The FREEPER strategy on responding to Dixie Chicks manager's comments

Yesterday, we conducted a strategy session (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/868480/posts) on Free Republic on how to respond to the latest remarks by Simon Renshaw, the Dixie Chicks manager. As the thread unfolded, the strategy has crystallized and I have compiled the suggestions into a document which articulates the goals, message, and action items. But first, a recap. We all know the Dixie Chicks went abroad and insulted the President. They then apologized. But now the Dixie Chicks manager has some harsh words for fans complaining to radio stations, describing them as "radical" "weasels" (his own words) engaged in "conspiracy". Now it's time for country music fans to counter-punch in the Dixie Chicks boycott- Round 2.

Observation: The strategy begins with the observation that Renshaw's comments categorize patriotic Dixie Chicks fans who had a legitimate grievance as "radical" "weasels" (his own words) with an agenda. Such disrespect for country music fans adds insult to injury, renders hollow the Dixie Chicks apology, and eviscerates any goodwill gained by Maines' apology. (if you disagree, please private message me; i'd like to keep the thread for those who support this observation and taking action)

Round 2 Strategy Basics: Renshaw said radio stations were being duped by Free Republic (which he then demonized in a dozen ways) and implied that the "public" did not object to the Dixie Chicks' remarks as much as Free Republic made it seem. We refuse to go for Renshaw's bait. The pressure felt by radio stations is indeed a genuine outpouring of indignation and not a cynical political ploy. Because we are independent people and we refuse to be boxed in and demonized, we intend to counter-punch as concerned country music fans, not conservatives or Freepers. Getting into a debate about the merits of Free Republic is a diversion.

1. Continue the boycott of the Dixie Chicks on radio stations and combat Renshaw's propaganda

Round 2 Message: Here is the message that I spent a great deal of time (hours) honing for maximum efficicacy. Feel free to customize this message based on who you are using it with. Also feel free to change words, put it in your voice, etc. But I think the basic "message" is sound. Most of the time spent was choosing the angle at which to approach Renshaw's remarks and simplifying the argument- the emphasis was brevity.

"Simon Renshaw, manager for the Dixie Chicks, recently described country music fans who complained to their local radio station about the band's controversial remarks as "radical" "weasels" acting as part of a "conspiracy". By characterizing patriotic Dixie Chick fans in such a manner, he has rendered hollow the Dixie Chicks apology and eviscerated any goodwill gained by Maines' apology. Rather than acknowledging the genuine uproar that their comments fueled, the Dixie Chicks team is engaged in denial, conspiracy theory, and scapegoating. Rather than mend fences, the Dixie Chicks' representation has chosen to engage in name-calling against country music fans. I was willing to accept the Dixie Chicks apology but it appears that it was not made in good faith. These latest comments made by Dixie Chicks represenatation disrespect country music fans and add insult to injury. The boycot of the Dixie Chicks will continue until a genuine apology is made that respects sincerely the objections that countless patriotic fans have with the Dixie Chicks remarks."

*Let me know if you have any questions with the message. I'd be glad to clarify.

1. Contact Radio Stations- Round 2. Emphasize "Message- Round 2" and stress loss of listeners. The Dixie Chicks are not out of the woods yet and this latest insult worsens matters. (In our communication, we may want to rebut the radio station's reply of "we can't practice censorship" ahead of time by justifying the request of their ban of the Dixie Chicks on "listener interest"). Once you do so, please post here. If by e-mail, no need to paste it here (maybe a synopsis) as no point in giving them the satisfaction of tracing the criticism back to Free Republic. *List of radio stations: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/863302/posts

2. Contact Sony Music a. We need to first begin with Sony Music's contact information (http://www.sonymusic.com/sony/corpcomm.html) and find out who was responsible for sending the memo to radio stations containing Renshaw's remarks. Post this information on this thread. b. Address Sony Music with why country music fans are indignant over Renshaw's remarks, how he have added fuel to fire of the boycott, nullified the apology. In other words, as a manager, he has done permanent damage to the reputation and sales of his band. Sony Music must disavow themselves of Renshaw's critical remarks of country music fans since the memo with Renshaw's remarks was distributed by Sony Music. Recommend his termination. ---

I heard that the Dixie Chicks radio airplay was down 15%. We will know that we are successful if we are able to keep their airplay down through constant pressure of radio stations.

Here's a long quote (sorry) from Federalist #1 that describes, implicitly, the temperament required of a free people. I think those who participate in a conservative forum should cherish the wisdom expressed here.

