Apparently the Times didn't shower quite enough praise yesterday on the anti-war country (former country?) band Dixie Chicks winning 5 Grammy Awards Sunday night, because it follows up Tuesday with a "what does it mean?" article by Jeff Leeds, "Grammy Sweep by Dixie Chicks Is Seen as a Vindication."
"The Dixie Chicks’ big win at the Grammy Awards on Sunday exposed ideological tensions between the music industry’s Nashville establishment and the broader, more diverse membership of the Recording Academy, which chooses the Grammy winners, according to voters and music executives interviewed afterward.
"To some, the voting served not only as a referendum on President Bush’s handling of the Iraq war, but also on what was perceived as country music’s rejection -- and radio’s censorship -- of the trio.
"At the awards on Sunday, the band -- Natalie Maines, Martie Maguire and Emily Robison -- swept all five of the Grammy categories in which it was nominated, including the top three -- album, record and song of the year -- the first time all three have been swept in 14 years.
"The awards amounted to vindication for the Dixie Chicks, who found their career sidetracked in 2003 after the singer Ms. Maines told a London concert audience shortly before the invasion of Iraq that the band was 'ashamed' that the president hailed from their home state, Texas. In the furor that followed, country radio programmers pulled the multiplatinum-selling trio’s music from the airwaves and rallied listeners to destroy their CDs."
The Times painted the historical scene as if the band was a step away from the stake, again ignoring the fawning cover stories on the Chicks in Entertainment Weekly and Time Magazine, as well as the group having a #1 album on the Billboard charts last summer, after they finally got around to releasing one (which would explain much of the alleged "sidetracking" of their career.)
Leeds talked about the possible politics of the award:
"The Grammy voting process switches into gear after Sept. 30, the end of the academy’s annual eligibility period for recordings. As a result, many academy members may have been considering their choices at a time when much of the nation’s attention was devoted to the midterm elections, when dissatisfaction with the Iraq war and other factors resulted in the Republicans’ loss of Congress. At the same time, 'Shut Up & Sing,' a documentary about the Dixie Chicks’ experience, hit movie theaters.
"Grammy nominations were announced in early December, with final ballots sent to voters about a week later.
"But analysts said it would be a mistake to read the Dixie Chicks’ wins as simply a reflection of left-leaning ideology rather than the desire of many voters to strike a blow for freedom of expression. Consider 'American Idiot,' the 2004 album by the punk-rock band Green Day. It was rife with political imagery, including lines like 'Sieg Heil to the president gasman' and won the Grammy for best rock album. But though it also received nominations for album and record of the year, it won neither."
Apparently rich entertainers can say what they want, but country music fans who publicly disagree with what they say are squelching their "freedom of expression."
Even the editorial page leaped into the fray Tuesday with "The Courage of Others' Convictions," tweaking the entertainment industry for not jumping on the liberal Chick-wagon three years ago.
"The music industry awarded an armload of Grammys to the Dixie Chicks on Sunday night, in what was celebrated as a blow for freedom of speech as much as tunefulness. The endorsement was about three years too late. The awards -- including for the trio’s fittingly titled album 'Taking the Long Way' and the song 'Not Ready to Make Nice' -- ended a desolate period in which their music was boycotted and banned by country music stations, their CDs were burned and smashed, and group members’ lives were threatened."
Those of us not as enthusiastic about the entertainment industry's self-congratulation had the consolation of watching liberals pretending to like country music. Leeds reported that sales for the group's Grammy-winning album "Taking the Long Way," whihc got the cold shoulder from country music, made up for it somewhat by selling well at Starbucks.
For more New York Times bias, visit Times Watch.
—Clay Waters is the director of Times Watch, an MRC project tracking the New York Times.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
To some, the voting served no
February 13, 2007 - 14:22 ET by taznarOops, double post. Sorry.
To some, the voting served no
February 13, 2007 - 14:22 ET by taznarAt least there honest about the fact that the awards aren't based on the quality of the music or performance, but is strictly based on politics. And the "Thumb your nose at the president" award goes to...
OK, let's review....Dixie
February 13, 2007 - 15:00 ET by motherbeltOK, let's review....Dixie Chicks dissed and stations won't play their songs because of politics....bad. Dixie Chicks given 5 Grammy awards because of their politics....excellent. Got it now? Good.
