Slashdot Mirror
XM Satellite Radio Backlash
mrchubbs writes "Sponsors and subscribers to XM Radio are protesting the decision by XM management to suspend the Opie and Anthony show for comments made on an uncensored channel. Subscribers are canceling subscriptions — some estimate that between 20,000 and 40,000 have cancelled. Some are even smashing their radios in protest. Sponsors are pulling ads. Also, there is some evidence of XM not honoring cancellation requests, forcing multiple calls to finally get accounts canceled." Of course this dispute isn't a free-speech issue. "Free speech" refers to a prohibition on censorship by the government; XM is free to do as it wishes with the content it broadcasts, within the law.
It's hardly a censorship issue. XM, as a private company can hire ad fire whoever they like
I hear this argument a lot - That doesn't make it any more accurate.
It very much still counts as censorship - Just not the "protected" kind that the government can't do.
Yes, Sirius has the legal power to get rid of any of their employees, within the terms of their employees' contracts and various antidiscrimination laws. But that doesn't make it right, and we need to stop putting up with crap like this, much less justifying it with "as a private company...".
I had the same problem canceling with Vonage. Since I took every reasonable step to cancel, I called my card company and gave them the information to document my problem. I was contacted the next day for clarification of the problem and was properly reimbursed for my expenses and time.
Companies who cheat do NOT want to lose their merchant accounts. Card companies are not amused when a large percentage of customers are cheated. The card companies know where their profits come from and it doesn't come from a bad vendor.
Of course this dispute isn't a free-speech issue.
Yes it is. That's the whole point.
"Free speech" refers to a prohibition on censorship by the government;
No it doesn't. Free speech refers to the ability to speak without anyone attempting to stop you. Free speech can be actively enhanced by private individuals and organisations and can also be restricted (although not so easily). Free speech is a principle. It was the principle that guided the creation of the first amendment. It is not a result of it. XM is free to do as it wishes with the content it broadcasts, within the law.
No they aren't, except legally speaking (but that's a tautology). They are legally free to be total jerks. That doesn't mean we should let them. XM have decided that there are some things that their DJs are allowed to say amd some things that they are not allowed to say. If they break these rules, then they are censured. Does this suggest that they are "free" to "speak"?
Funny, I listen to almost nothing but talk radio. The new music channels only spoonfeed you crap that the RIAA companies pay lots of money to promote the hell out of, and the classic rock stations (my previous favorites) only play stuff I already have on CDs and can play myself on my iPod.
Talk radio is the only thing left on the radio that's new and fresh and, depending on which show, halfway decent. I never thought I would fit this profile, but the station I actually listen to the most? NPR, definitely. I'm not a fan of classical music, but their news and talk shows are fantastic. I'm a Morning Edition/All Things Considered/Marketplace addict now.
I have to admit, I hate so-called "shock jocks." I've never listened to Opie and Anthony (I don't have XM), and I can't stand the likes of Michael Savage, Howard Stern, and those types. In my mind, they're all the same. Being stupid for the sole sake of being stupid. It's not funny, it's not enraging, it's overdone so much that it's not even shocking any more.
Oh yeah, and at home, I stream some Internet stations that play independent artists, if that counts.
because they already said what they said on the air. What this is would be punishment for making racist or bigoted remarks like Don Imus did and got busted for and so many others.
This is a new trend, if a DJ or announcer or talk show host on the radio says something racist or bigoted they will get punished for it now.
Free Speech does not give you the right to violate station policy, nor does it give you the right to avoid social norms or insult groups of people with. It is about time that people are held accountable for what they say, instead of getting away with murder.
Remember, Slashdot does not have a -1 disagree moderation, and no, troll, flamebait, and overrated are not substitutes.
In this day and age, though, "more channels of mainstream content" isn't enough. The public grew tired of that with cable TV in the 80's and 90's. Satellite radio will have to adopt either time-shifting (in the manner of PVRs) or collaboration (in the manner of YouTube and Digg).
Right now, I'm having to accomplish time-shifting of talk radio via a thumb drive and an FM-broadcasting MP3 player. I'd rather have the convenience of an in-dash Tivo-style device that did it for me. No, it's not something that couldn't be copied by terrestial and Internet radio, but satellite radio could be first.
