Sony
  panasonic
  Canon
  JVC

  Samsung
  Sharp
  HITACHI

thnks my friend travesti and jigolo

Edited by author 07-15-2008 04:05 PM
moto kurye
kurye
motorlu kurye
kurye
kurye
motorlu kurye
motorlu kurye
gavurlar.com
adult forum
kurye
motorlu kurye
web tasarımı
web tasarım
e-ticaret
alışveriş
fazlageldi.com
google reklam
sanalhersey.com
alışveriş

mirc mırc eski mirc script indir irc komutları mirc indir kameralı mirc sohbet mirc indir mırc indir mirc mırc mirc yükle mirc download islami sohbet dini sohbet islami site islami chat kelebek kelebek script kelebekscript kelebek.gen.tr kelebek.com kameralı mirc indir kameralı mirc kameralı sohbet chat chat yap chat sohbet chatsohbet çet çet sohbet çet odası sohbet kanalları izmir sohbet kanalları sohbet odaları aşk sohbet odaları chat odaları soru cevap sevgili sevgili bul arkadaş arkadaş ara arkadaş bul arkadaşlık bedava sohbet arkadaşlık sitesi arkadaşlık siteleri partner erkek arkadaş bayan arkadaş oto araba mp3 astroloji zoydak nedir cep telefonları gazete marifetname bedava domain ücretsiz domain bayii parça kontör bayiliği bayii online kontör

Hi. Sorry for my english. Happy New Year!!!!!
Good Luck!

very smart =)

Hey,
 
What is it with girls fighting?
 
BigMike
 
 
gross-videos.com

Who can help me with .httpaccess ?
where i can fined full information about .httpaccess file syntaxis?

Hello. I am Timmy Thompson. I the real TimmyThompson.com

i agree with mohamed and as for you all fat redneck texans its ISLAM not mohamedisum

Regarding Timmy Thompson response from 9-10-03 (#69)...hope this isn't the same Timmy Thompson who lives in Denton, TX trying to express a responsible opinion; if only the public was aware of this person's disregard of moral and legal obligations, any opinion expressed by him would be flushed down the drain with the wastewater...you know the type: can talk the talk, but never walks the walk....

So what do the nazi chicks have to say now that their boy lost to Bush!!!!!!

I heard from a band member that the Dixie Chicks sing "Traveling Soldier" about Osama Bin Laden. This is in very poor taste and probably some scheme from the Kerry Campaign. They should apologise and turn over all profits from the song to charity.

So Charles croaked Diana? What does your love Natalie say to that? It isn't royals are inbred, its that all Brits are inbred. If it wasn't for advanced societies, you would all be hearding sheep and snorting mistletoe.

Edited by author 09-11-2003 05:13 AM
I'm british, and you, democracynotempire, are exactly the kind of person freedommusak is talking about, the type of fat american prat who would vote for an incompetent baboon like Bush. I don't know if you did and I don't care, because it's the attitude of americans that pisses the rest of the world off. That's right, the rest of the world, not just your scapegoats, Iraq, Syria, Iran and the others in the club of "the axis of evil". axis of evil, sounds like something out of a comic. Bush is an embarrassment, and the worst thing is that you don't notice. You're just like him, which goes to show that your country is populated by ignorant, over-patriotic, wasteful and arrogant morons. Hopefully the small minority of people with minds of their own, like the dixie chicks, will change things. But I doubt it, your country and the mentality of americans are already too twisted.

Get real, Mohamed. It's Natalie, and she's married in name alone. Ain't no Texas woman going to convert to Mohamadism, and she certainly not going to put out to one.

Is good Natty Maynes tell truth. Great Satan Bush want all oil, run the world. Natty good Moslem wife, husband keep her straight. As quran say "women are your fields, enter them often". Should give Natty Greenspan's job.

Is good Natty Maynes tell truth.

Edited by author 04-05-2003 11:18 AM
FreedomMusak Whoah! anybody who wants to see innocent people die in *any* country is no better than terrorists in my book. You've already lost all my respect.

Just as people don't know an artist exists unless the radio plays it, people don't know all the ways that Cheney-Rumsfeld-Wolfowitz gave false and misleading information to the American people unless the newspapers carry it on p. 1. Most of the articles that really get to the heart of the matter - how the CIA *and* the FBI *and* the British military intelligence (MI-5) all disagreed with the Bush administration and said Iraq had no links to al Qaeda were buried on p. 9 of newspapers. And never got on TV or radio at all. Ditto for the CIA reports on how they believe Saddam has chemical weapons left from before 1991 - but *at most* only enough to attack a few hundred troops on the battleground.

The subject of this weblog is the ClearChannel's boycott of the Dixie chicks and freedom of expression in popular music. If anyone would like to receive links to authoritative articles and reports (including Pentagon and CIA reports that contradict President Bush's stance) send an email to democracyNotEmpire<deletethis>@hotmail.com and I'll forward you additional information.

As for FreedomMusak - and anyone else who spouts violence at innocent people either in Iraq or America - once you surrender to hate you have already lost.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Restriction of free thought and free speech is the most dangerous of all subversions. It is the one un-American act that could easily defeat us.
William O. Douglas, US Supreme Court Justice 1939-1975
------------------------------------------------------------------------

I do not orignally come from America --- but I can tell you that as radio goes the choice on American radio is absolutely dreadful(Actually No choice). Clearchannel pump out a constant diet of either christian rock bands like creed and other assorted poor versions of Mettalica. It's Facist Musak for a Facist People. By effectively suppressing music by not playing 'Artists that do not fit the format'(ie. do not sound like every other overproduced mediocrity, or like the Dixie Chicks have a moral sense of right and wrong).
If you do not know an artist exists (like by hearing a song on the radio) --- then the only other way you learn about them is by having them shoved down your throat by some fasist corporate child killer (thats anyone who supports the invasion of Iraq --- have you seen the photos of the dead children -- so you can pay a few cents less on gas for your SUV). The minority that controls the American media want you to consume their crap and want no input from the public, freedom of expression is their enemy.

As a former employee of Time Warner I can tell you they have plans for you. If your a white middle class fat prat driving your SUV with a baseball cap and listening to Heavy Metal lite --- may you choke, you greedy blood soaked child killing neo-fat-nazi.

Dixie Chicks forever

Yeah, I wasn't very pleased with Clinton on that count. I didn't even know about the 1996 act until about 1998 when all the independent stations I liked started to get bought up left and right by monopoly music. Clinton did his share of favors for monopoly corporations too. It would take some real campaign finance reform to solve a lot of those problems of corporations writing our laws in exchange for getting people reelected (over a year after the Senate subpoenaed Cheney for the records on how Enron shaped the Energy Bill and still nothing - one thing I will say to Clinton's credit is that whether or not I agreed with his policy decisions, he certainly didn't brand absolutely every public deliberation he ever made a state secret the way Bush, Cheney and Ashcroft do).

So why does anyone want a handful of big corporations to choose what they do and don't get to listen to on the radio? What will get airplay is what drives which CDs will get produced.

What recording companies will produce CDs that ClearChannel Communications won't play on 82% of all the popular music stations? (or those owned by Saga). If you didn't catch what I said earlier, I'm not concerned about the Dixie Chicks and the Madonnas of the world who already have platinum albums under their belts. What it means is that any artists who are breaking into the business since 1997 and 1998 don't have much opportunity to ever get CDs produced by major labels if they won't get any airtime.

If ClearChannel and Saga and Wicks owned just half the popular music stations in this country we'd still have a real choice. Reality is - more and more major cities have no choice but monopoly music radio.

