smoe.org mailing lists
ivan@stellysee.de
| From | "Sager, Greg" <greg.sager@bankofamerica.com> |
| Subject | Re: Dixie Chicks on EW |
| Date | Fri, 25 Apr 2003 15:26:17 -0500 |
[Part 1 text/plain iso-8859-1 (5.3 kilobytes)]
(View Text in a separate window)
> > Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2003 12:29:18 -0500
> > From: Bill Silvers <wsilvers@earthlink.net>
> > To: audities@smoe.org
> > Subject: Re: Dixie Chicks on EW
> > Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20030425114640.0288bd90@127.0.0.1>
> >
> > Greg Sager concluded:
> >
> > >Look, I certainly don't want this to become a political discussion.
> > >We've had too many of them on Audities lately, and I think that they
> both
> > >taint the bonhomie of the list and digress from the list's avowed
> > intention
> > >as a pop music forum.
> >
> > But by golly, it was important to get equal time in there, wasn't it?
> >
> What "equal time"? Where was the political content in my post?
>
> > > > Erm, interesting points, but I don't see what any of it has to do
> with
> > the
> > > >
> > > > manifest high quality of the Chicks music, the incredible, ignorant,
> > > > un-American and likely career-thwarting backlash to Natalie Maines
> > > > expression of a sentiment that could have been easily uttered by
> most
> > > > folks
> > > > I know,
> > > >
> > > That "most folks I know" qualifier of yours sounds pretty
> > elitist to
> > >me.
> >
> > How in hell are the opinions of most folks I know, who to some degree or
>
> > another are ashamed to have George Bush as our president, "elitist?" You
>
> > don't know me or the people I'm talking about, but you are off to a
> great
> > start rhetorically.
> >
> If you call an opposing viewpoint "incredible, ignorant,
> un-American" and oppositionally juxtapose it with "most folks I know"
> within
> the same sentence, then "most folks I know" are validating what you
> perceive
> to be the truth. Without any further elucidation upon whom exactly
> constitutes "most folks I know", that juxtaposition either represents
> elitism or else an example of Pauline Kael Syndrome. Believe it or not, I
> was giving you the benefit of the doubt, as Pauline Kael Syndrome* is a
> manifestation of ignorance of the larger society. It has absolutely
> nothing
> to do with my knowing you or the people you're talking about. It has to do
> with the way that you've framed your point.
>
> * The late *New Yorker* film critic Pauline Kael reportedly
> exclaimed in surprise at the news of Richard Nixon's landslide over George
> McGovern in the 1972 presidential election, "How could that have happened?
> I
> don't know anybody who voted for Nixon."
>
> > > Personally, I think that a lot of the Chicks backlash was over the
> top,
> > >but why are the critics of Maines's anti-Bush statement any less
> entitled
> > to
> > >their opinions than Maines -- or you? Particularly since she has
> > apologized
> > >for and disavowed the stridency of her original statement, and swears
> in
> > the
> > >ABC interview that said apology and disavowal was not forced upon her
> by
> > her
> > >record company or management. That gives more credence to Maines's
> > critics,
> > >although as I said I think that some of them tended to be too
> hyperbolic
> > for
> > >my tastes.
> >
> > I didn't say a thing about whether the Chicks critics were entitled to
> > their opinions, because of course they are, it goes without saying but
> to
> > attempt to construct a straw man in a debate.
> >
> I wasn't constructing a straw man. I was simply pointing out that
> what Maines's critics were doing was exactly what Maines was doing -- in
> your words, it was the "expression of a sentiment".
>
> > >Was the backlash "career-thwarting"? Possibly, since the article to
> > >which Sam Smith linked doesn't really give any data for how the band's
> > >ticket and record sales have fared since the whole hullabaloo began. It
> > >certainly does indicate just how hugely popular the Dixie Chicks were
> at
> > >that fateful moment in London, which is why the statement by Maines was
> > able
> > >to engender such a huge media uproar in the first place. "Incredible,
> > >ignorant"? Sez you. It's an opinion, just like everyone else's. But
> > >"un-American"? Hardly. Maines's critics were doing exactly what Maines
> > was
> > >doing herself, which was exercising their First Amendment rights.
> Freedom
> > of
> > >speech does not mean freedom from having the content of that speech
> > >criticized. And that includes stuff like demonstrations and boycotts,
> > both
> > >time-tested forms of First Amendment expression on both sides of the
> > >political spectrum.
> >
> > Ignorant? You betcha. I don't think that radio station-organized
> > demonstrations where fans burned concert tickets
> > and CD's represents the triumph of reason over emotion.
> >
> Are you saying, therefore, that an emotional expression of opinion
> is necessarily an ignorant one? Because I don't see the connection. I
> don't
> see the ignorance involved in the reaction; the people who reacted seemed
> to
> have understood pretty clearly what Maines meant in her statement (even
> though her subsequent disavowal casts doubt upon whether or not *she*
> understood what she meant), because what Maines said seemed pretty
> clear-cut. You can argue all that you want about the ethics of her critics
> (to me, personally, burning CDs and concert tickets has some sinister
> *Fahrenheit 451* implications, but it's still protected speech), but I
> don't
> see how you can argue that they were ignorant of Maines's intentions.
> Seems
> to me that they just took her word at face value.
>
(con't)
Gregory Sager
For assistance, please contact
the smoe.org administrators.