coyote's corner

Thank you for sending this on. I felt that the criticism made me feel ashamed ...of some of my sister & brother citizens.

Janis
----- Original Message -----
From: Peggy
To: [email protected]
Sent: Thursday, April 24, 2003 2:15 PM
Subject: [AlwaysLearning] Dixie Chicks


http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/04/25/1050777369345.html

Interesting pictures.

Peggy



Yahoo! Groups Sponsor





To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[email protected]



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Peggy

> Thank you for sending this on. I felt that the criticism made me feel ashamed
> ...of some of my sister & brother citizens.
>
> Janis

Maybe we should just be more wary of the media monopolies and who owns
them if we are going to get our news predigested.

Peggy




Freedom of Speech and Clear Channel Radio

http://216.239.53.100/search?q=cache:dWnt8g01aDMC:www.privacydigest.com/mostRecentNews+%22clear+channel+radio%22+chicks+bush&hl=en&ie=UTF-8


http://news.com.com/2010-1071-997528.html?tag=fd_nc_1 reports
courier-journal.com - The press and freedom: some disturbing trends.
<p>Kentucky journalism and broadcasting have changed drastically since I
left here 33 years ago. Back then, you owned it. Your major newspapers,
television and radio stations were owned and operated by Kentuckians.
Today home ownership is pretty much confined to small-town weeklies, KET
and the public radio stations. Your major daily newspapers are now
provincial outposts for absentee corporate owners who expect profit
margins of 20 to 30 percent. The managers of your TV stations report to
bosses far away who care less about the stations' community service and
journalistic exposés than they care about how those stations are
contributing to the share price of corporate stock. </p> <p>[ ... ]</p>
<p>As exhibit A, I give you the Dixie Chicks, one of the hottest musical
acts in the country -- or at least they were until one of the Chicks, in
a bit of anti-war fervor, said they were ashamed that the President is
from Texas. The backlash against the Chicks for making that remark is
fine if it comes from ex-fans who say they won't buy any more records by
the Dixie Chicks. The marketplace is a respectable forum for freedom of
expression. The Chicks have a right to their opinions. Music fans have a
right to tell the chicks to go to hell and to boycott their concerts and
refuse to buy their records. Free speech is never really free -- it
always costs something. But here's what's wrong with this picture. The
backlash against the Chicks is spearheaded not by fans, but by Clear
Channel Radio, owner of 1,250 radio stations. Clear Channel is based in
Texas. Clear Channel loves George W. Bush. Clear Channel would like the
administration of George W. Bush to remove all remaining restrictions on
the ownership of media properties. That is exactly what the Bush
administration is considering. The "Federal Communi-cations Commission",
chaired by Mike Powell, the son of Secretary of State Colin Powell, is
reviewing the last remaining rules restricting media ownership. Before
he became FCC chairman, Mike Powell was a communications lawyer, making
fabulous sums of money lobbying on behalf of the broadcast industry --
the industry he's now supposed to be regulating. When he is finished
regulating the broadcasting industry, Mike Powell will return to -- the
broadcasting industry. Now how tenacious is Mike Powell going to be in
regulating the broadcasting industry while he is on this temporary
hiatus from the broadcasting industry? </p> <p>But back to Clear
Channel, which daily tells Bush and Powell that it loves them. Is Clear
Channel's move on those Dixie Chicks an expression of patriotism or a
business decision? Should Clear Channel have the right to ban the Chicks
from its 1,250 stations? I think what individuals do is fine -- burn the
CDs if you want. What industry does is another matter. Clear Channel can
say the Dixie Chicks are tools of Saddam if it wants to, but it should
not be allowed to kill the livelihood of any recording artist based on
politics. </p> <p>[ ... ]</p> <p>''The influential television news
consulting firm Frank N. Magid Associates recently put it in even
starker terms: Covering war protests may be harmful to a station's
bottom line. In a survey released . . . on the eve of war, the firm
found that war protests were the topic that tested lowest among 6,400
viewers across the nation. Magid says only 14 percent of respondents