Hey dNE, guess which President didn't veto the Telecom Act of 1996?
You remember who was pres. in '96 don't you? So don't go laying all of the sins of the FCC at the Republicans door.

And get a freakin' CD burner and listen to the tunes YOU want in the car, christ.

Oh, also, Ave Imperator and kiss my ass.

A choice of popular music stations? Where I live my three favorite rock/pop stations all got bought out between 1998 and 1999 - two by ClearChannel/Citicasters and the other by Saga Communications. All the other Class 3 pop/rock stations in my market are also owned by one of those two or a third - Wilks (each of the three companies owns three-to-five stations). Can't listen to any of the three without hearing identical DJs political commentary on Iraq.

There's a couple Class1 FM college stations I listen to sometimes, and there's one Class1 independent commercial station left. Don't know for how long - ClearChannel bought another station recently to compete for the rest of it's audience, so they may be out of business in a year or two as well.

All six commercial Minot stations are owned by ClearChannel. All are on autopilot playing satellite feeds from somewhere else in the country. When a train derailment released a cloud of ammonia gas and the city's alert system failed, emergency authorities couldn't raise a live person at any of the six ClearChannel stations for more than an hour -and-a-half.
    from "The Trouble With Corporate Radio"
By BRENT STAPLES
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/20/opinion/20THU4.html

An overwhelming majority of pop/rock stations in Milwaukee, San Diego, New York and a host of other cities are a similar story - the big three own 80% or more of the rock/pop music market. Like I said, ClearChannel owns about 9% of the stations, but 82% of popular music stations. Much of the remaining 90% of all those little stations around the country are Christian broadcasters playing hymns and the like. And 95% of the concert promotion industry is controlled by ClearChannel since they bought out SFX.

Question - if you don't learn what's going on from newsmedia, how do you get a flying clue what's going on? From radio DJs? Or from your coworkers? I can tell from your previous posts that you probably won't believe this either - but even if you don't read the news yourself and find out what's going on entirely by word of mouth, these people you put your faith in probably got most of *their* info from the newsmedia somewhere along the line. You'll have to trust me on this one.

Edited by author 04-04-2003 01:45 PM
Sure they do. Listen to NPR which is the Rush Limbaugh of the Left, or don't listen. Instead, watch CNN, Peter Jennings, Dan Rather, or read the New York Times, The LA Times, etc. There are a ton of options to gather information. None of this has nothing to do with the fact that the Dixie Chicks can express their views under the Constitution, and we can boycot them and excoriate them under the Constitution.

p.s. If your right to listen to the Chicks is being infringed by the tyrannical radio stations, go by the c.d.

It doesn't bother me in the least if individuals boycott the Dixie Chicks. What bothers me is when ClearChannel Communications owns 82% of all the popular music stations in the country boycotts or blacklists a singer, and much of what's left of the popular music stations become controlled by a couple similar corporations such as Saga Communications and Wilks. You haven't responded to this distinction in the least.

When one or two or three monopoly corporations buy out all the radio stations, listeners no longer have a choice.

Edited by author 04-04-2003 01:27 PM
democracyNotEmpire -- I can choose which public artists to listen to without guidance from any media source. You have a little Oliver Stone conspiracy thing going with your Clear channel fetish. Better take some Xanex. I am not a bully because a) the Dixie Chicks offended me, and b) as a result, I do not want to listen to their music or support them anymore. I am sure you boycot all the Country singers who support the war and the President as well as the few Hollywood types who do. Fine, that is your right. However, your 28% of the population who are agsint the war is not going to do as much damage as the 72% who support the war, the President, and the troops, if they decide to wash their hands of the left wingers like Sheen, Sarandon, Streisand. Just last night you hear about Pearl Jam getting booed when they started trashing Bush at a concert. So there you go, some men got yelled at too! So go ahead and dissent -- just don't whine when there are consequences.

Susan, I agree with you on this count too. No, I don't form my opinions based on singers either. However once I form my opinions based on other sources, I turn on a radio station and I DO hear DJs and companies imposing their political opinions on me. And now it's only from ONE point of view where I used to be able to find some radio stations that might back warhawks and others that don't.

Last Saturday I heard both Saga Communications DJs and ClearChannel DJs in my community expressing only one-sided opinions on the war and those who oppose it. I wouldn't be half so angry if radio stations avoided politics altogether, but they do promote politics - a lot. Including ClearChannel organizing huge pro-war rallies.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/showcas...03190157mar19.story

"Media giant's rally sponsorship raises questions"
By Tim Jones
Tribune national correspondent
Published March 19, 2003

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/25/opinion/...en=1bcd3d7a662cd65a
"Channels of Influence" By PAUL KRUGMAN New York Times March 25 2003.


When a few monopoly corporations control radio, news, and public spaces (and soon all internet access?), this is the kind of censorship we get in our free (so far) country. How far has corporate regulation already pushed the limits of free speech? A guy was arrested in upstate New York - because he bought a T-shirt in the mall that says "Peace on EArth" and he didn't comply when the mall management insisted he remove it. Give me a break! I don't hear anyone getting arrested for weaing "Liberate Iraq" T-shirts. Regardless of whether you agree with the point of view being censored this time Sonya, tell me: where do you draw the line on infringing on our basic liberties of free speech?

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html...58CDDAA0894DB404482

Metropolitan Desk | March 6, 2003, Thursday
A Message of Peace on 2 Shirts Touches Off Hostilities at a Mall
 
By WINNIE HU (NYT) 751 words
Late Edition - Final , Section B , Page 1 , Column 4

ABSTRACT - Stephen Downs is arrested at Crossgates Mall, Guilderland, NY; was wearing T-shirt with message Peace on Earth and accompanied by son Roger, who was wearing shirt with similar slogan; mall spokesman Tim Kelley says Downs was creating disturbance; Downs denies charge and mall's management has asked police to withdraw charges; photo (M) A father-and-son outing to a local shopping mall here on Monday night has touched off a furor over freedom of expression stemming from the father's refusal to take off a T-shirt emblazoned with the words ''Peace on Earth.''

You're 100% right - whether you choose to buy Dixie Chicks is your choice. Whether you turn on the station that avoids playing Dixie Chicks music is your choice. But remember - obviously all those people who bought their albums that put those songs in the Top 10 *did* like to hear those messages.

Get it? That's what democracy of the marketplace of culture and ideas was *supposed* to be about. And choice vs. monopoly music is what this whole discussion is about.

Now thanks to ClearChannel and their ilk those people who bought so many of these albums to put these songs in the top 10 *don't* have a choice anymore. And not just on the radio - because what does or doesn't play on ClearChannel radio drives which CDs and songs the recording companies will sell too.

"Is Clear Channel selling hit singles? Insiders suggest that the broadcasting giant gave an obscure singer major airplay to promote its pricey new market-research program."
By Eric Boehlert
Salon | June 25, 2002
http://www.salon.com/ent/feature/2002/06/25/eagle_eye/index.html

ClearChannel didn't buy up just half the popular music stations - they bought up 82%. And if FCC chairman Powell removes the last restrictions on monopoly ownership of the airwaves, ClearChannel (oftentimes still going under the prior names of their wholly-owned subsidiaries going by companies such as Citicasters or Premiere Radio Network).

