audience to have two minutes at the opening of the concert to boo and hiss .... what they got was 22,000 people cheering at the top of their lungs.

I don't hold it against Toby Keith that he's all rah rah for the war. I hope he, unlike the President, is attending military funerals.

They had an opinion and expressed it. I wish that the village that lost Bush would come reclaim their idiot.

"Just keep walkin, preacher man."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 20, 2004 9:37 AM

HJERMSTED

RE: Dixie Chicks' comments abroad.

When you are an American in Europe, you actually end up doing A LOT of apologizing for the United States government. It's just part of the travelling experience nowadays.

If you've been over there, you'll know exactly what I'm talking about. The beautiful thing is that most europeans (regardless of their race, origins or income) understand the difference between the US government and the US citizens. They mostly feel bad for us that our political system has gotten so far out of our hands.

RE: Toby Keith.

Is he old enough to serve? Head on over to Iraq, my friend! Does he have kids of draftable age? Sign 'em up! Put your money where your mouth is my man!

War isn't a f*cking country song.

mattro

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 20, 2004 10:13 AM

G'Kar is probably one of the best characters ever written - he was on Babylon 5, played by Andreas Katsulas. The character is just awesome, and got some of the best lines! And the coolest thing - he changed completely from the first episode, to the last. Definately kick-ass character!

He's talking to Londo Molari in that quote, who's Centauri, an enemy of G'Kar's race, the Narn. They turn out to be something like best friends. Very interesting dynamic.

And I won't shoot you for not knowing him

. I just recently became reacquainted with him myself.

****
“Once you’re finished killing each other, we can plow under all the buildings and plant rows of flowers that spell out the words “Too Annoying To Live” in letters big enough to be seen from space. “ G’Kar

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 20, 2004 10:18 AM

It's not censorship. Just insecure companies courting a population made fearful by their government and fascist leaning media. Ain't democracy grand?

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 20, 2004 10:22 AM

Country music sales jump on strength of new artists
By JOHN GEROME
Associated Press

NASHVILLE, Tenn. -- Last summer, country music's hottest act, the Dixie Chicks, was in a meltdown. Country CD sales were sliding and record executives were praying for a spate of holiday releases to perk up the industry.

This year the mood is sunnier on Music Row, with country sales up 11.2 percent...

[SNIP]

...
It's a sharp turnaround from last summer when the Dixie Chicks were seeing a backlash from fans after singer Natalie Maines made a disparaging remark about President Bush at a London concert shortly before the Iraq war.

After sales of the band's discs plummeted and some radio stations banned their singles, Maines apologized for the phrasing of her remark. But she continued to say she had the right to criticize Bush and his policies, and the group has yet to regain favor with country listeners.

Also blamed for the poor sales were an ailing economy, a dearth of releases by blockbuster artists -- especially compared to the flashy releases of 2002 -- growing competition from DVDs and video games and illegal downloading from the Internet.

When the final numbers were tallied for 2003, country sales were off nearly 10 percent.

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/ae/music/jump/2689333

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 20, 2004 10:26 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
It's not censorship. Just insecure companies courting a population made fearful by their government and fascist leaning media.

So, you're saying that fans walked out on Rondstat and bulldozed their Dixie Chick CD's because they were afraid of something? That doesn't make a lot of sense.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 20, 2004 10:28 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hjermsted:
RE: Dixie Chicks' comments abroad.

When you are an American in Europe, you actually end up doing A LOT of apologizing for the United States government.

Maybe YOU do. I say you're either with us, or against us.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 20, 2004 10:33 AM

Quote:
JCKnife wrote:
Tuesday, July 20, 2004 10:28
Quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Hjermsted:
RE: Dixie Chicks' comments abroad.

When you are an American in Europe, you actually end up doing A LOT of apologizing for the United States government.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Maybe YOU do. I say you're either with us, or against us.

Well now, don't that just make all us browncoats feel all warm and fuzzy and comrade-like?

