Channels of Influence (Krugman: Being Anti-Dixie Chicks Makes You Part of American Kristallnacht!)

The New York Times ^ | March 25, 2003 | Paul Krugman

[Timesink]

---

March 25, 2003

Channels of Influence

By PAUL KRUGMAN

y and large, recent pro-war rallies haven't drawn nearly as many people as antiwar rallies, but they have certainly been vehement. One of the most striking took place after Natalie Maines, lead singer for the Dixie Chicks, criticized President Bush: 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. . . . But as Sinclair Lewis said, it can't happen here.

Who has been organizing those pro-war rallies? The answer, it turns out, is that they are being promoted by key players in the radio industry ? with close links to the Bush administration.

The CD-smashing rally was organized by KRMD, part of Cumulus Media, a radio chain that has banned the Dixie Chicks from its playlists. Most of the pro-war demonstrations around the country have, however, been organized by stations owned by Clear Channel Communications, a behemoth based in San Antonio that controls more than 1,200 stations and increasingly dominates the airwaves.

The company claims that the demonstrations, which go under the name Rally for America, reflect the initiative of individual stations. But this is unlikely: according to Eric Boehlert, who has written revelatory articles about Clear Channel in Salon, the company is notorious ? and widely hated ? for its iron-fisted centralized control.

Until now, complaints about Clear Channel have focused on its business practices. Critics say it uses its power to squeeze recording companies and artists and contributes to the growing blandness of broadcast music. But now the company appears to be using its clout to help one side in a political dispute that deeply divides the nation.

Why would a media company insert itself into politics this way? It could, of course, simply be a matter of personal conviction on the part of management. But there are also good reasons for Clear Channel ? which became a giant only in the last few years, after the Telecommunications Act of 1996 removed many restrictions on media ownership ? to curry favor with the ruling party. On one side, Clear Channel is feeling some heat: it is being sued over allegations that it threatens to curtail the airplay of artists who don't tour with its concert division, and there are even some politicians who want to roll back the deregulation that made the company's growth possible. On the other side, the Federal Communications Commission is considering further deregulation that would allow Clear Channel to expand even further, particularly into television.

Or perhaps the quid pro quo is more narrowly focused. Experienced Bushologists let out a collective "Aha!" when Clear Channel was revealed to be behind the pro-war rallies, because the company's top management has a history with George W. Bush. The vice chairman of Clear Channel is Tom Hicks, whose name may be familiar to readers of this column. When Mr. Bush was governor of Texas, Mr. Hicks was chairman of the University of Texas Investment Management Company, called Utimco, and Clear Channel's chairman, Lowry Mays, was on its board. Under Mr. Hicks, Utimco placed much of the university's endowment under the management of companies with strong Republican Party or Bush family ties. In 1998 Mr. Hicks purchased the Texas Rangers in a deal that made Mr. Bush a multimillionaire.

There's something happening here. What it is ain't exactly clear, but a good guess is that we're now seeing the next stage in the evolution of a new American oligarchy. As Jonathan Chait has written in The New Republic, in the Bush administration "government and business have melded into one big `us.' " On almost every aspect of domestic policy, business interests rule: "Scores of midlevel appointees . . . now oversee industries for which they once worked." We should have realized that this is a two-way street: if politicians are busy doing favors for businesses that support them, why shouldn't we expect businesses to reciprocate by doing favors for those politicians ? by, for example, organizing "grass roots" rallies on their behalf?

What makes it all possible, of course, is the absence of effective watchdogs. In the Clinton years the merest hint of impropriety quickly blew up into a huge scandal; these days, the scandalmongers are more likely to go after journalists who raise questions. Anyway, don't you know there's a war on?

[Timesink]

And now, proof positive that Paul Krguman is a lying sack of SHIT. (Yes, I'm using profanity. He has stepped way, way, WAY over the line here, and he needs the Mega-Freeping OF ALL TIME.)

From: "WTCR FM 103.3" <***@wtcr.com>
Date: Fri Mar 14, 2003 5:21:42 PM America/New_York
To: ***
Subject: RE: Removing Dixie Chicks from 'TCR Playlists

Hi *:

Thank you very much for taking the time to write to WTCR - we appreciate your input and thank you very much for your continued listenership.

Regarding the Dixie Chicks and their recent comments about President Bush and their perception of world opinion of the U.S.; WTCR's parent company, Clear Channel Communications, has advised us to remain patriotic not political. One of America's freedoms is the right of its citizens to give his or her opinion without fear of reprisal - in this case the removal of an artist's music from the airwaves.