And you agree with this censorship of everyone else's tastes so not just half the radio stations but EVERY radio station has to have bland lyrics devoid of any social or political comentary? (when you add Wilks License Co. and Saga Communications to buy up what ClearChannel/Citicasters/Premiere Radio don't own - they've often got ALL the stations). Check out your own city's radio stations by going to FCC website at:

http://www.fcc.gov/mb/audio/bickel/atlas2.html
and write down latitude-longitude coordinates for your city. Then go to the FCC website "FMQ FM Radio Database Query"
http://www.fcc.gov/mb/audio/fmq.html

Go near the bottom of the page to:
Stations Within a Radius
And enter – say – 70km radius
and the coordinates above
 
Paste this into Excel (if you've got it). Then hide or delete or move all the rows that don't play Popular Music. And see for yourself.

Censorship of political ideas from music sounds like what we criticize Iraq or Russia or China for doing

China has an army of folks patrolling their "internet borders" who shut down sites from dissidents as fast as they can set them up.

If some of the large Internet Service Providers have their way, it may only be a few years before a handful of big portals and ISPs control access to the Internet as well. This in an attempt to force everyone to pay more for accessing information and increase ISP profits.

Censorship is censorship - regardless of whether the rules are established by big governments or by big corporations like ClearChannel (and their rigid playlists).

Deciding not to buy Dixie Chicks CD's is also part of our right to dissent. Natalie has already apologized profusely for her error in judgement (not that anybody believes that she's sincere). For the person who wrote "social commentary by highly-intelligent singers (many from blue-collar upbringings) who were all too realistic about what comes from the warhawks of our world..." There's a reason they're singers--they're supposed to entertain. It's when they decide that their background (singing...or acting as it were) bestows upon them a special knowledge and intelligence re: foreign affairs and the idea that the rest of us value their opinions. Give me a break!!! When I want a valued opinion re: foreign affairs, etc., I'll ask those in the know! I certainly won't ask Natalie or Martin or Susan Sarandon--get it?

Hellooooo again! I just happened to be on the barnesandnoble.com site earlier this evening and noticed that one of the Dixie chicks albums is rated in the top five sellers right now. ClearChannel may control 82% of all the radio stations.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html...80894DB404482&fta=y
But they haven't mastered mind control yet. Obviously their campaign against Natalie Mains BACKFIRED.

Then there's Madonna - who obviously understands the arts of diplomacy far better than George Dubya and Dick Cheney (not to mention Don Rumsfeld who doesn't have a diplomatic bone in his body!). She creates a peace video that corporate monopoly musicdom threatened to ban - then withdraws it. She got loads of free publicity on stations like FOX news. All for a song with such bland lyrics you would never think of it as a peace song anyway. Without all this threatened censorship I would never have heard about her new album yet.

However - these are both well-established artists with multiple platinum albums under their belts. I am deeply concerned by ClearChannel's attempts at censorship of political and social free speech in rock/pop music - and what it means for new artists. After Sept. 11 ClearChannel banned the song "Duck and Run" by 3DoorsDown - one of my favorite bands (along with about 150 others). Now give me a break!

10 or 20 years ago some of the top acts in the nation sang very political lyrics in Top 40 songs. And a lot of Top 10 songs. And yes - Top 10 songs that openly and directly criticized the President.

What sissies – those who can't bear to hear someone express their opinion about a President who told us one falsehood after another:

Saddam linked to al Qaeda!
Saddam is about to get nukes! (he doesn't even have aluminum tubes to build some experimental centrifuges - remember? So not even at step one yet. And the documents "proving" that Iraq tried to buy uranium in Niger in 1998? Forgeries - really really bad forgeries at that. )
Saddam has anthrax! (so… does that mean he kept some of the anthrax the U.S. sold him in the late 1980s when Bush-Quayle cozied up to Iraq and he could get export permits for anything his evil heart desired? Along with cluster bombs and Condor II missile technology through CIA front companies by way of Chile and South Africa?).

Yet anyone who says Bush is telling the American public falsehoods is SOOO unpatriotic. Sheesh - what a bunch of sissies - sissies who can’t stand to hear a difference of opinion. I find most people who can’t stand to hear differences of opinion are just insecure because they can’t defend their position very well.

I heard a GI on TV say a couple days ago it’s important to him that Americans support the troops – even though they may disagree publicly with the presidents decision. And that I do. Hear hear! It’s the sissies and bullies in this country who aren’t putting anything on the line who are most eager to give away every last hard-won liberty of free speech, free assembly, and a free press to the likes of Ashcroft and Pointdexter (just go to Google and type in "pointdexter" along with some terms like "lieing to Congress under oath", "arms for hostages" "Iran-contra" "crack cocaine" and "Los Angeles." Now do you want this man to have a database on all your personal and financial information? (last of all type in "pointdexter" and "Total Information Awareness"). But don’t criticize the Bush administration – that would be UNPATRIOTIC.

Now compare what strong (?) words Natalie Mains and Madonna have to say about Bush and Iraq to what songs American listeners and radio stations vaulted into the Top 40 songs and albums just 10 or 20 years ago. These aren’t exactly warm and fuzzy songs by naïve peacelovers with flowers woven in their hair. These are hard-edged political and social commentary by highly-intelligent singers (many from blue-collar upbringings) who were all too realistic about what comes from the warhawks of our world.


****Dire Straits****
"Brothers in Arms", "Ride Across the River",
"The Man's Too Strong", "One World"
http://www.ada.com.tr/~modabasi/dslyr5.htm
http://www.purelyrics.com/index.php?album_detail=379


****Sting****
"Russians"
http://www.sting.com/discography/lyrics/lyrussia.html


****Don Henley****
"All She Wants to Do is Dance" (catch the references to U.S. involvement in bloody counterinsurgency campaigns in Latin America?) http://www.lyricsdomain.com/lyrics/24701/

"Them and Us" (about as direct a criticism of the president as you can get)
http://www.sing365.com/music/lyric.nsf/Son...E59482568E0001237D8

"If Dirt Were Dollars" (greed, vice and false patriotism - "we got a press no better than the public men")
http://www.sing365.com/music/lyric.nsf/Son...893482568E00012FD17

"Dirty Laundry" (Top10-gold song criticizes a press that sensationalizes death and enjoys building people up one week only to tear them down the next over trivial matters)
http://www.lyricsfreak.com/d/don-henley/86201.htm


****Bruce Springsteen****
"Born in the USA" (Got in a little hometown jam So they put a rifle in my hand Sent me off to a foreign land To go and kill the yellow man")
http://www.xs4all.nl/~maroen/engels/lyrics/bornusa.htm

"War" ("War what is it good for absolutely nothing")
http://www.sing365.com/music/lyric.nsf/Son...932482568710026057C

Springsteen says Afghanistan (surprisingly) well-handled.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/2158381.stm

March 20 2003 - Springsteen marks beginning of Iraq war by singing "War – what is it good for? absolutely nothing" to a packed stadium of 60,000 http://entertainment.news.com.au/common/st...55E%255Enbv,00.html

Do you hear anybody runnin’ over the Boss’s albums with a monster truck? No? I guess those bullies just pick on girls like Natalie Mains, huh? Real tough!