****
“Once you’re finished killing each other, we can plow under all the buildings and plant rows of flowers that spell out the words “Too Annoying To Live” in letters big enough to be seen from space. “ G’Kar

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 20, 2004 10:36 AM

CONNORFLYNN

Quote:
Originally posted by MiloraDell:
G'Kar is probably one of the best characters ever written - he was on Babylon 5, played by Andreas Katsulas. The character is just awesome, and got some of the best lines! And the coolest thing - he changed completely from the first episode, to the last. Definately kick-ass character!

He's talking to Londo Molari in that quote, who's Centauri, an enemy of G'Kar's race, the Narn. They turn out to be something like best friends. Very interesting dynamic.

And I won't shoot you for not knowing him . I just recently became reacquainted with him myself.

****
“Once you’re finished killing each other, we can plow under all the buildings and plant rows of flowers that spell out the words “Too Annoying To Live” in letters big enough to be seen from space. “ G’Kar

Okies this may get me shot and I am not intentionally hijacking this thread hehe. I didn't get a chance to ever watch an episode of Babylon5 and am afraid to go buy the first season. A friend of mine told me I would need to have them all. My bank account would suffer greatly hehe, but now I may have to go buy it LOL

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 20, 2004 10:45 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by MiloraDell:

Well now, don't that just make all us browncoats feel all warm and fuzzy and comrade-like?

Mal said as much to Jayne at the end of Ariel, right?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 20, 2004 10:52 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by JCKnife:
Quote:
Originally posted by Hjermsted:
RE: Dixie Chicks' comments abroad.

When you are an American in Europe, you actually end up doing A LOT of apologizing for the United States government.

Maybe YOU do. I say you're either with us, or against us.

Mark me down as AGAINST. But not against the people of the U.S. as a whole. Just the insecure fearmongers who've hijacked our govenment.... oh and the numbskulled sheep who support them.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 20, 2004 10:56 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:

Mark me down as AGAINST.

Believe me, I already have.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 20, 2004 10:56 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by JCKnife:
So, you're saying that fans walked out on Rondstat and bulldozed their Dixie Chick CD's because they were afraid of something? That doesn't make a lot of sense.

Yes. Sorry that you can't understand.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 20, 2004 10:57 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by JCKnife:
Maybe YOU do. I say you're either with us, or against us.

Well, then congrats. With one idiotic statement - one that can't even be claimed as original or thoughtful in any way shape or form, having been repeated near infinitely these past three years - you've proved your zeal and utter inability to consider any other view. I can now leave this thread having safely written you off as a lost cause, as a zombie of politics, as a fool who'd rather nod his head than think.

Unless you'd care to say something interesting, because I actually thought this was a decent food for thought thread. And you did start it.

There should be an insert symbol for rolling eyes. The stock of emoticons, silly as they are, just doesn't quite cut it.

Radhil Trebors
Persona Under Construction

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 20, 2004 10:57 AM

CHRISTHECYNIC

Quote:
Originally posted by JCKnife:
Quote:
Originally posted by Hjermsted:
RE: Dixie Chicks' comments abroad.

When you are an American in Europe, you actually end up doing A LOT of apologizing for the United States government.

Maybe YOU do. I say you're either with us, or against us.

Then who is “us”?

Last time I was in Europe I saw three million people marching for peace, three million people, can you imagine that? I distinctly remember that among them were Americans. Are these part of “us”? Or is “us” only Americans that agree with you?

Is “us” the majority of Americans? If it is I’ve got news for you, Bush isn’t part of “us”. The majority of Americans, 54%, aren’t with Bush.

The way I see it you have four possibilities for “us”:
1 “Us” is all Americans. Therefore everyone is both with “us” and against “us” because “us” is divided.
2 “Us” is the majority of Americans. Therefore Bush is against “us” and those who dislike Bush are with “us”.
3 “Us” is the people on your side (which seems to be the government’s side.) Therefore the majority of Americans are against “us”.
4 “Us” is those who agree with the current position of the United States government. See 3.