That's the ticket motherbelt. Success is failure to Liberals.
February 13, 2007 - 15:13 ET by acaiguanaThat's the ticket motherbelt. Success is failure to Liberals.
And don't you forget it.
Why just today I decided to invest all of my money in this new Internet startup that plans to sell stamps to stamp collectors. Then they want to start an 'auction' site. They tell me there is no competition.
They also tell me I will be able to write a book later and run for President.
ACA
...
Hillary Clinton says: "I want to take those profits."
Just another thought on thi
February 13, 2007 - 18:18 ET by SomerTeethJust another thought on this. If it's ALL about politics, then how do you explain the 8 Grammy's they won before the "Bush comment", and then another one after (in 2005)? Also, it's not the first time in history that someone has won 5 Grammy's in a single year:
Lauryn Hill five Grammys in 1999
Alicia Keys tied Lauryn's record in 2002
Norah Jones also tied with five in 2004.
Does anybody know or care about the political views of those 3 artists? Of course not, they've kept their mouths shut and behaved like nice little girls, right? It's only an issue when someone expresses an opinion opposing the conservative agenda.
It wasn't politics that won the Dixi Chicks votes, it was their geniune talent and a darn good album. However, what is about politics, is how the media has tried to highjack their awards and portray their wins as something else (i.e. a referendum on Bush)
...it's all very easily expla
February 13, 2007 - 20:29 ET by TruthMonger...it's all very easily explained...just think for a sec...there it is...you got it! Well done...
Some articles refer to radio
February 13, 2007 - 14:24 ET by roscoe swackhammerSome articles refer to radio stations "censoring" the Chicks. You'd think professional journalists would understand censorship better. Radio stations, TV stations, newspapers and news services OWN their "presses," and unless someone who doesn't own that particular "press" forces the press not to print, there is no censorship. If a station refuses to play the Chicks, it's not censorship, its judgement.
Don't ignore the obvious just because you're the only one who sees it.
Only 10,000 partisan left-wi
February 13, 2007 - 14:30 ET by TruthMongerOnly 10,000 partisan left-wing Bush-hating NARAS members can vote for the Grammy's...the NYT can print whatever it wants...this still means absolutely nothing : ) . . .
It's called "Self-Ce
February 13, 2007 - 18:32 ET by SomerTeethIt's called "Self-Censorship", and if you don't think it goes on everyday, you need to do some more research. Call it whatever you like ("judgement"), but the bottom line is that they're filtering what gets played on their stations, not based on quality of product, but on ideology.
Self-censorship is the act of censoring or classifying
one's own book(s), film(s), or other works, out of deference to the
sensibilities of others without an authority directly pressuring one to do so.
Self-censorship is often practiced by film producers, film directors, publishers,
news anchors, musicians, or authors.
sorta like
February 13, 2007 - 18:45 ET by misterbillsorta like --the voting members of the Grammys!
An ugly American is one who does not support his country.
Who isn't supporting his/he
February 14, 2007 - 12:34 ET by SomerTeethWho isn't supporting his/her country? You're saying the Dixie Chicks' comment about Bush means they don't support their country?
What is censorship
February 13, 2007 - 22:12 ET by nkviking75Censorship is when a government entity prevents some work of art, literature, music, etc. from ever reaching the public. As long as you can run to nearly any store which sells music CD's and buy Dixie Chicks music, you can be sure there is no censorship.
Broadcasters target their stations to reach selected demographic niches of the public. They invest a lot of time and money trying to divine what the audience wants so that they can please those people with their programming. The Chicks still have fans, but for most stations, playing their music would lose more listeners than it would gain. Stations cannot possibly play all available music. If they tried, no one would listen.
A lot of what you call self censorship is merely editorial control.
The Dixie Chicks have a right to make their statements under the First Amenddment. They do not have a right to have their records released, or even manufactued, by the label. They do not have a right to be booked into any venue they want. They do not have a right to be heard by big audiences. And they don't have a right to be on any radio station they do not own. They may as well get used to it, because most of us quit caring.
exactly
February 13, 2007 - 23:41 ET by Chicago Republicanexactly
"Censorship is when a
February 14, 2007 - 13:01 ET by SomerTeeth"Censorship is when a government entity prevents some work of art,
literature, music, etc. from ever reaching the public. As long as you
can run to nearly any store which sells music CD's and buy Dixie Chicks
music, you can be sure there is no censorship."