****U2****
"Bullet the Blue Sky" ("And I can see those fighter planes ….And I can see those fighter planes")
http://www.sing365.com/music/lyric.nsf/Son...F3648256896002B2B37

"God Part II" (Don't believe in the 60's The golden age of pop You glorify the past When the future dries up Heard a singer on the radio late last night He says he's gonna kick the darkness 'til it bleeds daylight I...I believe in love")
http://www.sing365.com/music/lyric.nsf/Son...B4B48256896002C6F3C

"New Years Day" ("And so we're told this is the golden age. And gold is the reason for the wars we wage… Nothing changes On New Year's Day On New Year's Day)
http://www.sing365.com/music/lyric.nsf/Son...CE348256896002EA535

"Seconds" ("And they're doing the atomic bomb Do they know where the dance comes from Yes they're doing the atomic bomb They want you to sing along Say goodbye, say goodbye)
http://www.sing365.com/music/lyric.nsf/Son...E5548256896002FE0F2

"Sunday Bloody Sunday" (another song ClearChannel banned from the airwaves in the days after Sept. 11)
http://www.sing365.com/music/lyric.nsf/Son...25D482568960030DE57

"Mothers of the Disappeared" tribute to organization in Latin America who refused to forget the tens of thousands who were "disappeared" by military and security forces – whose officers were trained and armed by the U.S. (
http://www.sing365.com/music/lyric.nsf/Son...B0448256896002E916C


That’s just scratching the surface of what’s on the web - I just stumbled on a site that’s a compendium of nothing but songs about nuclear war:
http://www.inthe80s.com/nuclearwar/index.shtml


 What happened? The Telecommunications Act of 1996 happened. ClearChannel and Saga Communications happened.

The Trouble With Corporate Radio: The Day the Protest Music Died
By BRENT STAPLES
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/20/opinion/20THU4.html

Please, someone can you tell me – can you find any similar songs on the radio by Top 40 mainstream rock/pop artists since the Telecommunications Act of 1996 kicked into high gear? Particularly since Clear Channel took control of 82% of all popular music stations? If you know of some please tell us – I’d really really like to think there is still some freedom of speech in the music industry.

But the closest I can think of to some real political and social commentary by rock/pop singers on mainstream radio are Dave Matthews singing a few songs like "Too Much" (oops – that was released just before Act of 1996 wasn’t it?), one or two songs by Sheryl Crowe (that didn’t get airplay). At least in my music collection.

It isn't that American listeners didn't buy albums by Dire Straits, Don Henley, Bruce Springsteen and U2. All of them played Top 10 songs. All of them played POLITICAL Top 10 songs critical explicitly or implicitly critical of war-hawk Presidents. No, we've been Censored. Censored by one of Bush's and the Republican Party’s biggest campaign contributors.

"Channels of Influence"
March 25, 2003, New York Times
By PAUL KRUGMAN
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/25/opinion/...en=1bcd3d7a662cd65a

Clear Channel: an Empire Built on Deregulation By JEFF LEEDS
Monday, February 25, 2002 Los Angeles Times http://events.calendarlive.com/top/1,1419,...etail-52085,00.html

And you’re defending censorship? You’re defending censorship by a huge monopoly which requires bribes from artists to get a hit? (from $20,000 to as much as $400,000 through indie promoters – for "research") Censorship by a huge monopoly that makes bribes to further enhance its monopoly power? (doing favors like organizing pro-war rallies for the Bush administration – at the same time Colin Powell’s son considers removing the last remaining FCC restrictions on Clear Channel gobbling up even more stations). That’s not democracy. That’s a corporate empire in bed with a military empire.



****************
Dire Straits
Brothers in Arms (1985)
****************

These mist covered mountains
Are a home now for me
But my home is the lowlands
And always will be
Some day you'll return to
Your valleys and your farms
And you'll no longer burn
To be brothers in arm

Through these fields of destruction
Baptism of fire
I've watched all your suffering
As the battles raged higher
And though they did hurt me so bad
In the fear and alarm
You did not desert me
My brothers in arms

There's so many different worlds
So many different suns
And we have just one world
But we live in different ones

Now the sun's gone to hell
And the moon's riding high
Let me bid you farewell
Every man has to die
But it's written in the starlight
And every line on your palm
We're fools to make war
On our brothers in arms

Cancer: Well, I don't listen to radio in general, because it all sucks, but come on, NPR is a much more transparent attempt to
"think for the listener", and that's paid for by your taxes!!

Maybe just stop listening to ALL radio, or get a satellite radio
system so you can pick from hundreds of different genres of
music. Or just find out what's new (or old) in the types of music you like, and get it all online, paying for concert tickets of artists you like enough (which gives THEM the most money anyway).

If you WANT to be 'programmed', there is no shortage of those
waiting in line for the opportunity!

AH, HELLOOOOOOOOO! This is America, we have the right (and obligation) to dissent. If you don't understand that respecting that right is paramount, then don't bother to call yourself AMerican. Just ask Abe Lincoln, Ben Franklin and Mark Twain....all spoke out against wars the USof A Government fought.
Other countries envy what we have, don't abuse it by abusing each other. Disrespecting another American, just because you don't agree with their position, divides our COUNTRY. Divide and conquer. The corporations are loving it. Already they own the media, they have bought and eroded constitutional protections through policy change. They sway our politicians with bribes and promises of jobs after office. They have the advantage of presenting 'news' in any fashion they want to a public so numbed by and addicted to television that we question nothing. WAKE UP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The truth is Natalie Mains has cast a "Hanoi Jane" shadow over herself that will never leave. She thought her statement would create more popularity for herself...it did, all BAD !!!! Her talent is worthless for me!!!

The Dixie Chicks exercised their 1st Amendment Rights...I also have the freedom to buy their CD's and I won't evr again.
I love country music and live in New York City

I wasn't a Dixie Chicks fan before this incident and the fact that they slammed the president is going to make me want to rush out and buy any of their music, that's for sure. I personally would like to understand just how ridding the world of Saddam Hussein makes George Bush a bad guy? How is it the people of Iraq are better off with him in power? As of this war, the US Army has clearly established two important facts about the Saddam Regime. 1) Iraq does indeed posess chemical weapons and 2) That Al Qaeda operatives exist and train in Iraq. So what you're basically saying is that we should simply allow this to go on and what the hell if another 9/11 occurs, its only thousands of American lives, right? Take your head out of your ass! This is the land of the free and home of the brave for a reason people! Our armed forces and commander in chief are doing exactly what they are supposed to do and doing a damn good job of it! Stop being so ignorant! I'm sure Al Gore would be content to just sit back and watch our country fall apart at the hands of terrorists but GW is a man of God and a man of action and a man of his word and he's going to get this ugly job done. Fuck the Dixie Chick's, They are sad pathetic excuses for American's, let alone Texan's.

The Dixie Chicks have every right to say whatever they want about the President or their views on the war or whatever and the rest of us have the right to say that we no longer want to buy their CD's or attend their concerts--see how well that works! It wasn't any radio talkshow that made me feel that way--it was me who made me feel that way!

I'll bet you one thing, though; they wouldn't have stood up at a concert in Texas and said that which is why I think that they displayed not just stupidity but cowardice in their choice of venue. A little like badmouthing your Mom to strangers. Unlike some of those here, I was a fan of the Dixie Chicks, but they won't sell me another ticket or CD.

Anyone here read 1984?
Well, along with the Patriot Act,(that was passes 6 wks. after Sept. 11th) we are allowing for Orwell's frightening predictions to go beyond the expansion of the "pen register" exception in wiretap law. Clearchannel is a participant in the uprising of the "thought police"-- the one prediction most readers found to be impossible. Depicting what music we are "allowed" to hear because of such an incident is an outrage and a completele mockery of the United States citizen. Well aware of the influence Clearchannel has in the US this action was used as a method to think for the average listener, therefore labeling us ignorant. I too urge everyone to take action and reverse Clearchannel's attempt to boycott the Dixie Chicks--buy all of their CD's and cut Clearchannel's stations from your list.

The Dixie Chicks are very talented but I will never, ever purchase their CD's again!! Please musicians and entertainers-don't use the stage for your unsolicited opinions-just amuse us-that is your job-and that is what you are paid for. I don't say this out of hatred-It is just inappropriate to present yourselves in public for one purpose and to use that stage for another purpose.