said TV news wasn't paying enough attention to anti-war demonstrations
and peace activities; just 13 percent thought that in the event of war,
the news should pay more attention to dissent.'' </p> <p>Here again, the
lack of diversity among broadcast owners is a factor in what information
gets to the American public. Andrew Jay Schwartzman of the Media Access
Project is quoted by the Post as saying, ''with increasing concentration
of ownership, if one or two big companies are using the same
corporate-wide policy, or relying on the same consultants, there aren't
effective competitive forces'' to ensure alternative opinions. </p> <p>[
... ]</p> <p>But last month's news conference was remarkable for more
than the fact that it happened at all. Reporters were ushered into the
East Room in pairs -- summoned two-by-two, like the animals boarding
Noah's Ark. Once the news conference got underway, the President did not
recognize reporters who raised their hands. Instead, he called their
names from a list prepared by news secretary Ari Fleischer, the man who
told reporters after Sept. 11 that they should watch what they say. When
CNN's John King attempted to ask a question, the President told him to
wait because, the President said, ''This is scripted.'' Then he called
the next name on his list: John King. Then he taunted King for daring to
ask a multi-part question. Among the names not called -- and perhaps not
on Ari's Fleischer's list of approved questioners -- were the reporters
from Time, The Washington Post, USA Today, Newsweek and Kentucky's own
Helen Thomas, who for decades has had the distinction of asking the
first question and then closing the news conference by saying, ''Thank
you, Mr. President,'' which became the title of her autobiography. But
Helen is no longer a reporter. She's now a columnist, paid to give
opinions, and one of her recent opinions is that George W. Bush ''is the
worst President ever.'' Clearly, she did not watch what she said.
Another White House tradition, the follow-up question, also appears to
be history. </p> <p>[ ... ]</p> <p>Now why are the tough questions not
being asked? Do journalists wearing their flag lapel pins on TV not want
to appear unpatriotic in time of war? The answer is yes. Av Westin said
it very well last month. Av Westin goes back to the glory days of
network television news. He was a producer at CBS for 20 years and a
producer at ABC for 21 more years. He said, ''Since 9/11, the press has
been watching the opinion polls almost as much as the administration,
which explains why it has taken quite a while to assume the kind of
normal adversarial relationship, much less the kind that was rampant
during the Clinton years and the Nixon years.'' He added, ''There is a
considerable amount of self-censorship going on in terms of pushing
government officials on certain topics. But I've always believed our job
was to ask questions that need to be asked, regardless of official
reaction or public opinion.'' </p> <p>He's absolutely right. Being
popular might be good for business at a time when newspapers are losing
readers and TV networks are losing viewers. And the owners of today's
media, who are business tycoons, not journalists, would like us to be
good representatives of the corporate brands. But that is not our job.
We are supposed to be surrogates for the public -- the eyes and ears of
citizens who don't have the access we have. We are to hold public
officials to account, and if that makes them angry at us -- well, that
just goes with our job, and we have to take it. If pointed questions
make public officials squirm -- well, that just goes with their job, and
they're supposed to take it. That's the price that comes with the
privilege of serving the people. </p>
http://www.courier-journal.com/cjextra/editorials/ed0420_edwards.html
The press and freedom: some disturbing trends
http://www.mediaaccess.org/ Media Access Project Example Web Page.

From:

Copyright 1997-2003 Paul Hardwick 2.0b1 Thu, 24 Apr 2003 04:00:00 GMT
Thu, 24 Apr 2003 16:43:10 GMT
http://my.userland.com/stories/storyReader$11 Privacy Digest keeps
track of news and events that can impact your privacy in either a direct
or indirect manner. This includes actions by individuals, corporations
or the government in the areas of encryption, wiretaping and general
activity tracking/monitoring. http://www.PrivacyDigest.com/ Privacy
Digest http://www.PrivacyDigest.com/ Privacy Digest

coyote's corner

well said; well put.

