From Michael Moore to the Dixie Chicks (Paul Krugman NYT repeat, needs FReeping)

The Press Democrat ^ | March 26, 2003 | Pete Golis

[Tamar1973]

From Michael Moore to the Dixie Chicks

Press Democrat Editorial

You could imagine the cheers from the terminally alienated Sunday night when Michael Moore delivered his anti-war harangue -- "Shame on you, Mr. Bush" -- during Sunday night's Academy Awards.

But the audience in Hollywood booed. Even people who oppose the war in Iraq knew two things about this moment: (1) this was the wrong time and the wrong place for Moore to inflict his views on the rest of the world, and (2) Moore, accepting the Oscar for "Bowling for Columbine," was only proving one more time that he is a shameless self-promoter, a fellow who makes a ton of money pretending to be a victim of the corporate conspiracy to silence him.

We should all be so victimized.

Here is Slate.com and NPR (and former Village Voice) movie critic David Edelstein: "It would have been different, I think, if a non-blowhard had gotten up there and bellowed, 'Shame on you!' -- had put his or her career on the line to say that Bush was a liar. But that kind of boorish grandstanding comes too naturally to Moore, a man who didn't have the intellectual honesty to add that Saddam Hussein is a 'fictitious president,' too -- and one who has killed a lot more people than George W. Bush and his father combined. Nothing has ever shaken my faith in my own politics like having Michael Moore in the same camp. When he invoked the Dixie Chicks, I'll bet they wanted to stick their heads in an oven."

Speaking of the Dixie Chicks and proving that bigotry is not confined to one ideology or another, we are witnessing this week jingoist attempts to destroy the popular country-rock trio because lead singer Natalie Maines was heard to deliver an off-the-cuff criticism of President Bush.

It is not necessary to share Ms. Maines' analysis of American foreign policy to grasp the McCarthyesque aspects of this campaign. This is nothing more or less than an attempt to create 2003's version of the blacklist.

But it gets worse. As New York Times columnist Paul Krugman noted this week, the campaign to boycott the Grammy-winning trio -- including CD-smashing parties -- is being orchestrated by radio stations owned by Clear Channel Communications. That's the Texas-based corporation that controls more than 1,200 radio stations nationwide and which also has organized pro-Bush rallies across the country.

In published reports in recent months -- including a series of articles by Eric Boelhert of Salon.com -- Clear Channel has been accused of a variety of offenses, ranging from programming banality to payola to bullying artists and recording companies.

The business practices of Clear Channel, of course, flourish only with the blessing of the Bush administration and its Federal Communications Commission.

And Clear Channel, as the Wall Street Journal explained in January, "is rapidly becoming the lightning rod for concerns about media consolidation as the FCC moves forward with a sweeping revamp of its media-ownership rules."

For Clear Channel, what better way to ingratiate itself with the White House than to drop the big hammer -- access to more than 1,200 radio stations -- on any artist who dares to dissent?

This becomes the landscape upon which Americans this week are trying to debate legitimate differences about the war.

We hear every day from dozens of people of abiding conviction who cannot imagine that anyone could come to any other conclusion about this war -- any other conclusion, that is, than their conclusion. They filter every headline, every story placement, every crowd estimate, every editorial, every letter to the editor through the prism of their own beliefs. They beg us to print this commentary or that story, certain that its publication will resolve the issue once and for all.

For all Americans, this is a difficult time, punctuated by uncertainty and fear, anger and heartbreak.

I watched the anger on the streets of Santa Rosa last week and worried that in the hostility and confusion, someone could be killed.

In one example, a young woman convinced that the war is immoral placed herself in front an automobile, and a man just as convinced that opposition to the war is immoral urged the driver to run her down.

As the war in Iraq ebbs and flows, here, in microcosm, is the bitter conflict that Americans must manage during the coming days and weeks.

This much is certain: It will be difficult enough to sustain an honest disagreement about a complicated war without the noisy clatter of bigots and profiteers.

Pete Golis is editorial director for The Press Democrat. E-mail him at pgolis@pressdemocrat.com.

[Tamar1973]

The Press Democrat is owned by the New York Times, so don't be surprised by the copious references to Paul Krugman. He needs to be FReeped in similar manner as he repeats the same inaccuracies about the origins of the Dixie Chick's campaign and conservative activism in general.

[sauropod]

Krugman is a bigot.

[smith288]

I dont even think Natalie Maines will want to be identified with Michael Moore, the fat slob with manors that of my 2 year old. (Sorry Camden, no offense)

[finnman69]

Don't forget the $50,000 Krugman took as a paid consultant from Enron. (he will argue it was only $35,000)

[Schnucki]

Quoting the first amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Nobody's prohibiting anybody from speaking anti-American slogans. They're just not funding these folks any more.

[presidio9]

had put his or her career on the line to say that Bush was a liar. But that kind of boorish grandstanding comes too naturally to Moore, a man who didn't have the intellectual honesty to add that Saddam Hussein is a 'fictitious president,' too...