Edited by author 04-03-2003 03:56 PM
Certain brash and redneck women can dress themselves in $1000 designer clothes, pay $100 for a Hollywood make-up artist, but when they open their mouths it is all to clear: they're still stupid, self-centered, white trash idiots at heart. I hope freedom comes soon to the Iraqi people, that our troops will come home soon--pround and safe--,and that the Chicks will never sell another album.

Fuck those unpatriotic bitches!!! How dare they badmouth the very people who fight for their rights to say whatever the hell they wish. How can they write songs about war/Americanism and publically bash EVERYONES RIGHT TO FREEDOM>>>HYPOCRITS!!!

Now, i am not from Texas, BUT i can guarentee you that i am not the only Minnesotan who will no longer listen to them, or any radio station that plays their songs!

http://www.pittsburghgasprices.com/retail_...t=US+%24%2FG&num=20

Now lookee here for the best thing outta Texas. gas prices down since the war started - is this down to Dubya or the Chicks. MY Blood pressure up - down to the DC's

1st Amendment - pump up da volume.

The First Amendment does not guarantee the right to have your views respected by the public or even that the public will not boycot you as a result. The first Amendment and the prohibition against censorship is only against the government. Put simply, the only thing the First Amendment guarantees is that the Chicks will not be arrested or held criminally liable for what she said. The consequences for her remarks are for the public to exercise their freedom of association also guranteed under the First Amendment. Those consequences are hers to bear! an outrageous and boneheaded thing.

There is a simple response to this madness.

All musicians (of any sort), music lovers, supporters of the arts or people who value their first amendment rights should respond by buying all of the Dixie Chicks CD's, and boycotting Clear Channel or any radio stations or music stores that boycott the Dixie Chicks.

This is not about whether the war is right or wrong. This is about true patriotism...refusal to revert to the McCarthyism of the fifties...protecting what our country truly stands for.

I am a jazz sax player. I never even heard of the Chicks before this boycott. My band and I went out and bought every Dixie Chicks' CD, in support of musicians everywhere and freedom of speech. And you know what?? They sound good, too!!!

I think this boycott will backfire. The longer these smallminded people keep the issue on the front pages, the more exposure the group will get. Fans of everybody from Pavarotti to Eminem should realize that we need to give the Chicks as much support as we can.

Edited by author 03-27-2003 07:01 PM
_x:

But I do not get your point Dutch about looking around or what "high-falutin' academics" have to do with the subject? (Albeit I freely admit, I did wander some in my lengthy rant.)

Just a small part of your comment, responding to Dogzilla, about how some people never cite any evidence and make statements which are really just opinion. In cases of statistics or scientific research, sure, one should cite sources. 9-of-10 times, though, arguments are really about common knowledge, and demanding that someone "cite sources" is just a shady debate tactic.

Just pointing out that you don't have to be a University researcher to know that businesses have "Support Our Troops" signs or that the environment is becoming hostile to minority viewpoints...or to point out that it's pretty clear this Clear Channel thing is not just a coincidence.

I "cry Nazi" over this because Clear Channel is not an individual: It's a robotic and insect-like carnivore which is already harming the cultural landscape even without the pro-war propagandizing. Corporations don't exercise free speech -- they coerce public opinion.

Even if you do believe a corporate executive, for whatever reason, has the right to direct his employees/resources toward changing public opinion, you have to accept that with great power comes great responsibility. Actions on a larger scale carry a larger ethical responsibility/burden/impact/etc.

The flip side of this, of course, is that if you believe their actions are good, then Clear Channel is responsible for "more good" than an individual. I don't think their actions are good.

_x sez:

>Interestingly enough Dogzilla follows the common
>path that I have noted putting oneself in the same
>boat as majority of the anti-war, anti-bush,
>anti-American crowd whom I have dialogued with
>who seem to have instinctual non-factual comments
>followed by petty personal or verbally abusive
>attacks.(Naive, Wacko, Sheeplike)

How about "anti-American," or, from another _x post, "pro-criminal?"

Well, _x, I'm sure you can see the irony of this - calling me and many like me (very anti-war and anti-Bush) anti-American. I am most assuredly not. Lumping the three together is a non-factual comment and a verbally abusive attack.

As for pro-criminal, what's that about? One could make the factual statement that a Bush supporter is pro-criminal, i.e., Bush was caught driving drunk, a crime, therefore he is a criminal. Hence, pro-Bush = pro-Criminal. What hogwash! The only reason to make a point like that is to slander and disparage the other guy.

Would the pro-War ralliers be "a little ashamed if they knew" they were marching alongside KKK members, members of a terrorist organization? Should they be? They're not marching in support of white supremacy, they're marching to show support of the war in Iraq, as are the KKK members in the crowd.

If I march alongside Dubya in a rally condemning the making of sausages from little kids, it doesn't mean I subscribe to a single one of his other beliefs, it just means we both agree the wee 'uns shouldn't be kinderwurst! (Or Uter-Wurst)

Let's keep the intellectual rigor high here, folks, no matter what our co-ordinates in the 3-D politico-sphere.

Cap'n Leotard, want your money back?

UK here. V. few have heard of DC's. There is no such thing as bad publicity. perhpas if they re-write "Earls gotta die" as "Dubyas gotta die"?

Once again, proof that Celebrity Math pertains here:

Days of Old: BoingBoing = Infinite Interest

Today: BoingBoing minus Liberal Propaganda = zero

Can we have at least a FEW articles in sequence where someone DOESN'T have an agenda - the SAME boilerplate agenda - to push every time?

Oh yes, and lest you forget for the umpteenth time, Gore SHOULD have been the President, Gore SHOULD have been the President. Yes, we know! But what difference does it really make until 2004? But Gore SHOULD have been the President, Gore SHOULD have been the President......

Edited by author 03-26-2003 06:34 AM
hornsofthedevil: If you re-read my 'rant', you discover that I accused them of overall "establishment" and "Democratic" bias. I didn't say "the op-eds", or "the front page", was "liberal", I meant the slant of the paper as a whole, and most especially non-op-ed reporting. In fact I don't believe I used the word "liberal" in my entire piece.

I'll readily agree that their op-ed page is often surprisingly broad in the viewpoints it offers, and that's what I generally still read the New York Times for.

But I was speaking of the paper as a whole, and most especially their non-oped coverage.

And you'll note if you re-read my piece, you'll also note that I don't have a problem with their bias per se, only the ongoing pretense that they don't have one.

Of COURSE they have an editorial bias, every paper does. It's just that Howard is so far to the left (not liberal, in my mind, he's about as far from a classical liberal, which I consider myself to be, as you can get), Left in the most vile PC fashion that their 'news' coverage is no longer 'all the news that's fit to print'.

And I have NO PROBLEM WITH THAT, so long as people know that that's what's up.

And I love their variety of op-eds, but when it's pure facts (was that quote in context?) in the news of the day, I'm more likely to get gods own truth from The Daily Hindu.
They are very averse to factual corrections that have a political impact.

Edited by author 03-26-2003 01:15 AM
David,
   I dispute your rant about the NYTimes having a "liberal" slant. I have a general distrust of all news media, but i live in NYC and i read the NYTimes every day- simply because it is better than the 4th grade reading level NYPost and Daily News. My father used to always go on and on about how liberal the NYTimes is.

I don't buy it. I go through the WHOLE paper during my long ride on the subway. The Op Ed pages are my favorite part becaus they have both liberal AND conservative viewpoints. Simply printing a liberal view point does not declare that paper's allegiance when there is a William Saffire piece on the facing page.
I support military action in Iraq and never once have i found an article covering the conflict that wasn't as objective as possible.