Janis
----- Original Message -----
From: Peggy
To: [email protected]
Sent: Thursday, April 24, 2003 4:04 PM
Subject: [AlwaysLearning] Re: Dixie Chicks


> Thank you for sending this on. I felt that the criticism made me feel ashamed
> ...of some of my sister & brother citizens.
>
> Janis

Maybe we should just be more wary of the media monopolies and who owns
them if we are going to get our news predigested.

Peggy




Freedom of Speech and Clear Channel Radio

http://216.239.53.100/search?q=cache:dWnt8g01aDMC:www.privacydigest.com/mostRecentNews+%22clear+channel+radio%22+chicks+bush&hl=en&ie=UTF-8


http://news.com.com/2010-1071-997528.html?tag=fd_nc_1 reports
courier-journal.com - The press and freedom: some disturbing trends.
<p>Kentucky journalism and broadcasting have changed drastically since I
left here 33 years ago. Back then, you owned it. Your major newspapers,
television and radio stations were owned and operated by Kentuckians.
Today home ownership is pretty much confined to small-town weeklies, KET
and the public radio stations. Your major daily newspapers are now
provincial outposts for absentee corporate owners who expect profit
margins of 20 to 30 percent. The managers of your TV stations report to
bosses far away who care less about the stations' community service and
journalistic exposés than they care about how those stations are
contributing to the share price of corporate stock. </p> <p>[ ... ]</p>
<p>As exhibit A, I give you the Dixie Chicks, one of the hottest musical
acts in the country -- or at least they were until one of the Chicks, in
a bit of anti-war fervor, said they were ashamed that the President is
from Texas. The backlash against the Chicks for making that remark is
fine if it comes from ex-fans who say they won't buy any more records by
the Dixie Chicks. The marketplace is a respectable forum for freedom of
expression. The Chicks have a right to their opinions. Music fans have a
right to tell the chicks to go to hell and to boycott their concerts and
refuse to buy their records. Free speech is never really free -- it
always costs something. But here's what's wrong with this picture. The
backlash against the Chicks is spearheaded not by fans, but by Clear
Channel Radio, owner of 1,250 radio stations. Clear Channel is based in
Texas. Clear Channel loves George W. Bush. Clear Channel would like the
administration of George W. Bush to remove all remaining restrictions on
the ownership of media properties. That is exactly what the Bush
administration is considering. The "Federal Communi-cations Commission",
chaired by Mike Powell, the son of Secretary of State Colin Powell, is
reviewing the last remaining rules restricting media ownership. Before
he became FCC chairman, Mike Powell was a communications lawyer, making
fabulous sums of money lobbying on behalf of the broadcast industry --
the industry he's now supposed to be regulating. When he is finished
regulating the broadcasting industry, Mike Powell will return to -- the
broadcasting industry. Now how tenacious is Mike Powell going to be in
regulating the broadcasting industry while he is on this temporary
hiatus from the broadcasting industry? </p> <p>But back to Clear
Channel, which daily tells Bush and Powell that it loves them. Is Clear
Channel's move on those Dixie Chicks an expression of patriotism or a
business decision? Should Clear Channel have the right to ban the Chicks
from its 1,250 stations? I think what individuals do is fine -- burn the
CDs if you want. What industry does is another matter. Clear Channel can
say the Dixie Chicks are tools of Saddam if it wants to, but it should
not be allowed to kill the livelihood of any recording artist based on
politics. </p> <p>[ ... ]</p> <p>''The influential television news
consulting firm Frank N. Magid Associates recently put it in even
starker terms: Covering war protests may be harmful to a station's
bottom line. In a survey released . . . on the eve of war, the firm
found that war protests were the topic that tested lowest among 6,400
viewers across the nation. Magid says only 14 percent of respondents
said TV news wasn't paying enough attention to anti-war demonstrations
and peace activities; just 13 percent thought that in the event of war,
the news should pay more attention to dissent.'' </p> <p>Here again, the
lack of diversity among broadcast owners is a factor in what information