Building on that, my other suggestion was for user-created content. "Podcasting" was always kind of a misnomer since downloading and listening were discrete steps. Again, a Tivo-style satellite radio would simplify this, and combined with user-created content uploaded to the Internet (rated and ranked similar to Digg), satellite radio could usher in peer-to-peer broadcasting.
However, Big Media, Big Government, and Big Corporations would not like it and would try to see that it wouldn't happen.
I love this story, on so many levels. This is the first of its kind that I've seen. You always read about and expect stories like the Don Imus firing, (who, by the way, is suing CBS. Good luck to him.) or how someone is fined hundreds of thousands of US$ for saying the F-word, or "massive uproar" over split-second bairly-visible nip slips. But here we have the anti-censorship crowd doing exactly what the paranoid networks feared would come from the other side. I hope this is the start of a new revolution.
When did we get to the point where everything has to revolve around the opinions of a few overzealous religious-right middle-aged stay-at-home mothers who lived their whole lives inside a bubble and have too much time on their hands? [I have a sister who's just like that] For one, I don't think these people are going to change brands of toothpaste because their favorite brand sponsors a show that drops S-bombs and F-bombs on a regular basis. I also don't think these people will be buying any high-end cars or other luxury products, so those sponsors are safe. No sane person would boycott any sort of medication or medical treatment over this. The only potential advertisers affected might be those selling lower-end cars, SUVs(mainly), and perhaps any product that requires some amount of forethought. I'm sure there's a few obsessive individuals who will write down the names of every product that sponsors an offensive show and avoid them, but these are considerably rare.
Keeping this from becoming too off-topic, what Opie and Anthony fans can do is this: Take a brief look at the advertisers who pulled out in opposition of censorship. If they sell anything big that you plan on purchasing, remember to tell the salesperson (or probably better, write the company a letter with a photocopy of your receipt) that you went with them because they supported Opie and Anthony. (or free speech, but at least mention Opie and Anthony) I already plan to do the same because a (different) radio show that I love came under fire awhile back, and their main sponsor stood up for them. So my next mattress is coming from that sponsor. This is turning the tables on what networks and sponsors expect from consumers, and in doing so we may change their views on censorship.
Charisma is the measure of someone's ability to lie with a straight face.
It's been said that XM censored Opie & Andie because they didn't want any boat rocking in Congress while they attempted to merge with Sirius Radio.
There is a war going on for your mind.
I actually saw the movie, then went online and got some more information from the other point of view.. only to find there wasn't really any.
I think way too many people reacted to that whole thing, as well as to the movie, as being about 'freedom of speech'. Even Natalie herself did, to an extent, at one point (after which she calls Bush a "Dumb Fuck", for those who have seen the movie and needed the pointer). However, throughout the movie there was never once a strong "this is freedom of speech! why are people trampling on our freedom of speech!?" mantra. ( Aside from the old man stating that free speech is fine, but not on foreign soil and not in public. )
To me, it wasn't about freedom of speech. *obviously* you can say just about whatever you want, just don't get upset if somebody else makes a 'freedom of speech' statement back - and that includes no longer buying your product, or even going public with their opinion. ( Death threats are in a completely different league. )
I got a much stronger sense that the movie was about "this is what happens when a select group of powerful people focus their sheeple". From the political movement involved to the radio station 'federation' bosses right down to the woman who once loved the Dixie Chick's music (note: their music), then considered their music to be "trash" because of a personal (political or not, I say it was - even if it was meant in fun) statement from one of the band members.
Imagine if a similarly strong group of people existed in the software world. Perhaps they would convince 'blacks' that Open Source is "trash" because of ESR's past statements, even if currently perhaps only a few are offended by what he said, and fewer still may not touch anything to do with ESR.
So why do these things usually blow over (what of the huge public outcry against SONY's 'rootkit'?), and some times blow up (Dixie Chicks, Imus, etc.)?
As stated in the movie by one of the other band members (not a fan - don't recall the name, the other blonde anyway), the situation was just too perfect for those with an interest to let it blow over.