I think the bashing of the NYTimes is a load of crap. I read the damn thing and i'm an NRA member.

> a crowd gathered in Louisiana to watch a 33,000-pound tractor > smash a collection of Dixie Chicks CD's, tapes and other
> paraphernalia. To those familiar with 20th-century European
> history it seemed eerily reminiscent of. . .

To those familiar with 20th century American history, it sounds like the nonsense that happened when John Lennon made that crack about the Beatles being bigger than God.

I should have added, btw, that of course ecoterrorists have destroyed quite a few SUVs, those usually they prefer arson rather than straight-ahead trashing.

"And the wacko who's comparing this to the ad for GM - you do realize that they are two completely different things, right? That until people start trashing GM cars it's not even remotely comparable?"

Actually, I remember a recent news story where some anti-SUV individual or group had bought an SUV and then was selling the right to give it a whack with a sledgehammer.

But this precisely illustrates my point. Suppose some environmentalists decide to get a used SUV and destroy it. Would people be complaining that this is an example of Nazi-like tactics?

Then why do we get this nonsense when people want to destroy their Dixie Chicks CDs?

It's the same thing with boycotts. When gay groups and others initiate boycotts of Dr. Laura or that Michael Savage idiot, they're using their First Amendment rights. But the second a group comes along to urge a boycott of the Dixie Chicks . . . well, all of a sudden there a bunch of retrograde red necks with no respect for dissenting views.

I guess I'm just too much of a Kantian. I don't see how people can keep a straight face and essentially say "It's okay for people who agree with me to carry out a consumer boycott, but it's completely inappropriate for people who disagree with me to carry out a consumer boycott."

At 04:49 PM 3/25/2003, you wrote:

>hope that they will bring suit against Cumulus Media. I doubt
>that
>their civil rights have been violated, but their access to
>markets
>has certainly been buggered, and that's reason enough to sue.


Where on earth did the Dixie Chicks get a right to 'access to markets'?
Getting access to markets is generally done with things called advertising and marketing.

No one is conspiring to deprive them of the ability to buy ads anywhere.
If they want more access to markets they feel they are being deprived of by Clear Channel, I suggest they strong arm their label into allowing legitimate distribution of moderate quality mp3's of their songs.
Ask Janis Ian (sp?), seems to work quite well. Seems to work quite well in print also (ask Cory or anyone in the Baen Free Library).

As Danny O'Brien and others have put it, creative artists of all kinds are in much greater danger from obscurity than piracy.

Maybe it will take getting blacklisted by Clear Channel for an artist to figure out that free distro. of slightly better than radio quality mp3's will drive more
sales that the sham that radio has become.

On the topic of liberal/conservative cryptic/open bias, the NYT piece
is clearly labeled as Opinion/Editorial. Unbiased reporting does not
appear in Op/Ed pieces.

The title of this QuickTopic(sm), "Clearchannel behind Dixie Chicks
boycott" is simply wrong, as far as I can tell. Cumulus Media and
Clear Channel are competitors. The NYT article conveniently
juxtaposed the two media companies, and an inattentive reader
might infer that Cumulus was owned by Clear Channel.

As to the removal of the Dixie Chicks from Cumulus Media's
playlists, I'm not surprised. It'll play well in Texas, and welding
your brand to the American Flag is good business these days.

If I were the Dixie Chicks, though, I would capitalize on the ban.
I've always liked them, but don't own any of their music. I thought
that now would be a good time to buy a couple. Amazon will
ship them "in 24 hours". The Chicks have made nice (read their
statements at Dixiechicks.com), and if that doesn't work, I would
hope that they will bring suit against Cumulus Media. I doubt that
their civil rights have been violated, but their access to markets
has certainly been buggered, and that's reason enough to sue.

I actually kind of prefer it when media outlets, like European newpapers, don't make a pretense of being 'fair and balanced', but flat out admit what their spin is.

Then I can go and integrate all of those view points, using my brain, and filter out what appeared to actually happen.

THAT's what bugs me so much about the NYT, and their supposed objectivity. (and I'm in agreement with whoever said their spin was more establishment than anything else.
But after the editorial heavy hand on the sports page mentioned below about their coverage of Augusta National,
I can't see how one could deny it's the Democratic Establishment they are spinning in favor of. Mustn't deviate from the party line on race/gender baiting).

That said, the only American paper I can filter bias from as easily in most in Europe is the WSJ, their spin is simply "what will make rich folks the most money?", which is fairly easy to filter.

Not that the NYT is as spun as Le Figaro, or even Le Monde for all that, but I just wish they'd own up to it.

It's not what's in the bottle, it's what's on the label that I have a problem with.

(Oh and the fact that their websites' "I forgot my password" feature has never worked ONCE for me in over 5 years making me constantly get more silly dummy accounts).

Edited by author 03-25-2003 05:42 PM
Dutch I am wary of labeling an argument. Personally I do not see the point in trashing the Dixie chicks CDs, nor would I attend an event that did that. Nor do I think a rush to legislate a ban on the word "French" from our menus is productive for that matter.

I do not think anyone should find it surprising or "illicit" that those who support our government (clear channel, their audience)would organize rallies to support troops or even marketing coups like the CD thing.

If Xeni really wanted to point out something illicit it might be some of those responsible for organizing some of the peace rallies and their affiliations. (pro-terrorist, pro-criminal, pro-nazi, pro-communist types.)I think that some of those who genuinely oppose war, would be a little ashamed if they knew who they were marching alongside and their affiliations. Related story here

I have to admit Dutch does a good job of proving my point by calling LoveGravy "self deceived". However, I am glad we can agree on something. But I do not get your point Dutch about looking around or what "high-falutin' academics" have to do with the subject? (Albeit I freely admit, I did wander some in my lengthy rant.)

What exactly is the "connection between Clear Channel executive management and the Bush administration"?

What's the argument here again? This liberal vs. conservative nonsense is just a distraction. It's a slimy tactic, and no coincidence that a conservative brought it up.

Assuming Paul Krugman is a Devil-worshiping pedophile, and the NYT is amassing an army of them to rape and pillage conservative neighborhoods, does that change the fact that Clear Channel is organizing rallies? It doesn't change the fact that there is a connection between Clear Channel executive management and the Bush administration either.

I'm not just accusing LoveGravy of deceptive debate tactics. I'm accusing LoveGravy of self-deception. It's like a Christian afraid to read science books because they're written by heathens. You can disagree over whether there's anything wrong with what Clear Channel is doing, but don't refuse to acknowledge it by changing the subject.

In response to __x's comment: Look around. Turn on the radio. Shop at the mall. Eat at KFC. There are "facts" all around us, and you don't have to be some high-falutin' academic to see them. I do agree with you, that it's not wise to insult people -- it will just make them tune you out -- and I'm about to tune you out.

Interesting spin..."our" freedom of speech: good. "Their" freedom of speech: scary and Nazi-like.

The irony is that the closest there's ever been to a popularly accepted, credible mass fascist movement in America was in the 1930s, with Charles Lindbergh's America Firsters. They were vociferously against war in Europe; The US shouldn't interfere, but leave the continent to its own affairs. Roosevelt was by far a bigger threat to world peace than Hitler. And so on, and so on; but they rallied and they protested and valiantly pissed into the wind and whined when they didn't get their way...

Sounding just a bit familiar, mmm? And remember: this was the right, at the time.

