Saturday, August 19, 2006
Love them Dixie Chicks!
This item did not get much note, but it got my attention when the Dixie Chicks cancelled much of their latest tour. This lights my candle because it clearly shows the unspeakable power to manipulate an entire industry against the public interest and silence one political viewpoint. The power is enjoyed and unjustifiably exercised by companies such as Clear Channel, which not only dictate radio playlists to hundreds of radio stations nationwide and control the arenas and clubs where music is performed. This is a centralization of power which anti-trust laws sought to stop more than a hundred years ago when railroads tried to take over the country.
The coverage in the Houston Chronicle just about tells the story, except for the typical lapses of logic which are so typical among journalists.
The Chronicle story does factually that the Houston date for the Chicks concert was cancelled before tickets went on sale. Local stations refused to accept advertising buys for the show. Why?
You can be sure that the playlist originates with the corporate owners of KILT, CBS Radio. Big corporate radio wants to avoid being broken down into smaller units that might serve listeners and local communities. Since the Telecommunications Act of 1996, big broadcasters have concentrated the ownership of thousands of stations into a few large corporations. The Dixie Chicks have spoken against George W. Bush, and therefore most be silenced.
Jeff Garrison is the "program director" (resident office boy and "yes" man for corporate bosses) and he explains the situation like this:
In other words, 67% of the listeners were on the Chicks' side. But as the railroad bosses said over a hundred years ago, "the public be damned."
Do we need further justification for banning the Chicks? Catch this.
Well, that's a fair hearing. This guy should own a radio station.
He gave a Chicks record ONE play and did not even finish the song. Most small market DJ's get more than four minutes before the manager throws them out the door. I am wondering what that swift reaction was like? Was there a riot? Did Dixie Chick fans know that a song might be played so that they could show support? I know that sounds silly, but corporate broadcasting is justifying a big decision on ONE partial play of a single song in a single venue.
Don't get me wrong. The Dixie Chicks are not my spiritual or political guides, though I do enjoy some of the social commentary. I would like to be able to decide for myself without Bush, Cheney, and some shadowy corporate thugs killing a perfectly good band for political purposes.
This is America, and nobody should have that kind of power.
The coverage in the Houston Chronicle just about tells the story, except for the typical lapses of logic which are so typical among journalists.
The Chronicle story does factually that the Houston date for the Chicks concert was cancelled before tickets went on sale. Local stations refused to accept advertising buys for the show. Why?
John Brejot, general sales manager at local country station KILT, confirmed that the station refused advertising for the show. KILT's position was that it didn't advertise bands that weren't on its playlist.
You can be sure that the playlist originates with the corporate owners of KILT, CBS Radio. Big corporate radio wants to avoid being broken down into smaller units that might serve listeners and local communities. Since the Telecommunications Act of 1996, big broadcasters have concentrated the ownership of thousands of stations into a few large corporations. The Dixie Chicks have spoken against George W. Bush, and therefore most be silenced.
Jeff Garrison is the "program director" (resident office boy and "yes" man for corporate bosses) and he explains the situation like this:
Garrison cites an Edison Media Research national survey of 12 radio stations across the country, including KILT, which says 19 percent of listeners think radio should avoid the Dixie Chicks altogether. Fifty-one percent took offense at Maines' comment but thought the Chicks still belonged on the radio, 15 percent agreed with Maines, and 15 percent were unsure.
In other words, 67% of the listeners were on the Chicks' side. But as the railroad bosses said over a hundred years ago, "the public be damned."
Do we need further justification for banning the Chicks? Catch this.
That platform can be found elsewhere. Lee Harless, general manager of the popular north Houston dance hall Tumbleweed Texas, says DJs at the venue added an old Chicks hit to its dance mix this summer. The reaction was swift and negative, and the song was yanked before it completed.
"We did try to play them, and we dealt with the wrath," Harless says.
Well, that's a fair hearing. This guy should own a radio station.
He gave a Chicks record ONE play and did not even finish the song. Most small market DJ's get more than four minutes before the manager throws them out the door. I am wondering what that swift reaction was like? Was there a riot? Did Dixie Chick fans know that a song might be played so that they could show support? I know that sounds silly, but corporate broadcasting is justifying a big decision on ONE partial play of a single song in a single venue.
Don't get me wrong. The Dixie Chicks are not my spiritual or political guides, though I do enjoy some of the social commentary. I would like to be able to decide for myself without Bush, Cheney, and some shadowy corporate thugs killing a perfectly good band for political purposes.
This is America, and nobody should have that kind of power.