[Edited, turns out 54% of Americans are against Bush. I thought it was 51%]

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 20, 2004 11:24 AM

HJERMSTED

Quote:
So, you're saying that fans walked out on Rondstat and bulldozed their Dixie Chick CD's because they were afraid of something? That doesn't make a lot of sense.

Did fans walk out? I was under the impression Linda Rondstat finished her show and was asked not to return to that particular venue. She's been dedicating the song 'Desperado' to Michael Moore at every stop on her current tour.

Not that big of a deal but next time I'm in Vegas, I will not take my money to the Alladin.

mattro

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 20, 2004 11:34 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Radhil:

Well, then congrats. With one idiotic statement - one that can't even be claimed as original or thoughtful in any way shape or form, having been repeated near infinitely these past three years - you've proved your zeal and utter inability to consider any other view...
Unless you'd care to say something interesting, because I actually thought this was a decent food for thought thread. And you did start it.

You know, I think you're right about what I posted. It's innane and not very thoughtful. If I could undo it I would; Some of these folks get my blood boiling, and I tend to fling myself to the extreme to make a point. In this case I ended up looking pretty foolish.

I will endeavor to keep a cooler head in the future. As I said when I got here, I'm used to being places where eveyone agrees, and jingoism is lighthearted.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not going back on my core belief, that America was in the right in Iraq and I certainly would not be apologizing to any Europeans, personally.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 20, 2004 11:37 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:

Yes. Sorry that you can't understand.

SergeantX

Please explain.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 20, 2004 12:43 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by JCKnife:
Please explain.

OK, what I meant was that people have been frightened by an hysterical nationalisitic media and presidential administration into believing that there are indeed only two choices, 'for us' or 'against us'. Now I noticed you backed off that statement and I appreciate that, but I do think that's the mindset that provokes businesses and media to voluntarily censor dissent.

They are afraid that allowing anyone to question the leadership on their watch will mark them in the 'against' category. This kind of fear of speaking out is never good for a democracy and often a forerunner to fascism. And that does frighten me.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 20, 2004 1:02 PM

JCOBB

Quote:
Originally posted by christhecynic:
Edited, turns out 54% of Americans are against Bush. I thought it was 51%]

Never heard of margin of error I take it.

I don't care, I'm still free.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 20, 2004 3:02 PM

Sarge,

Okay, sometimes it can be unhealthy to boil everything down to black and white / for or against. In general, I can agree with that statement.

Let me ask you this: do you believe that there is an objective right and wrong, or is everything subjective? If you can agree that there IS right and there IS wrong, then we can probably agree that each of these three incidents (Whoopi, Linda, and the Dixie Chicks) probably falls someplace different on a measuring stick, which has "Absolutes" at one end and "Fuzzy Gray Area" at the other end.

Personally I think the fuzziest one was Whoopi and I'll tell you why: 1. it was a private fundraiser and not for mass consumption, and 2. if what I've heard was true, the chief executive at Slim Fast would actually agree with her politics, but made the decision based solely on the fear of consumer reaction. Hey, I was glad to see the result, but mostly because I'm idealogically opposed to her and not so much because I think it's "right."

I would put the Dixie Chicks nearer the opposite end; I think running down your president in a foreign country at a time of war is pandering, low, and just not at all nice. In short, I think this is the closest of the three to what I would consider objectively WRONG to do, not just a matter of subjective opinions. Plus the backlash she got was entirely propegated by her fan base (possibly fanned by country DJ's but they were just responding to their customers).

I'd put Linda R. somewhere in the middle. From the account I heard people DID walk out on the show. And like someone else said, the hotel hired her to sing, not get political. Eh, kinda not a big deal in my book.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 20, 2004 3:26 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Radhil:
But it's hard to ignore that only one side seems to be stepped on in this way.

Some folks have been freaking out about Schwartzenegger's "girlie-man" comment. I remember the SNL bit and I think it's funny.

It sure seemed like The Passion of the Christ got run down excessively by NYT and other reviewers, and there was some definite resentment for Gibson and the film throughout the entertainment community. Monty Python was compelled to re-release Life of Brian in protest.