Edited by author 03-25-2003 04:53 PM
I think your comments are articulate and credible opinion LoveGravy. Personally I like to hear from both sides and those in-between, it is through reasonable factual discourse that we are enabled to discover the truth.

Interestingly enough Dogzilla follows the common path that I have noted putting oneself in the same boat as majority of the anti-war, anti-bush, anti-American crowd whom I have dialogued with who seem to have instinctual non-factual comments followed by petty personal or verbally abusive attacks.(Naive, Wacko, Sheeplike) So far almost all those I have debated with seem to follow this pattern: They never provide facts for their opinions, if they do it is always an unsubstantiated opinion of facts that is used for proofs, and almost always personal attacks, diminutive terms are made on those who have a differing opinion, the US, or the president, and often a measure of profanity. This does not win points in my book. If one can reasonably point to obvious facts, do so in a respectful and non-spurious manner, and avoid unnecessary vulgarity and/or name calling, it gives ones point credibility. I have read studies that that claim the stronger someone believes something to be true the less likely they can reasonably debate their point, be objective, and research available information.

NYT recently reported the war was being won by Iraq. What foolishness. In five days we have only lost 20 lives in comparison to the 120 lost in the first 3 days of GWI. It is just poor journalism regardless of bias.
All journalism is biased. No matter what the source. However the more objective, fair, and balanced it is the better the quality. And no I do not buy the whole relativistic line that people see what they want to see. If you read a blog like Where is Raed and claim he is on the side of "the protesters" you are plain wrong. He is on the side of the Iraqi people as he should be. And as most Americans are. Is he cheering those who are bombing his country, no. Would you? He clearly stated what is happening now should have happened along time ago. Which clearly means he supports the end of Saddam's evil 35 years of terror. (I pray for his safety.)(ED-Salam Pax not Sadaam!)

The fact is that the last 40 years have been increasingly biased news reporting for the liberal left, agencies like Fox have been a welcome relief. They are biased without question, but they do a good job of being fairly objective. That is why (much to the pain of the other networks) they are #1. This is what is great about America, we have access to plenty of opinion from all sides. Cries of propaganda are silly. Anyone who has ever lived in a communist state like say N. Korea will confirm this. The government carefully processes all information and communications and suppress all apposing views. The State Department, The Whitehouse, The Pentagon, rightly should communicate their view, that is not propaganda. I think they have done a fairly good job (though biased) of fairly objective reporting. For example they did not try to cover up the fact that there were no WMD found at a captured chemical site. You can be sure almost any other nation sharing our political situation would not be forthright about that. Though tarnished, though corrupt in areas, America is still a nation of the people, by the people, and for the people. I am proud to be called American. Do I support our troops? Yes. Do I support freeing the oppressed people of Iraq and stabilizing the Middle East? Yes. Do I question our governments motives and methods in achieving these things? Yes. Do I question the need for loss of life? Yes. We all should.

Sorry to write a book. But you do not know how many times I write responses to posts here or on other sites, and don't post them, knowing they are mostly blustery emotional reactions that have no real value. Hopefully this isn't one of them. But is so thanks for bearing with me. And thanks to the good people at Boingx2 who have created and maintain this forum. Kudos to you Americans right or left who love freedom, equality, justice, and the pursuit of happiness which is the American way.

/m22
What's the source of that quote, LG? National Review?

Amazing what passes for "liberal" among conservatives. The NYT is more liberal than, say, the WSJ, but in the bigger picture, it is very establishment.

"Consider the example of America's "newspaper of record," The New York Times - it has always been regarded as editorially liberal, and under the direction of Howell Raines it has become brazenly so. Its raw partisanship has made persistent critics out of such occasional Times contributors as Andrew Sullivan and its ideological conformity is so stultifying that two sports - not political- columnists, one a Pulitzer prize winner, were not allowed to deviate from the editorial line on whether Tiger Woods should boycott the Augusta National to protest the golf club's failure to admit women. Unlike the conservative press, The New York Times doesn't wear its ideological label. As syndicated columnist Thomas Sowell has written, "Anyone listening to Rush Limbaugh knows that what he is saying is his own opinion. But people who listen to the news on ABC, CBS, or NBC may imagine that they are getting the facts, not just those facts which fit the ideology of the media, with the media's spin."

Patrick,

I don't think you understand what a liberal slant is...

It doesn't mean that every article is 100% liberal, it just means that overall most of their articles are in favor of the liberal position. There are dozens of sites that analyze this, some even tried to do it objectively, by counting how often terms with negative connotations, like "right wing" and "left wing" are used (to label extremists, and NYT used 2X - 3X more extremist terms with negative connotations to describe Republicans than they did Dems).

Saying "Sure they support the Liberal side 80% of the time, but they supported impeaching Clinton so they MUST not be liberal" is a weak argument by any standard. They also suggested using force in the situation in Israel, and they've also written articles that were negative against anti-war protestors, but the fact is that MOST of what they put out there is liberal.


Mike and Patrick,

If you're looking for black and white, then look elsewhere. Just as Fox news will run uncomplimentary stories on Bush, are you prepared to say Fox news IS NOT a Republican-friendly newscast? By your logic then they are "fair and balanced" which, as right-leaning centerist (Replublican in my Fiscal policies, liberal in my social policies) I'll freely admit that Fox News leans hard to the Right, despite the fact that they occasionally run the left's point of view.

>As reported by NewsMax

Heh, thats the Godwin for threads about media.

>HEAVILY liberal slanted paper

Obviously, you've never read Friedman, Safire, or bothered to see what they do and don't report.

If this is the far-left I'm completely and utterly scared to see a right-wing paper.

Phil Brennan, NewsMax.com
Monday, Aug. 5, 2002

They're at it again over at the New York Times, front-paging rigged polls to support their own far-left-wing agenda.

The saga of the New York Times' attempts to manipulate public opinion continues, this time with the paper trying to prove that most supporters of President Bush disagree with his policy on regime change in Iraq – a conclusion refuted by NewsMax.com's online polls, which show as many as 90 percent of Americans back Bush's determination to remove Saddam Hussein from power.

As reported by NewsMax July 12, the Times used the same tactic in an attempt to show that the public is opposed to arming airline pilots in the cockpit when polls showed exactly the opposite. (See: N.Y. Times Tries to Manipulate Public Opinion on Arming Pilots.)

As NewsMax noted at the time, the "citadel of 'mainstream' media once again proved just how biased it can be, especially in pursuit of the liberal agenda."

The tactic involves sending one of its liberal reporters out to question people about their opinions on an important issue. By hook or crook, the Times apparently always manages to find a majority who agree with its own left-wing anti-Bush opinions.

This time they sent one Michael Janofsky to what the Times described as "solid Bush country, an upscale Phoenix suburb where the favorite flavor of Republican is conservative and independents lean to the right."

In an article titled "Backing Bush All the Way, Up to but Not Into Iraq," Janofsky reports that he conducted a massive 24 interviews over two days, and while he uncovered "some people favoring a strike against Mr. Hussein to prevent him from using weapons of mass destruction against the United States and its allies, "many more argued against an American offensive."

He also made the startling discovery, "Democrats and political independents interviewed were nearly unanimous in their opposition to an invasion," adding that "most Republicans felt the same way."

The Times reporter also took pains to add that "people interviewed" were unhappy with the Bush administration's failure to come up with sound reasons for launching an attack against "a country the president has said is part of 'an axis of evil.' "

Not remarkably, this egregiously slanted poll was able to find only one person out of the 24 subjects interviewed who back the president on Iraq. One single person in this alleged hotbed of conservative Republicanism.