Actually, censorship isn't solely reserved for the Government. There are several flavors of censorship (Military, Religious, Political, Corporate, Moral), which take place in various forms. Just because the Government isn't censoring the Dixie Chicks, it doesn't mean the radio stations aren't doing their own form of censorship.
The public airwaves are owned by the people of the United States, and radio stations simply license the spectrum from the FCC. Because there are a limited number of licenses and more consolidation taking place, it puts an incredible amount of control in very few hands (i.e. Clear Channel). This means radio stations have the ability to make or break someone's career if they choose not to play their music.
I agree that corporations have the right to make decisions that are best for their shareholders and their businesses in general. However, the decisions made about the Dixie Chicks have not been about the quality of the product, but instead about their ideology. You're talking about a group that has sold tens of millions of records and sold out numerous tours, yet they have been "censored" (or whatever you want to call it) because of their 8 words that criticized the the president.
Radio Stations may lease the
February 14, 2007 - 13:14 ET by Chicago RepublicanRadio Stations may lease the airwaves, but as businesses they still are perfectly within their rights to decide what and who they put on the air with their own equipment. The Dixie Chicks have a right to say whatever they want (obviously within the bounds of the Clear and Present Danger Standard, if memory serves correctly). They don't have a right to be heard, they are not entitled to air time on the equipment of those entities which find their speech objectionable. Is that censorship? You could call it that. But its not the same thing as saying that the Dixie Chicks don't have the right to their free speech. And the radio stations, fans and record labels are not doing anything immoral in this form of "censorship".
Censorship in this discussion has been about First Amendment Protection of Speech. NKV above is talking about government censorship, which is the only true outrage here, and it doesn't exist. GWB and his goons are not going into the local Coconuts Music store and rounding up their CD's.
When this whole thing broke out, Natalie Maines was referencing "Freedom of Speech." Freedom of Speech, through out this whole discussion, means that the government can't seize your property, suspend your due process rights or otherwise compel you to be silent. That's why so many of us get sick of hearing people like Sean Penn and the Dixie Chicks make themselves out to be Free Speech Martrys.
"Radio Stations may le
February 14, 2007 - 16:36 ET by SomerTeeth"Radio Stations may lease the airwaves, but as businesses they still are
perfectly within their rights to decide what and who they put on the
air with their own equipment. The Dixie Chicks have a right to say
whatever they want (obviously within the bounds of the Clear and
Present Danger Standard, if memory serves correctly). They don't have
a right to be heard, they are not entitled to air time on the equipment
of those entities which find their speech objectionable."
I would agree with your assertion on that point.
"And the radio stations, fans and record labels are not doing anything immoral in this form of "censorship"."
I haven't heard anyone, nor have I, called the radio stations' behavior "immoral". They're simply using their control over the airwaves to squelch any dissenting opinions, and it does very little to promote the expression of different view points. Do you not think that the President of Clear Channel (a huge contributor to the Bush campaign) got a phone call from the Bush Admin asking them to put the screws the Dixie Chicks? You're naive if you think the decision made by radio stations was done without any political motivation. Ask Joe Wilson if the Admin has the power to orchestrate these kind of tactics.
"That's why so many of us get sick of hearing people like Sean Penn and
the Dixie Chicks make themselves out to be Free Speech Martrys."
I think if you would peel back the rhetoric that the media (on both sides of the issue) continue to put out there, you would understand that they're not trying to be "martrys". Most of those perceptions are storylines created by the media. The issue that Sean Penn et al are trying to get accross is that we're in an environment now where people are viciously attacking anyone who voices an opinion that runs counter to that of conservatives. Most of those people are simply asking that others respect their right to voice dissent (not to agree with what they say). In most cases, people like Hannity, Rush, and O'Reilly use personal attacks, rather than actually attacking the content of their view point. (e.g. "Alec Baldwin is a 3rd rate actor" or "Sean Penn: Enemy of the State", which adds no value to the debate).