Ted Nugent is currently embroiled in a lawsuit with Muskegon County, MI over cancelling a performance of his after, he claims, Denver DJ's falsely attributed racial slurs to him.

These are just some examples from the "other side." That they have seen less public outcry might say something about the public?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 20, 2004 3:52 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by JCKnife:
Sarge,

Okay, sometimes it can be unhealthy to boil everything down to black and white / for or against. In general, I can agree with that statement.

Let me ask you this: do you believe that there is an objective right and wrong, or is everything subjective?....

In the long run, I do believe in an object right and wrong. I have a deep distrust, however, of anyone who tells me that their particular vision of 'right' is so lock solid that we can tolerate no discussion of the issue. I'm not really all that familiar with the details of the incidents you discuss, but they just sound like people expressing their opinions. For a civilized culture to actively silence this not only seems closed minded, it directly detracts from any kind of progress towards the 'right'.

Freedom of speech is more than a matter of convenience. Our culture holds to this ideal in most circumstances but now we're told that because we are at war, we must hold our tongues and 'support the troops'. I don't buy it. If a war demands that we suspend our most cherished of convictions, then there's either something wrong with the convictions or the war. I've seen plenty of indication that it's the war and I applaud anyone who stands up to say that, even in the face of a population herded into a nationalistic frenzy by unscrupulous media outlets and dishonest politicians.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 20, 2004 4:13 PM

Quote:
I will endeavor to keep a cooler head in the future. As I said when I got here, I'm used to being places where eveyone agrees, and jingoism is lighthearted.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not going back on my core belief, that America was in the right in Iraq and I certainly would not be apologizing to any Europeans, personally.

Well, there you go. Something interesting. I wouldn't expect you to go back on your beliefs just over a holler and rant or two. Just... pause, and consider.

Doubling back now to respond to your other stuff here...

Quote:
Personally I think the fuzziest one was Whoopi and I'll tell you why: 1. it was a private fundraiser and not for mass consumption, and 2. if what I've heard was true, the chief executive at Slim Fast would actually agree with her politics, but made the decision based solely on the fear of consumer reaction.

If that is true (admittedly don't follow Whoopi myself), I agree with you completely. Ethically dubious at best.

Quote:
I would put the Dixie Chicks nearer the opposite end; I think running down your president in a foreign country at a time of war is pandering, low, and just not at all nice. In short, I think this is the closest of the three to what I would consider objectively WRONG to do, not just a matter of subjective opinions. Plus the backlash she got was entirely propegated by her fan base (possibly fanned by country DJ's but they were just responding to their customers).

It'd be pandering if they were just saying it to get a cheer or some such, or wrote it off as a joke. No, Natalie Maines (had to look that up, but she is the specific Dixie who lit the match on this) was more than likely just speaking her mind, having been on tour and seen the backlash against America growing. That her audience agreed doesn't make it pandering. That her fanbase didn't and blew off the band in retaliation I suppose could be called justified. That the band was plastered on the front page for the entire week and judged by anyone who was shouting loud enough to be heard as devil-spawn and treasonous bitches... that might have been overkill. Especially coming from a country that supposedly treasures freedom of speech.

Not sure if it qualifies as censorship as brought up here. I see this as one example of wiping out opinion without actually preventing the words.

Quote:
It sure seemed like The Passion of the Christ got run down excessively by NYT and other reviewers, and there was some definite resentment for Gibson and the film throughout the entertainment community. Monty Python was compelled to re-release Life of Brian in protest.

Reviewers I don't recall really running rampant over the film. A quick peek at Rotten Tomatoes shows half of the reviewers giving it thumbs up - usually a sign of a "good enough" film. You are right that it did have a large backlash though. I never saw the movie, so I was never sure if the backlash was justified or not - the furor seemed more over blaming the flick for culture issues that have long been in place, rather than anything the movie tried to say.

At any rate, despite the mountain/molehill (or because of? who knows), the film went on to major success. So was it really supressed at all?