It seems to have been reserved to the people of this country, by their conduct and example, to decide the important question, whether societies of men are really capable or not of establishing good government from reflection and choice, or whether they are forever destined to depend for their political constitutions on accident and force. . . . This idea will add the inducements of philanthropy to those of patriotism, to heighten the solicitude which all considerate and good men must feel for the event. Happy will it be if our choice should be directed by a judicious estimate of our true interests, unperplexed and unbiased by considerations not connected with the public good. But this is a thing more ardently to be wished than seriously to be expected. . . .
So numerous indeed and so powerful are the causes which serve to give a false bias to the judgment, that we, upon many occasions, see wise and good men on the wrong as well as on the right side of questions of the first magnitude to society. This circumstance, if duly attended to, would furnish a lesson of moderation to those who are ever so much persuaded of their being in the right in any controversy. . . . nothing could be more ill-judged than that intolerant spirit which has, at all times, characterised political parties. For in politics, as in religion, it is equally absurd to aim at making proselytes by fire and sword. Heresies in either can rarely be cured by persecution.
And yet, however just these sentiments will be allowed to be, we have already sufficient indications that it will happen in this as in all former cases of great national discussion. A torrent of angry and malignant passions will be let loose. To judge from the conduct of the opposite parties, we shall be led to conclude that they will mutually hope to evince the justness of their opinions, and to increase the number of the converts by the loudness of their declamations and the bitterness of their invectives. . . .
In the course of the preceding observations, I have had an eye, my fellow-citizens, to putting you upon your guard against all attempts, from whatever quarter, to influence your decision, in a matter of the utmost moment to your welfare, by any impressions other than those which may result from the evidence of truth. . . . My arguments will be open to all, and may be judged of by all. They shall at least be offered in a spirit which will not disgrace the cause of truth. . . . In the progress of this discussion I shall endeavour to give a satisfactory answer to all the objections which shall have made their appearance, that may seem to have any claim to your attention.

Let us emulate our Founding Fathers. Let us not disgrace our cause or our forum by engaging in uncivil discourse. Let us recommit ourselves to being a free people, "filled with patriotism, virtue and wisdom," so we are fit for liberty and qualified to be its protectors. We must help make this a forum for what John Jay called, in Federalist #2, "calm and mature inquiries and reflections which must ever precede the formation [and perpetuation] of a wise and well-balanced government for a free people."

Several things come to mind when I read your replies. The first is that yes Natalie Maines' is entitled to her opinion, and this is why President Bush didn't throw her in jail, and torture her (unlike the Iraqi regime, along with other such countries in the world).

However, we too have the right to be offended at her remarks, AND speak out against them as that is our right. Consider the KKK have thier rights of free speach, I, as well as others here, (especially) Democrats have been offended and have spoken out vehemently against the KKK's point of view. Unless a law is broken the KKK have their right to free speech without being arrested, let alone tortured. And we have the right to tell this group to pound salt.

Another point that I would like to make is that I recently heard a comedian comment that he is offended by actors and artists using their media access for political stances because (as an example) The Chickie Dicks are entertainers, not foriegn relations experts to be taking their point of view to the public stage (literally - and especially on foreign soil). "When was the last time you drove through a McDonalds and hear the person taking our order saying, 'okay you'd like a #3, with a Coke, and I personally feel that we need to free the oppressed Iraqi people from a brutal regime.'" You don't hear a McD's employee saying this, as it would be offensive to the "fans" of the restaurant and would turn patrons off and they would boycott their products.

An intelligent person always considers the source. Unfortunately that are many young people who form their opinions solely on entertainers and psudo media outlets. I once had a hairdresser tell me that she catches up on the news only by watching Jay Leno. Now I enjoy Jay's show, but it is just scary to consider his show as the sole source of their news and thus opinions formed from this source. I am sure the very same is true for many young teens and adults, and also some older adults. This alarms me to no end.

As far as the other websites and papers making disparaging comments regarding the vivid, lively, emotional, and many times tongue-in-cheek humor, or some of the posters "humorous catch phrases" (like "commies") that are posted here at Freerepublic. A responsible journalist considers the source and trys to be informed of the opposing perspective. These articles mis-quoting FR do so because they don't understand the people at this site and thus they are completely taken out of context, misunderstood, taken too seriously, or are due to lurkers who only do so long enough to find the negative ammunition to further devalue our site and provide so called "proof" to add credibility to their own story and agenda. Also, interesting to note, the originators of PC invading our society at many levels, feel the need to resort to refering to us as uneducated hicks. Nice, especially coming from the touchy feely crowd.

One needs to consider that the wonderful beauty of this website is that it is at various times; serious, humorous, knowlegable, as based on the many Freepers professional input and expertise. Most are highly educated either formally, or by keeping up with current events in a knowledgable way (not through Cosmo magazine), and we share interesting philosophies, intense knowledge or experience in particular areas. Sure you get the occasionally inappropriate comment, or sometimes we are either misunderstood by other Freepers, or we are completely misinformed or wrong about an issue and thus we get "Flamed".

Very often we are just passionate about an issue and get carried away, in a high school fashion. That's is the challenge and beauty of Freerepublic. What an invigorating and welcoming diversity of members we have.

And no, we don't tolerate liberal excuses, pandering, double talk, or worse - selective ethics that are so evident from the Democrats and their allies. We don't because this is our bastion of conservatism in an increasingly politically correct, liberal biased, media biased world.

I hope that you can lighten up and enjoy the high brow, and many times the low brow humor that is shared here. I don't like people or philosophies that take themselves so seriously - most "intelligencia" are not. In fact the most annoying people to me are the young NYC liberal dwellers who are soooo serious that they are boring and narrow minded. But just ask them why they are "enlightened" it is due to their liberal indoctrination at college, and because of where they live (how many times I've heard NYC folks say that other people are jealous of where they live - NOT me!) However, if you ask these same people where they are originally from they will tell you they are from every salt of the earth, podunk town outside of "The City". I know this to be a fact because I have family and friends living there, as I once did. It's not enjoyable to listen to the crap that they espouse, as they rarely have any original thought or plan. Here at Freerepublic we don't always have the regurgitated responses or beliefs that is so prevelent for the liberals, and as a result we are crude or crass. This is the beauty of free speech and original thought.

your points of view although may or may not be misunderstood, are your opinions and you are responsible for opening up a lively discussion as a results. Thank you.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.