Before I say anything else, watch this:
So, what did you think of the ad?
Well, NBC has refused to air it because it deals with “public controversy.” Weinstein plans to take legal action, though I’m not sure how or on what grounds. We’ll have to see if that ends up materializing.
We ended up in a rather long and heated discussion at work about the controversy that prompted the movie. You might remember in 2003, lead singer Natalie Maines said to a crowd in London, “Just so you know, we’re ashamed the president of the United States is from Texas.” The overreaction from holier-than-thou country music fans was swift and harsh.
Cumulus Broadcasting pulled their music across the network, and Clear Channel stations organized protests where people were encouraged to stomp on, burn, or destroy Dixie Chicks CDs and memorabilia. It was pretty ugly stuff.
It was this participation by the larger media companies that prompted our discussion. Specifically, we debated whether anyone should be upset by the actions taken by NBC or by the radio stations in 2003. After all, the radio stations and these networks are simply making profit decisions. If the decision isn’t the one that will make them the most money (or it angers customers directly), the market will let the stations and networks know by taking their money elsewhere.
Second, is there anything wrong with the radio stations simply doing whatever they think makes the most business sense for them? If they want to avoid upsetting the administration because it makes business easier, then so be it. They have that right, as they have the right to do what they want with their own stations.
Those that know me will know that while I appreciate the sentiment in those thoughts, I couldn’t disagree more. The idea that markets are self-correcting is fine, but markets often don’t consider externalities until the cost of dealing with them is acute. To look back at 2002 and 2003, market-driven media brought us the poor journalism surrounding the lead up to the Iraq War. Very little media sought to anger or alienate a President riding a big popularity surge. It is also cheaper to simply report what the government says rather than doing actual investigation.
Beyond that, however, people can and should make moral judgments about why these companies chose to pull the music or reject the ad for the movie. This is not to say that laws should be created to compel these networks to air songs or commercials they don’t want to. Instead, the public has a right and obligation to inform the company of their displeasure and to either convince the network to make the “better” decision or to help change circumstances so that the “better” decision is the natural choice for the networks.
For example, in the case of this commercial, if NBC was standing up for some principle or for a real business case where their customers (advertisers) would really take their money elsewhere, that would be unfortunate but morally neutral in my opinion. Companies try to make money and listening to the people that give them money is a natural thing. It’s a mantra of business, after all.
On the other hand, there are situations like this:
The studio provided media outlets copies of “clearance” reports from NBC’s standards and practices department bearing handwritten notations stating the ads were deemed unacceptable because “they are disparaging of President Bush.“
To me, that represents a different choice, not one born of business or customer needs, but by fear of retribution or by political considerations outside of this particular transaction. In either case, that is a failure of a free press and NBC should be criticized for this. I’m sure that the market might end up costing NBC something, but the reality is that the market will reward the Dixie Chicks and NBC will see no lasting impact. They will sell their inventory to someone else, and they’ll hardly look back at this.
The background upon which this entire story is unfolding also has to play a part in our judgment of what NBC is doing. There have been numerous examples of our media protecting the administration and Republicans. The bias is undeniable and is unprecedented in our modern history. Imagine if President Clinton were protected and coddled by the media as much as President Bush?
That alone isn’t reason to criticize NBC, but it is reason to be concerned that more is going on here than a simple business decision. It would be great to see some actual reporting on this. Unfortunately, if there is something that the media is bad at, it’s self-examination. Without critical journalism, we’re relegated to having public outrage drive the day. In fact, without concerned citizens asking the next level of questions, where would we be?
Glenn Greenwald has more on the issue, including other pointers on Bush administration voodoo over the media.
Click through if you want to see the full trailer.
(Click here to read the rest of this post)