Listen, I'm not expecting everyone to sit around, hold hands and sing kumbaya. But, I think there is a huge chasm between the left & right, and there's virtually no respect for view points that differ from one's own. I think this is unfortunate and unhealthy for our country.
Because there are a limited n
February 14, 2007 - 23:29 ET by Chicago RepublicanBecause there are a limited number of licenses and more consolidation taking place, it puts an incredible amount of control in very few hands (i.e. Clear Channel). This means radio stations have the ability to make or break someone's career if they choose not to play their music.
This seems to me like a statement on the morality of the decision of the radio stations. That's why I made the comment about "immoral".
I haven't heard anyone, nor have I, called the radio stations' behavior "immoral". They're simply using their control over the airwaves to squelch any dissenting opinions, and it does very little to promote the expression of different view points.
You are looking at it from the wrong vantage point. If I own the radio station and feel that your free speech is offensive, I'm not going to use my assets to promote it. You can still be heard, you're not being silenced, I'm just not going to be an accomplice.
Do you not think that the President of Clear Channel (a huge contributor to the Bush campaign) got a phone call from the Bush Admin asking them to put the screws the Dixie Chicks?
Somer, unless you can prove this happened its pure speculation. The lengths that people go to demonize this President with everything from Hurricanes to the Kennedy Assasination never cease to amaze me. If Bush were to do this, then why when the NY Times leaks information critical to the success of the US in the GWOT did he not use his office to shut them down? Certainly he had a legal standing to do so. One thing that I give GWB credit for, he does nothing to control the media in this country. He just lets them operate and ignores them.
You're naive if you think the decision made by radio stations was done without any political motivation.
Until I have proof that it happened, I'm going to be skeptical of that. Two factors are at work here. First, the owners of the radio stations can very well be principled people that feel as I do, that they have no obligation to fatten people like Natalie Maines that make stupid comments they find objectionable. Second, radio stations are like any other business, if they feel that their consumers are going to be put off by the political viewpoints of those whom they deal with, they'll reconsider dealing with them. How do you know advertisers and consumers weren't the ones putting pressure on radio networks to pull the Dixie Chicks? Its more plausible of an argument than the one you presented.
Ask Joe Wilson if the Admin has the power to orchestrate these kind of tactics.
Joe Wilson is a partisan fool and a liar, and this trial is going to make that even more clear than it already is. Until you have something other than the accusations of a lying hack, this is a bad example.
The issue that Sean Penn et al are trying to get accross is that we're in an environment now where people are viciously attacking anyone who voices an opinion that runs counter to that of conservatives.
This discussion on NB is a classic case-in-point of what I'm talking about.
Alan Colmes: "Well, one of the arguments he makes, which is interesting, he says that the most effective form of de facto censorship is preemptive. For example, when Donald Rumsfeld compares those who oppose administration policies to appeasers, like Neville Chamberlain, or when people on my side who are antiwar are called traitors or somehow un-American, isn't that a preemptive form of censorship? And isn't Sean Penn right about that?"
Fox News's Greg Gutfield: "No, because he's actually responding to it. If he wasn't allowed to respond to it, it would be censorship. That's what I'm saying. Every time he says it's censorship, he's actually undermining his own argument, which makes it slightly comical."
In most cases, people like Hannity, Rush, and O'Reilly use personal attacks, rather than actually attacking the content of their view point. (e.g. "Alec Baldwin is a 3rd rate actor" or "Sean Penn: Enemy of the State", which adds no value to the debate).
This is a careless statement. Because Hannity et al make comments that seem like personal attacks does not discredit the other substance-based arguments they have with their positions. I think Sean Penn is a complete jackass, but not because of his acting skills, or what have you. I disagree with his attitude about OIF and our mission there for substantive reasons. That is a big difference from "most of the time" using personal attacks.
The irony of all of this is, silencing opposition is a major tactic of the Left in this country. Academia is a haven for this kind of bullying.
Sean Penn and the Dixie Chicks are more than welcome to voice their opinions. No one is going to stop them. If someone has a view point different from mine, let them share it - no one here at NB has been silenced for some pretty rediculous things said. Sure, people may make comments that appear over the line to those on the Left they disagree with (I try to avoid that), but they are also engaged with substance. Its just something people who disagree with the mission statement of this site are going to have to accept.