Oopsie, that last word there just sort of slipped out.

[Tamar1973]

I sent this letter to Mr. Golis of the PD:

Get your facts straight, please. FreeRepublic.com is the Origin of "Rally for America," rallies and the largest instigator of the anti-Dixie Chixs campaing, not Clear Channel radio.

I am looking forward to your expose in regards to International A.N.S.W.E.R.'s support and funding of the vast majority of the "peace rallies" too. I did a search in the New York Times online archives (your parent company) attempting to find proof that your parent company is fair and balanced in their reporting on the issue of these rallies and I didtn't find a single reference to International A.N.S.W.E.R., the lap-dogs of Kim Jong Il and the World Worker's Party. I did find three references to International A.N.S.W.E.R. in your coverage of the "peace rallies" but all you say about them is that they are an "anti-war" group. Mr. Golis, they are more than that and your paper and the other media outlets need to start doing their jobs and find the source of their money to fund these "peace rallies". But you won't.

No agenda there, eh?

[sauropod]

He has a Kenny Boy autographed pair ok kneepads.

[sauropod]

ok=of

[mallardx]

Excellent letter! We need to make a huge push to get the word out how dishonest the NYT reporting is in general. They might just run themselves into the ground by natural market forces, but they need to be exposed as the PRO_COMMUNIST, Anti-Bush, anti-Constitutional, anti-american filth that they truly are. Raines, Krugman, and their gang of pro-Saddam, pro - Jong-Il liberals need to be run out of town by an angry mob! That'd make my day!

[ibbryn]

So citizens who decide not to buy Dixie Chicks tix or cds are sponsoring a jingoist blacklist, yet citizens who protest outside Paramount Studios until Dr. Laura is taken off the air are just expressing their right to demonstrate and not spend money or time on people who they don't wish to support?

[Man of the Right]

The Ditsy Skanks are no different from Moore.

Moore's older than Maines. When she's Moore's age, she'll need a crowbar to clear the front door.

[Bahbah]

"This is nothing more or less than an attempt to create 2003's version of the blacklist."
Nonsense. In the 50's some people took action against others under pressure from the government. The reaction against the DC's is pure grassroots and those who want to speak out against them are entitled to do so. It bears no relationship the McCarthyism.

[Egregious Philbin]

I can't find any mention of Clear Channel doing anything against the Dixie Chicks more than allowing a few of their 1200 (!! - you can thank Clinton for that) stations to "ban" their music. In fact, Clear Channel is promoting their next tour...

I think the power of A.N.S.W.E.R. is greatly exaggerated by people here on FR. The organization doesn't even promote their connection to the WWP on their website. "Lap dog" would be giving them more credit than they deserve. They're the dog that sits outside hoping to be invited in, maybe, and a stupid dog at that. A.N.S.W.E.R. has success now, while their views against the war dovetail with more mainstream opinion, but my guess is they'll go right back to obscurity.

[sauropod]

You ask for logical thinking from Krugman????

He is an economist after all...

[sauropod]

"They're the dog that sits outside hoping to be invited in, maybe, and a stupid dog at that."

A clearer description of Brian Becker or Peta Lindsay I could not find...

[Egregious Philbin]

Weird. Brian Becker is also the name of the CEO of Clear Channel.

[Frances_Marion]

"So citizens who decide not to buy Dixie Chicks tix or cds are sponsoring a jingoist blacklist, yet citizens who protest outside Paramount Studios until Dr. Laura is taken off the air are just expressing their right to demonstrate and not spend money or time on people who they don't wish to support?"

Exactly. The McCarthy era was the best thing that could've happened to the elite left....now, whenever it appears they may face backlash from people exercising their right not to throw their hard earned money into these creeps' coffers, they scream BLACKLIST! MCCARTHYISM! Etc...and people take them seriously, instead of scoffing at their immaturity in not accepting responsibility for their hasty words.

If you really wanna see blacklisting, just ask any Republican or conservative who works in the entertainment industry....all 6 of them! Anyone remember that actress who was continually harrassed because a seperate picture of her appeared next to a Bush inauguration party photo? She caught hell, and she wasn't even a Republican.

[Tamar1973]

I think the power of A.N.S.W.E.R. is greatly exaggerated by people here on FR. The organization doesn't even promote their connection to the WWP on their website.

Don't be so sure. Where do you think they are getting their money? Even Susan Sarandon doens't make enough money to organize anti-american rallies all over the world. It is just as well they don't promote their connection to the WWP on their website. Otherwise, the NYT and the PD would have no choice but to make note of it.

[rocky88]

Did anyone watch O'Reilly last night??? He ripped the NYT a new one and it was awesome. He compared their 4 front-page headlines to those of the also-liberal Boston Globe, and made a show out of how negative and biased the NYT is. If we all listened to the NYT we'd all be chicken littles. Thank GOD for Bill O'Reilly - he was able to prove the NYT's liberal bias last night right down the details. It was a good feeling!!!