Not familiar enough with the other remarks to comment on yet.

Radhil Trebors
Persona Under Construction

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 20, 2004 4:40 PM

GINOBIFFARONI

Quote:
Originally posted by JCKnife:
Quote:
Originally posted by Hjermsted:
RE: Dixie Chicks' comments abroad.

When you are an American in Europe, you actually end up doing A LOT of apologizing for the United States government.

Maybe YOU do. I say you're either with us, or against us.

If those are my choices, count me as against

" If I going to get killed for a word....
Then my word is Poon-Tang "

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 20, 2004 4:56 PM

MASSIVELY OFF-TOPIC

Quote:
Okies this may get me shot and I am not intentionally hijacking this thread hehe. I didn't get a chance to ever watch an episode of Babylon5 and am afraid to go buy the first season. A friend of mine told me I would need to have them all. My bank account would suffer greatly hehe, but now I may have to go buy it LOL

So take them sloooooow. They're very unlike Firefly - I mean, they got 5 ENTIRE seasons and how many "movies"? They'll probably be around for a while, anyways. Maybe they're rentable? I don't know - I hardly ever go into a rental place. I definately think they're worth seeing, though. But yeah - a real hit to the wallet. Not as bad as some other series, though.

Oh - sorry,

count me against. Never could keep step with the "crowd."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 20, 2004 4:59 PM

FREMDFIRMA

E Pluribus Unum.

Paraph:- Out of many people, One Country.

Have your opinions, Allow me mine.
Is that so hard ?

-frem
diefuxdie

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, July 21, 2004 12:13 AM

That's a nice sentiment but the question is, what happens when a public figure espouses opinions that are massively unpopular? Don't the people who support that entertainer have a right to turn their backs on said entertainer in protest?

I think the answer I'm getting is that yes, the people do but "the establishment" is fanning the flame too much. That still seems a little paranoid to me.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, July 21, 2004 5:14 AM

A little paranoid? Perhaps, from your perspective, this might be true. I've watched too much news, sifted too much fact from opinion, to think otherwise though.

Well, I'm gonna attempt to get past your paranoia unease here. Give it a shot anyway. Let's start with the Slim Fast thing that you brought up. A businessman, ignoring gray ethics about his decision, makes a purely "good for business" choice by refusing to make waves (or distancing himself from one who did). Take that and extend it. Other businesspeople probably do the same, Whoopi can hardly be a unique example. News editors and writers. TV executives. The cable news networks. Despite the ideal of news integrity, these people are still all about business. Very likely making the same choice - the bottom line of the dollar over anything that might rock the boat. What you now have is a social system that under stress stifles free speech. To get that far, all you have to do is see the pattern of business for what it is. And recent times have been nothing but stressful.

If you'd indulge paranoia in the slightest (and a *little* suspicion is hardly a bad thing), just introduce a factor of government pressure. No grand conspiracy theory, just officials taking advantage of a predisposal and bias that's already there. It's relatively easy to do, and you acquire the effect of censorship without actually censoring anything.

There. Full explanation, sans paranoia, no imagination and no creativity. Make of it what you will.

Radhil Trebors
Persona Under Construction

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, July 21, 2004 3:16 PM

But, whereas business owners fear controversy, newspeople are drawn to it. "If it bleeds, it leads," and worse. Sensationalism. Actually, the media might be HELPING. If we didn't have 24-hour news networks (lots of them) that need to fill all that airtime, would the Whoopi story have even made the news? Hard to say for sure.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, July 21, 2004 3:41 PM

Don't make the mistake of thinking in absolutes. Newspeople are also businesspeople - one doesn't exclude the other. And for the longest stretch after 9/11, you can't really deny that patriotism was really good for any business. Sensationalism isn't defined by bad news - it's the slanting of any reporting to one extreme or another. Once bad news was less profitable, it became good news that was sensationalized. That's still true, in my opinion, although it seems to be crumbling.

Radhil Trebors
Persona Under Construction

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 22, 2004 6:41 AM