Good discussion, by the way, ST ;)
Roscoe, you are 110% correct.
February 13, 2007 - 21:42 ET by Chicago RepublicanRoscoe, you are 110% correct. This whole "Free Speech Martyr" BS is worse than athlete's foot.
For the 100th time - First Amendment protection of Free Speech means the government can't imprison you or seize your property for your speech. It doesn't protect you from people telling you that you are an uber booger eater for your comments.
"To some, the voting ser
February 13, 2007 - 14:33 ET by Darth Dutch"To some, the voting served not only as a referendum on President Bush’s handling of the Iraq war, but also on what was perceived as country music’s rejection -- and radio’s censorship -- of the trio.
I'm not sure how this can be seen as a "referendum" of country music's perceived rejection & radio's censorship of the trio.
First, as the article points out that the Recording Academy is made up of all difference types of music, not just country music, so the fact that they won doesn't mean that country music does not reject them - only that the voting members voted for them.
Second, this whole thing about radio's censorship is just ridiculous. Stations play what their audience wants to hear and in many cases the audience members themselves request the songs. A lack of desire to hear is different than censorship.
Third, did anyone watch the show when they won. After announcing that they won, the camera immediately went to a shot of current country artists, such as Reba McIntyre, Big & Rich, etc., and none of them was clapping, so it shows that the country music establishment in fact does "reject" the Dixie Chicks, just as the listeners do.
Fourth, the Dixie Chicks themselves said that they are outside specific genres (or something to that effect), so that also shows that it was the greater music industry who voted for them versus the country music crowd.
Dutch
Dutch, I'm not really into the music politics stuff.
February 13, 2007 - 14:39 ET by acaiguanaDutch, I'm not really into the music politics stuff.
But on the 'referendum' conferrred to the Democrats in the 2006 election.
If one runs on nothing (Democrats) then wins; one can claim all kinds of different referendums.
I heard just the other day that the Democrats have a referendum on Michael Moore's brain being dontated to the Smithsonian.
ACA
...
Hillary Clinton says: "I want to take those profits."
Dixie Chicks
February 13, 2007 - 14:42 ET by hombreIsn't that the norm in the entertainment industry. Talent and excellence have little to do with how "artists" are perceived by their peers. It's all about ideology, political correctness and whining when the public is turned off. The Emmies here were industry-wide whines.
Hombre, you are right.The Gra
February 13, 2007 - 14:55 ET by Scout FinchHombre, you are right.
The Grammy, the Oscar, the Emmy, the Tony, the Nobel.......they are not measures of one's talents or integrity. They are all jury-by-peer, and they merely serve to support one another's politics. Who really cares? Can anyone even tell me what the name of the song was? Or the album? Back before Natalie opened her mouth, at least most people had heard and even enjoyed "Wide Open Spaces".
I reiterate: The awards were not based on talent. No one will remember this by next week.
Vanilla Ice censored -- protest now!
February 13, 2007 - 14:36 ET by Jack BauerThis has to stop...
The brave dissident artiste Vanilla Ice is being censored by the BIG SOUND radio stations, who continue their outrageous 10 year campaign NOT to play his music.
(By HIS music, I mean the music that was created by others, and to which he lip-synched.)
This is a clear violation of his 1st Amendment Rights and proves that the USA is EXACTLY like Nazi Germany.
Once you become a conspiracy nut, everything makes sense.
"Once you become a con
February 13, 2007 - 14:43 ET by MightyMouth"Once you become a conspiracy nut, everything makes sense."
That makes total sense to me Jack!
Signed, ThoughtPolice
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
Yes the censorship of my fav
February 13, 2007 - 16:37 ET by Dan The Man 2Yes the censorship of my fav lip synchers Milli Vanilli, ohh the anquish.
Nuke em til they glow then shoot em in the dark. -- save my gun, shoot a liberal.
Dan -- of course, when I sa
February 13, 2007 - 18:12 ET by Jack BauerDan -- of course, when I said Vanilla Ice -- I did mean Milli Vanilli! Well spotted.