The Dixie Chicks statements are, admittedly, an emotional and potentially divisive issue, but it is not the policy of WTCR (through Clear Channel) to respond regardless of our personal opinions.

Again, thank you for expressing your opinion; WTCR values your input.

[Name Expunged]
WTCR

EXPLAIN THE DICHOTOMY, MR. KRUGMAN!

EXPLAIN THE DICHOTOMY, MR. KRUGMAN!

EXPLAIN THE DICHOTOMY, MR. KRUGMAN!

[Timesink]

Spread this far and wide. Krugman has finally gone too far in his lies and grotesque hatreds.

[BossLady]

So it looks like he is saying that Clear Channel is behind the Rally for America events....huh???!!!

This needs a Tin Foil Hat Alert...hehehe...

[Timesink]

for consideration for your ping list

[frosty snowman]

Naturally, Krugman thinks its okay for communist organizations to sponsor ANSWER, and go unquestioned. But God forbid that a private company sponsors an event! The whole phony connection between the Dixie Chicks and the rallies is a figment of Krugman's imagination. Not to mention he is lying like a persian rug as you pointed out!

[Gunder]

"To those familiar with 20th-century European history it seemed eerily reminiscent of. . . . But as Sinclair Lewis said, it can't happen here."

Will someone please explain to Mr. Krugman that a group of 33,000 Americans deciding to get together to destroy some Dixie Chix CDs is not the same as a nation's leader )i.e., Hitler) ordering his troops to burn books. Idiot.

[photogirl]

BUMP READ LATER

[NYCVirago]

This doesn't even make sense. All Clear Channel has in common with Cumulus Media (the ones who banned the Dixie Chicks) is that they both own radio stations.

Besides, Bill and Hillary get eight-figure advances on books that have yet to be published, and Krugman doesn't bat an eye. But let a radio station or two publicize a pro-America rally, and he gets his panties in a knot.

[Free ThinkerNY]

The New York Times: All the Liberal Propaganda That's Unfit to Print

[atomic conspiracy]

This is an especially egregious example of "Amendment X", the mythical Constitutional provision that grants the left immunity to all disagreement, protest, or criticism. This doctrine also grants them the right to an audience and the right to be taken seriously. It equates such criticism to an abridgement of their rights, a criminal offense. It is almost the first thing out of every lefty's mouth when anyone disagrees with them. Think about that: according to Krugman, criticizing lefties is essentially a criminal offense. It has been pounded into the heads of two generations of American schoolchildren, with the results we see today. These people are authoritarian power-seekers, pure and simple.

[EternalVigilance]

When the pig squeals, you know you stuck him.

[jmaroneps37]

Just another leftist skunk who doesn't get it.

[jagrmeister]

The solution is to discredit Krugman. I would advise that we incessantly refer to Krugman's shilling for Enron in return for $50,000. Use that scandal to tar the man perpetually. Paul "Enron Shill" Krugman has this to say... Every radio station that refers to him should preface their remarks by saying "By the way, Krugman is the discredited journalist who took $50,000 from Enron to write a puff piece about them in Fortune while millions of investors and employees were being bilked." Destroy his credibility. Don't just call him a leftist. But attack his ability to be taken seriously as a journalist.

[jagrmeister]

Well said. I see Amendment X applied all the time. Their right to an uncritical audience must not be infringed.

[alwaysconservative]

I like your idea! I would further recommend the following lead-ins for constant use on some of the rest of the gang that would reveal them for who they are:

Irrelevant Clinton, disbarred Clinton, or disgraced Clinton
Judgment-debtor Sharpton, race-baiter Sharpton
Ineffective Daschle, out-of-touch Daschle, paranoid Daschle
Shakedown Jackson
"Life is a lottery" Gebhardt
Liebermann, changing beliefs and positions with the polls

[OpusatFR]

Heck no. It just makes Krugman a brown shirted facist.

I suppose he would like everyone who criticizes him Silenced.

We can criticize in this country and use our bucks to make our wishes known.

[an amused spectator]

Experienced Bushologists let out a collective "Aha!" when Clear Channel was revealed to be behind the pro-war rallies

This from a guy who took payola from Enron.

You get dizzy reading the list of "connections" that Krugman develops, if you try to remember at the same time the connections of Krugman and his crowd of lying Leftist thugs.

[careyb]

Why would a media company insert itself into politics this way?

You mean a media company like The New York Times?

[Timesink]

afternoon bump - i can't believe FR isn't infuriated by this

[atomic conspiracy]

Several people have now told me that Krugman actually used the word "Kristalnacht" in the original version (online last night) but it was edited out some time after midnight (EST). Can anyone here confirm that, ideally with a screen capture?