Even though I'm not a fan, I do admire their attitude, resolve -and- sense of when to just 'give up'. That's the other thing I think the movie demonstrated.. that sometimes, if the other side isn't going to budge, it may be better to just give up, and move on - even if the other side can't or won't. They moved on, with continued success.
---
Regardless of whether you're a fan or not, I do recommend watching this movie - it has some other bits of background information, and plenty of humor (the shot of Rick Rubin's dog is hilarious - brilliant editing! In fact, google for "Rick Rubin's dog" - currently only three hits, and all about this movie. )
I agree the US wasn't exactly playing by the rules either, mostly was just addressing the common leftist "See France is perfect happy anti-war funland!" when France didn't give a shit about anti-war, it was about not getting busted when we found the weapons they sold them illegally (and we did, some awesome pictures of french made jets completely buried in the sand) or any of the other evidence of violated UN programs, but this whole thing has been a unmitigated disaster from day 1. The US was also the first nation (ok not exactly the very first, its documented farther back, but first of the modern age) to use biological warfare on civilians (see smallpox blankets), we were also the first to use nuclear weapons on civilians. So any of the flag waving crap about how everyone else is too dangerous to own nukes is a bit, well, pot/kettle/black. I understand it was designed that way for a reason, but the problem is nuclear nonproliferation works completely counter to fixing things. You only get a voice with a nuke, and you can't develop nukes, so only us in power get to stay in power, no new people allowed. Creates a bit of an unbalance. Especially considering the high probability that Israel has hidden nuclear capabilities, and that the western world has pretty much sided with Israel on all things, there is certainly reason for the various Arab nations to be a little concerned.
:(
The most wonderful irony of watching all of this unfold is Bush say "You are either with us or against us" and then all the lefties cry about how ignorant that is and horrible and yada yada yada. But God forbid you disagree with ANY leftist stuff, because if you do you are suddenly a mindless Bush supporter, because you are either with them or against them. *rolls eyes* I look forward to the day that all the little peoples of the world figure out that their politicians have been playing them against each other for their own stupid goals, and that it is indeed possible for all sides to be wrong. In the meantime the people that don't swallow left wing or right wing groupthink whole are left to be attacked by both mindless hordes
The only change I can believe in is what I find in my couch cushions.
http://www.nbc6.net/entertainment/2185232/detail.
Country station KKCS, in Colorado Springs, has suspended two of its disc jockeys for putting the Chicks back on the air, in violation of a ban imposed after the group criticized President George W. Bush.
Lead singer Natalie Maines said during a March concert in London that she was "ashamed the President of the United States is from Texas."
[...]
"We pulled their music two months ago, and it's been a difficult decision because how can you ignore the hottest group in country music?" station manager Jerry Grant told The Gazette newspaper.
They pulled one of their most popular acts from the air because they didn't like their unwillingness to accept the war stance of the Bush administration as unquestionable truth. It wasn't for profit, it wasn't because the fans stopped listening, it was because they spoke freely.
You can't take the sky from me...
Again with the juvenile personal attacks. Do you really feel they enhance your position?
If violation of a United Nations brokered ceasefire was justification then why has North Korea not been invaded They after all are the larger threat. Not to mention Syria, Israel, India and Pakistan. After the first Gulf War Iraq was no threat to anyone but their own people and based on the United States published positions to the genocide in Rwanda, Darfour and many other places in the world that is not reason enough to invade a sovereign country even after repeated resolutions in the Security Counsel for the parties to stop.
Oh and if you replay again, please try to be adult about it.
Undetectable Steganography? Yep, there's an app fo
Sure, he was born in Conneticut, but his family moved to Texas when he was two. He probably doesn't even have any memories of living in Conneticut as a child. Texas was where he grew up; Texas was what shaped him.
Besides, from his way to speech to his hobbies to his attitude on life, the man screams rich Texan stereotype almost as badly as Ross Perot. There's not a lick of Conneticut in him. Now his father's definitely got that New England elite touch to him, but Dubya is as dipped in Texas as you can get.
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").