See how far the conspiracy goes? I couldn't even remember his name. Was there ever a Vanilla Ice?
I'm sorry, but this story jus
February 13, 2007 - 14:40 ET by JayTeeI'm sorry, but this story just doesn't make news. I realize the talking heads are trying to "create News"....but it just doesnt' register as news, or news worthy. It's a Non Event. Lets compare them to the Beatles....are they "More Popular than God ?". I think not.
But what about Neil Young?!?!
February 13, 2007 - 14:56 ET by Roger the ShrubberBut what about Neil Young?!?!?!?
He didn't get squat at the Grammies (3 noms, I think).
Perhaps this is a sign that even the nutjob Left finally is tired of re-treaded 60's Hippy sh*t?
I hope neil young will rememb
February 13, 2007 - 15:04 ET by florida_chadI hope neil young will remember
a southern man don't need him around anyhow
NY is s flip flopper, was for the war and now against. I saw him in an interview try to defend that switch. It was really funny.
It wasn't long ago when Neil
February 13, 2007 - 15:47 ET by Hero SquadIt wasn't long ago when Neil Young sang in "Let's Roll":
He had it so right. Shame he got caught up in left wing politics, because until his "Living with War" project, I likened him to a reasonable musician who didn't always toe the hippie line - he voted for Reagan in '84, for crying out loud!
Safe to say I'll never be a Neil Young completist. LWW will not be added to my collection.
Wait a minute... did I just censor an artist???
*****
"Was it a millionaire who said 'Imagine no possessions?'" - Elvis Costello
So, my not choosing to buy yo
February 13, 2007 - 15:27 ET by kathleenirishSo, my not choosing to buy your paper is somehow an act of censorship, perhaps even unAmerican, New York Times?
"He who has a thousand friends has not a friend to spare, and he who has one enemy will meet him everywhere" -Ali ibn-Abi-Talib, 4th Islamic Caliph
I would like to take this mom
February 13, 2007 - 15:52 ET by Hero SquadI would like to take this moment to thank the Academy for frontloading their program so that the only thing I cared about - The Police reunion - was completed in the first 10 minutes of the show so that I could quickly return to my regularly scheduled life. Actually, I would've paid $54.50 to $254.50 see an entire show of The Police instead of the Grammys. Oh wait... I can.
*****
"Was it a millionaire who said 'Imagine no possessions?'" - Elvis Costello
Sunday's Grammy debacle - why awards shows are big jokes
February 13, 2007 - 16:04 ET by Mary Louise TurnerIf you need any further proof that awards shows, particularly the "Big Four" - Oscars, Grammys, Tonys and Emmys - have become impossible to stomach, check out Sunday night's Grammy debacle. The voters deliberately gave average music lovers "the bird" and showered the loony-left Dixie Chicks with its three highest honors. Even if the music itself was Grammy-worthy, it was a massive insult to viewers and one reason I will never watch another awards telecast again.
These awards are given to the looniest of liberals - on purpose - so to see how far the award voters can go to tweak ordinary folks.
WARNING: The Oscar for Best Director is most likely to go to a man who, in 1988, directed "The Last Temptation of Christ", perhaps the most blasphemous film ever made (certainly one of the worst). Martin Scorsese may deserve the Oscar for "The Departed" but this would be yet another insult to the public.
All these award shows, let al
February 13, 2007 - 16:34 ET by bigtimerAll these award shows, let alone it seems anymore or maybe always, all major awards of any kind worldwide are for anybody but a conservative.
I am also sick to death of the Dixiechix, the Grammy's just use this as a stick in the eye to the President...and all conservatives...again.
Jimmy Carter...Al Gore...come on...it is obvious...all they forgot this year is one or both of the Clintoons'.
We are entering a dangerous t
February 13, 2007 - 16:37 ET by truth_missileWe are entering a dangerous time in this country in which the media are manufacturing news wholesale and pushing hate-filled garbage on the populace as the norm. But enough about the evening news...
I've suddenly come to realize
February 13, 2007 - 16:57 ET by tracheostomyI've suddenly come to realize that for the majority of people, gaining peer approval and acceptance is far more valuable than being reasoned, accurate, and sane.
So therefore, the libs will always win.
Always.
-PJ