Originally Posted By ecdc <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/27/AR2006102701358.html" target="_blank">http://www.washingtonpost.com/ wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/27/AR2006102701358.html</a> Man that "liberal media" is at it again. NBC refuses to air promos for the new film following the Dixie Chicks after they (gasp!) had the nerve to criticize the President. They specifically had hand-written notes from the standards and practices department that said they can't run it because it desparages the President.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh I heard the Dixie Chicks were just on Oprah complaining about how they were being silenced. Sure, they've got a movie out, they're on tour, they're appearing on Oprah, but they're being silenced. Right. And the AP is reporting that every other network is running the ad. NBC says the producer of the ad didn't try to get the ad accepted, and that the complaint a publicity stunt. <a href="http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061027/ap_on_en_tv/tv_dixie_chicks" target="_blank">http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/200 61027/ap_on_en_tv/tv_dixie_chicks</a>
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder I have to agree with Douglas. Seriously. And the lead singer's voice is about as tuneful as a dog fart.
Originally Posted By vbdad55 Hard to find a whinier - no talent group than this...trying to be way more relevant than anyone wants them to be.
Originally Posted By ecdc Their talent has nothing to do with running an ad (I'm not fan either) and NBC standards and practices writing notes saying they can't run it because it disparages (maybe I can spell that right this time) President Bush. The fact that NBC is changing its tune is hardly evidence that it was a publicity stunt.
Originally Posted By jonvn I've never heard anything they've done. But, if NBC refuses to air their ad, then they are being silenced on NBC. Which is NBC's right.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 I have to disagree with you, vbdad. Politics aside, the Chicks have gorgeous vocal harmonies, and are quite talented instrumentalists. Of course, I like country, so YMMV.
Originally Posted By gadzuux They have also been the victim of an organized campaign of repression because of the comments made by singer natalie maines about bush. For years since, they've been pulled from radio playlists, concert venues, and retail outlets because of their outspoken opposition of bush and the iraq war. This is now changing. As the zeitgeist within the country changes and turns against bush, suddenly the chicks are hip again, and enjoying a resurgence. Good for them.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <They have also been the victim of an organized campaign of repression because of the comments made by singer natalie maines about bush.> Who organized it?
Originally Posted By Jim in Merced CA It's funny, if Bruce Springstein, or Neil Young, Toby Keith or Bono or Sting -- if those guys have anything negative to say about The Prez, or the current Administration -- no problem. The Dixie Chicks say something? They're a bunch of no talent bitches who should just keep their mouths shut. Oh yeah, and they're ugly too.
Originally Posted By ecdc Excellent point, Jim. They said one relatively harmless thing and it's suddenly time to burn their CDs and ban their music from your radio station. It's just downright creepy the response loyalty to George W. Bush can generate. It's a visceral reaction his followers (and that's what they are - people who unquestioningly follow him) have without logic or reason. And I believe it goes back to Bush representing Christian values in these people's minds. Attack George and somehow you're attacking religion.
Originally Posted By davewasbaloo It does scare me the backlash that these very talented performers have endeared. What really scares me is that people who believe in freedom of speech only seem to agree when the protagonists say something the masses like. There's something wrong somewhere.
Originally Posted By DAR I've always said that if a celebrity wants to make a political statement that's just fine. But they have to be prepared for the inevitable backlash that's going to follow. Most celebrities seem to understand this except for the Dixie Chicks.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder Maybe the following factors into the backlash. They voiced their criticism very early on during the Iraq war from a stage in London, much sooner than most started to criticize. Maybe they were just trendsetters, but it came from three women who had recently posed nude on a magazine cover and who collectively, seemed to have the IQ of a box of rocks. And they didn't just criticize the war, they said: "Just so you know, we're ashamed the President of the United States is from Texas." Now mind you, they're from Texas as well, and this was less than a month after we invaded Iraq. They had already called Toby Keith's song, "Courtesy of the Red, White and Blue" "ignorant". And most importantly, they did all this within the context of country music, whose fan base is overwhelmingly pro-military, pro-flag, etc. (And I'm not making a comment either way on that, just stating that it what it is.). Now compound all that with the inept way they handled the backlash initially, i.e. not saying anything and they issuing a statement that it was all a "joke", and you've got problems if you're the Dixie Chicks. Certainly, they're entitled to their opinion, but while they may indeed be as dumb as a box of rocks, they still should know that the audience that received their message was predisposed to the type of reaction they've gotten. Meaning, if they didn't see this coming, then they really are dumber than the proverbial box of rocks. None of this negates their right to an opinion, but conversely, to complain about being shut out by country radio is beyond naive, unless we want to yet again re-examine who's smarter, them or the box of rocks. Moreover, for many, they're an acquired musical taste anyway. As I said earlier in this thread, the singer's voices just grates. Matter of fact, I called it less tuneful than a dog fart. Now, good for tothers that strongly disagree with me on that score, because music is a subjective thing, but in the larger picture here, it fits in somewhere. This all comes from someone (me) who criticizes Bush on the Iraq war. You'd think I'd agree with them. But I don't. I just find them strident and unappealing and wish they'd shut up. As I said at the start, I think all of this goes into why they take so much heat. They have a right to their opinion, but to claim to shocked at the response just about validates the backlash.
Originally Posted By ecdc I believe they appeared nude after the controversy, with all the labels they'd been called written on them. Hey, I don't see the Dixie Chicks as some kind of folk heroes standing up for truth, justice, and the American way. I just see what they said and the subsequent reaction to be completely unbalanced. There's videos and recordings of crowds gathering at radio station sponsored CD burnings. Do people have a right to respond however they'd like, including burning their music? Sure. Do I find it to be at all normal or equitable to what they said? Not in the least. I suppose it reminds me of the Janet Jackson debacle. Stupid of them? You bet. Deserving of the reaction that came after it? Not by a longshot. When I see that kind of reaction to the Dixie Chicks or Janet Jackson, I'm embarrassed that this is what gets our country up in arms. Dead Americans in Iraq? Dead Iraqis in Iraq? Katrina? The homeless? Universal health care? Hey, who cares about these things when there are errant boobs on TV and country singers don't like George W. Bush!
Originally Posted By cmpaley >>It's funny, if Bruce Springstein, or Neil Young, Toby Keith or Bono or Sting -- if those guys have anything negative to say about The Prez, or the current Administration -- no problem. The Dixie Chicks say something? They're a bunch of no talent bitches who should just keep their mouths shut.<< Simple. Rock and roll is generally a "liberal" thing and country is usually a "conservative" thing. The Dixie Chicks messed with convention.
Originally Posted By JohnS1 "This all comes from someone (me) who criticizes Bush on the Iraq war. You'd think I'd agree with them. But I don't. I just find them strident and unappealing and wish they'd shut up." I wonder if part of it is also that we resent people representing our side of things when we find them uneffective or emnbarrassing to us. I tend to be on the right side of things, but I am embarrassed when certain people act as if they represent me, when I never asked them to be loudmouths or insert themselves into the fray in an annoying manner. I particularly dislike Sean Hannity, for example. I don't think he is particularly intelligent and I think he is rude, repetitive and embarrassing to have as a representative of the conservative side of things. People like Newt Gingrich and Bill O'Reilly, to name a few, I find to be intelligent and quick to analyze situations and issues and present thoughtful views and solutions. I also think a lot of people were riled when they made a specific mention of Texas - as if they represented all Texans. I hate it when I hear local politicians say "This is what Washingtonians want..." when they never asked me and do not have any idea whatsoever what I think or want. People in general dislike other people purporting to represent the viewpoints of others when they were never appointed to do so.