gets to the American public. Andrew Jay Schwartzman of the Media Access
Project is quoted by the Post as saying, ''with increasing concentration
of ownership, if one or two big companies are using the same
corporate-wide policy, or relying on the same consultants, there aren't
effective competitive forces'' to ensure alternative opinions. </p> <p>[
... ]</p> <p>But last month's news conference was remarkable for more
than the fact that it happened at all. Reporters were ushered into the
East Room in pairs -- summoned two-by-two, like the animals boarding
Noah's Ark. Once the news conference got underway, the President did not
recognize reporters who raised their hands. Instead, he called their
names from a list prepared by news secretary Ari Fleischer, the man who
told reporters after Sept. 11 that they should watch what they say. When
CNN's John King attempted to ask a question, the President told him to
wait because, the President said, ''This is scripted.'' Then he called
the next name on his list: John King. Then he taunted King for daring to
ask a multi-part question. Among the names not called -- and perhaps not
on Ari's Fleischer's list of approved questioners -- were the reporters
from Time, The Washington Post, USA Today, Newsweek and Kentucky's own
Helen Thomas, who for decades has had the distinction of asking the
first question and then closing the news conference by saying, ''Thank
you, Mr. President,'' which became the title of her autobiography. But
Helen is no longer a reporter. She's now a columnist, paid to give
opinions, and one of her recent opinions is that George W. Bush ''is the
worst President ever.'' Clearly, she did not watch what she said.
Another White House tradition, the follow-up question, also appears to
be history. </p> <p>[ ... ]</p> <p>Now why are the tough questions not
being asked? Do journalists wearing their flag lapel pins on TV not want
to appear unpatriotic in time of war? The answer is yes. Av Westin said
it very well last month. Av Westin goes back to the glory days of
network television news. He was a producer at CBS for 20 years and a
producer at ABC for 21 more years. He said, ''Since 9/11, the press has
been watching the opinion polls almost as much as the administration,
which explains why it has taken quite a while to assume the kind of
normal adversarial relationship, much less the kind that was rampant
during the Clinton years and the Nixon years.'' He added, ''There is a
considerable amount of self-censorship going on in terms of pushing
government officials on certain topics. But I've always believed our job
was to ask questions that need to be asked, regardless of official
reaction or public opinion.'' </p> <p>He's absolutely right. Being
popular might be good for business at a time when newspapers are losing
readers and TV networks are losing viewers. And the owners of today's
media, who are business tycoons, not journalists, would like us to be
good representatives of the corporate brands. But that is not our job.
We are supposed to be surrogates for the public -- the eyes and ears of
citizens who don't have the access we have. We are to hold public
officials to account, and if that makes them angry at us -- well, that
just goes with our job, and we have to take it. If pointed questions
make public officials squirm -- well, that just goes with their job, and
they're supposed to take it. That's the price that comes with the
privilege of serving the people. </p>
http://www.courier-journal.com/cjextra/editorials/ed0420_edwards.html
The press and freedom: some disturbing trends
http://www.mediaaccess.org/ Media Access Project Example Web Page.

From:

Copyright 1997-2003 Paul Hardwick 2.0b1 Thu, 24 Apr 2003 04:00:00 GMT
Thu, 24 Apr 2003 16:43:10 GMT
http://my.userland.com/stories/storyReader$11 Privacy Digest keeps
track of news and events that can impact your privacy in either a direct
or indirect manner. This includes actions by individuals, corporations
or the government in the areas of encryption, wiretaping and general
activity tracking/monitoring. http://www.PrivacyDigest.com/ Privacy
Digest http://www.PrivacyDigest.com/ Privacy Digest



Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT




To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[email protected]



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]