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.

14 of 594 comments (clear)

  1. Response by Oligonicella · · Score: 5, Insightful

    And, as The Dixie Chicks found out, the public is free to respond as they see fit.

    1. Re:Response by iknownuttin · · Score: 5, Insightful
      By giving them the top Grammy awards? (Best record, song AND album)

      The public doesn't award Grammy Awards, it's an industry award including some of the beloved RIAA members

      Of course, they're sooo with it. Like when they gave "Jethro Tull" a Grammy for "Best Heavy Metal Album" or something like that.

      It's a political award: nothing else.

      --
      I prefer Flambe as apposed flamebait.
    2. Re:Response by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      They made comments that offended people, those people stopped buying records. I would take that one step further. The Dixie Chicks made comments that offended people that were already consumers of their music. Its a minor problem if you offend people who are not going to buy your product anyway, but its an entirely different issue if you offend your core consumer group.

      I think XM did the same thing. People who didn't care much for Opie and Anthony were the ones offended, not the fans of the show. In responding to complaints of consumers that don't (and likely will never) listen to the show, XM did more damage to their company by angering the people actually paying to listen. I would imagine the same thing would happen to SIRIUS if they suspended Howard Stern. Its great to placate the hurt feelings of others, but not at the expense of your current consumer base. XM is now in a position where people who didn't listen to Opie and Anthony are still not paying for the XM product, while people who did listen are also deciding not to pay for the XM product anymore. Oops.
  2. Not free speech, free enterprise! by erroneus · · Score: 5, Insightful

    And things are happening just exactly as they should! It's a free enterprise system and people are voting with their dollars exactly as they should. I'm really happy to see the enormous backlash even if I am a little surprised by it.

    Cable TV was supposed to deliver the kind of raw material that the public craves. It wasn't able to sustain it. Satelite radio is supposed to deliver the kind of raw material that the public craves. It has been delivering but the moment someone decides "too far" then they are removing the key value that the public craves.

    They should either reverse their decision immediately (for the sake of stock holders!) or go out of business. They no longer offer on their hype and promise... now they are just another radio source and as such, has nothing to offer over terrestrial radio.

    (I felt the same way when Dell outsourced its support to other nations... Dell said "everyone's doing it" and I replied, "but that's the advantage Dell had over all the others...their last unique value and now it's gone!")

    1. Re:Not free speech, free enterprise! by Fear+the+Clam · · Score: 5, Funny

      Cable TV was supposed to deliver the kind of raw material that the public craves.

      It's got electrolytes.

  3. Re:Must Be A Joke by chrono13 · · Score: 5, Funny

    Siriusly, my name is not Surely!

    --
    You have been eaten by a Hurd of GNU.
  4. Speech, Schmeech... It's a Business by RobotRunAmok · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Calling the channel "Uncensored" is a marketing ploy. Every workplace -- especially radio stations -- have limitations. XM logically figured that an impromptu bit of business in which the US Secretery of State is raped crossed those limitations, particularly since XM's uber-management is in the process of calling in every US government favor it has to grease the skids for a clearly lucrative merger with their lone competitor, Sirius.

    It fascinates me that this is framed as a "Free Speech" issue. The airwaves that XM uses aren't of the public variety, it has nothing to do with constitutional amendments.

    You know, for a generation raised on digital music, you sure all get caught in the same groove, sounding like broken records, a lot.

    1. Re:Speech, Schmeech... It's a Business by WrongSizeGlass · · Score: 5, Funny

      You know, for a generation raised on digital music, you sure all get caught in the same groove, sounding like broken records, a lot. Please refrain from analog analogies. Surely you meant to say something along the lines of "You know, for a generation raised on digital music, you sure all report the same sector as bad, a lot" or maybe even "share the same invalid address space, a lot".
  5. Re:People Against Censorship by pla · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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...".

  6. Re:People Against Censorship by heinousjay · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It's totally time that we, the people, are empowered to tell them, those other people (who don't count as much as we), what they can and can't do with their property.

    --
    Slashdot - where whining about luck is the new way to make the world you want.
  7. Re:People Against Censorship by pla · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It's totally time that we, the people, are empowered to tell them, those other people (who don't count as much as we), what they can and can't do with their property.

    I consider myself rather cynical, but even I wouldn't call employees "property".

    More importantly, though, "those other people" don't exist as people! Call me crazy, but I strongly believe that real live humans should have far, far more rights than fictional legal entities.

    Why, you might ask?

    Simple - You can't imprison a corporation (and only rarely do we imprison the leaders thereof; lookup "hydra" on Wiki for an idea of the effectiveness of that). You can't kill a corporation (well, you can, but in 230 years of abuse by our corporate masters, the government has only used it a very, very small number of times, and never for actual "crimes" such as Bhopal - No, they've used it in reponse to manipulations of another legal fiction, the economy). You can't meaningfully impose any punishment on a corporation, beyond fines (which with very, very few exceptions amount to nothing more than a nuissance, "just the cost of doing business").

    So, that leaves us with entities with the rights of real live humans, with absolutely no morals, a single-minded obsession with profit, and no reason to fear serious punishment.

    So yeah, I damned well do think we should have the right to tell these legal fictions what they can and can't do with "their" property - Starting with not allowing them to own property in the first place.

  8. Re:People Against Censorship by that+this+is+not+und · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I consider myself rather cynical, but even I wouldn't call employees "property".

    Neither would I. However, XM owns a bunch of microphones, and they get to decide in which direction they want to point them. The microphones are their property.

  9. Re:People Against Censorship by Winckle · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You are not qualified to say what is and isn't "right" about what can be said on TV and radio.

    You might be grossly offended by a rape joke, I might simply not find it amusing, someone else might chuckle.
    We all have different moral standards.

    As another example, what about insulting someone's religion? I couldn't give a shit if a broadcaster goes on a rampage against Christianity, but the Archbishop of Canterbury would clearly disagree with me.

    Stop allowing others to censor what you don't like, just don't watch it.

    </liberal rant>

  10. "uncensored" -=subscription=- radio! by Scrameustache · · Score: 5, Funny

    So, is making jokes about rape on national radio "right"? Ohhh, some people don't like you to talk like that. Ohh, some people like to shut you up for saying those things. You know that. Lots of people. Lots of groups in this country want to tell you how to talk. Tell you what you can't talk about. Well, sometimes they'll say, well you can talk about something but you can't joke about it. Say you can't joke about something because it's not funny. Comedians run into that shit all the time. Like rape. They'll say, "you can't joke about rape. Rape's not funny." I say, "fuck you, I think it's hilarious. How do you like that?" I can prove to you that rape is funny. Picture Porky Pig raping Elmer Fudd. See, hey why do you think they call him "Porky," eh?

    -George Carlin
    --

    You can't take the sky from me...