"While several people said they would back administration plans if more information convinced them the cause was just, only one expressed unconditional support for military action," Janofsky reported with what we assume was a straight face.

Finding Just the Right Sample

Wrote an irate Andrew Sullivan on AndrewSullivan.com: "When opinion polls show overwhelming support for the war against Iraq, how does the New York Times find a sample in which only one person out of dozens feels that way?"

Said Sullivan, editor of the New Republic and a vocal critic of the Times under the editorship of ultra-left-winger Howell Raines, "The only conceivable answer is that the reporter was simply told to find opponents of war and write his story on those lines."

Understanding why the Times went to such an effort to create the utterly false impression that a majority of Republicans oppose the Bush Iraq policy is simple. All one needs to do is read the editorial that appeared in the same issue of the "paper of record" that attempts to separate 9-11 from the case of Iraq, thus taking it out of the context of the war on terrorism, which enjoys near-universal support among Americans.

"One argument for war often floated by officials ought to be disposed of quickly. Military action against Iraq may be justified, but not in response to the terrorism of Sept. 11 or Al Qaeda. To date there is no reliable evidence that Baghdad had any serious connection to either. The dangers posed by Iraq have more to do with protecting American interests in the Middle East than with warding off fresh terrorist attacks on American cities," the Times editorialized.

All of which, wrote Sullivan "is preposterous. The only reason invading Iraq is being discussed at all is because of September 11 and what it taught us."

It's more than preposterous, Andrew. It's downright shameful. But that's what we've learned to expect from the once great New York Times since it became a socialist Democrat propaganda organ.



So, which is more sinister: Overt anti-protesting, or covert manipulation of the truth?

Edited by author 03-25-2003 02:46 PM
Ah yes, the liberal New York Times. That would be the New York Times that supported the impeachment of Bill Clinton, right? Devious, these "unabashedly liberal papers," taking all these conservative positions. Hang in there, LoveGravy! Don't be fooled!

You might want to look into fixing that shift key, though.

Of course, part of why this conversation has so quickly turned into a right-wing shriek-a-thon is Xeni's original reference to the piece as a "NYT op-ed." That suggests that it was an official Times editorial. Look again. It's the latest installment of Paul Krugman's column. And Krugman, like other Times columnists (undead Nixon valet William Safire comes to mind) regularly expresses opinions that flatly contradict the Times's official positions. Moreover, Krugman is pretty much universally acknowledged to be the most staunchly liberal of the Times's several columnists. So yelling about the supposed "unabashed liberalism" of the really rather centrist New York Times is pretty thoroughly besides the point. Of course, people do tend to prefer the songs they know how to play.

Dogzilla, you are GROSSLY misinformed.

I'm saying the NYT is an UNABASHEDLY LIBERAL PAPER and has ALWAYS BEEN LONG BEFORE THIS ARTICLE, not because of this article.

If you somehow don't think the NYT is a HEAVILY liberal slanted paper, then you need help.

Amazing. I can't beleive there are actually loons on this board that are claiming an NYT liberal bias because they've shown links between Clear Channel and the Bush Administration. Are you really so naive that you think this is just a coincidence? What fucking planet do you live on, man? "Oh no, Clear Channel radio stations just happened to take their own local initiative to organize pro-war rallies at the same time in the same manner at geographically disparate locations around the country."

And the wacko who's comparing this to the ad for GM - you do realize that they are two completely different things, right? That until people start trashing GM cars it's not even remotely comparable? Not to mention that you can call bullshit on the GM ad on lack of internal consistency alone, given that GM has claimed that "green" technologies such as fuel-cell automobiles are the future and have essentially bet their entire company on them.

Some of you people are alarmingly sheeplike.

I guess having a MEDIA MONOPOLY BEHEMOUTH like AOL/TW against the war is OK, but if ClearChannel supports the war then it's the 3rd Reich all over again....

"Well, Brian, there is a major difference between the actions of a few ants and the actions of the 900-pound Gorilla."

All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.

Edited by author 03-25-2003 01:55 PM
Michael Dillon, who are you talking about, the people running over the CDs or the guy who wrote the article? :P

Am I the only one here who sees the irony in Michael Dillon's post? Or am I somehow wrong in thinking that ridicule is covered under free speech too?

According to Little Green Footballs, the first version of the article that he read online specifically used the word Kristallnacht in place of the ellipses; later when he went to link it, the replacement with ellipses had been made.

http://www.littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog...lizes_Kristallnacht

Isn't it funny? We are in the Gulf (supposedly) fighting for the American way of life, and yet when someone actually expresses themselves like an American, they are ridiculed for it.

The NYT is, and always has been, the most staunchly liberal publication out there that still tries to keep the guise of "fair and balanced reporting". Anyone who is familiar with the publication will be neither surprised, or upset, but this piece.

Where I DO have an issue is when a supposedly "NEUTRAL" source isn't, and people are fooled into thinking they are getting balanced news. Fox News does this for the Republicans, and the NYT and CNN does it for the libs. The danger is that someone who DOESN'T know the alignment of the news source is fooled into thinking they are getting a balanced view.

Since Ted Turner stopped micromanaging CNN, it's gotten better, but the NYT is still a liberal rag and Fox News is still a conservative source.

Anyone reading this story shouldn't be fooled by it. He talks about how "Pro-War protesters are such a minority" but doesn't bother to mention that A) a majority of Amricans support the war, and B) majorities, especially ones that are getting their way, DO NOT NEED TO PROTEST....

It's like winning a court case then having a "Yay I won!" protest... Silliness.

The article is laughable, and is so foolishly lopsided that noone should be tricked into it. If he wants to draw comparisons to the 3rd reich, I could certainly do a MUCH better job comparing it to Saddam Hussein than ANYONE could comparing it to the pro-war protestors, yet somehow that escapes him.

Well, Brian, there is a major difference between the actions of a few ants and the actions of the 900-pound Gorilla.

It's interesting that if you don't like a GM ad disparaging public transportation, the immediate response is "lets file a lawsuit" or "lets complain to the state" but when a private group of individuals get together to destroy copies of CDs they've already purchased, suddenly we're entering Third Reich territory.

On the one hand, I think the CD destruction here is a relatively minor grab for attention, but the difference between then and now (Beatles, disco, now) is that those eras didn't have anything like the heavy-handed central control of much of our airwaves. That does make this scarier.

This disgusts me. No matter what your opinion on war, last I knew this was still America, the First Amendment was still highly regarded, and media professionals (and I use the term loosely) were still bound by industry ethics to report, with as little bias as possible, the truth on both sides of any equation.

Was it not the strong desire to establish a society of free thinking, free speech and free spirit that birthed America in the first place? Were they not running from exactly that (the inability to voice dissent or criticism of their government without persecution) when they came to this country, established this nation and drafted its principles?


At what point does the term "America" begin to resemble the antithesis of itself?

------
Tonya - Albuquerque, NM
www.adventurejournalist.com/notebook

I don't think the destruction of Dixie Chicks CDs is very reminiscent of Nazi book-burning. It's more reminiscent of the burning of Beatles records after Lennon made the "bigger than Jesus" comment, or the burning of Disco records during the peak of the "Disco sucks" movement. Stupid, but trivial.

I'm somewhat amused that the NYT would write something as vitrolic as that against CC. (Not that it's all fire and pain, but that it just seems strongly worded for one large media giant to be saying about a kindred giant, is all.)

On a completely seperate topic, I declare scavenger hunt! There are two obvious anti-war song references in that article, and one not-so-obvious. Find all three. First person to win gets nothing.

Well, look at the bright side, they were major-label CDs.

It can't happen here. Naa.