Overview
In this lesson, we will consider several musical responses that occurred in the wake of September 11, 2001. One corporation banned songs that it thought would be controversial or upsetting, igniting accusations of censorship. Several country musicians recorded anthems that promised revenge on those who had wronged the United States, and these songs were received with varying degrees of acceptance by listeners and by other musicians. Finally, the outspoken members of one band found themselves at odds with both corporations and their fellow country musicians when they criticized President George W. Bush. The controversies presented in this lesson raise questions about free speech, censorship, and the effects music can have in response to tragedy.
Objectives
- Recall the music that Clear Channel suggested that its radio stations not play after 9/11
- Recall the musical responses of several country music artists in response to the events of 9/11
- Recall the controversies surrounding the Dixie Chicks and their statements about other musicians and the American president
The Post-9/11 Clear Channel Memorandum continued
According to Clear Channel's CEO, the company was "responding with a degree of hypersensitivity" in the wake of 9/11. He claimed that Clear Channel supported freedom of speech and did not ban any songs, but they did suggest that stations alter their playlists in light of the events of 9/11. Critics accused Clear Channel of censorship and suppression, arguing that the company was exercising far too much control over what listeners could hear. It is clear that Clear Channel's list of songs created a significant amount of controversy about the amount of power and control a media corporation could exert.
Much of Clear Channel's power was the result of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, which was the first major overhaul of American telecommunications law since 1934. Title 3 of the Act, "Cable Services," allowed for media cross-ownershipa result of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, it allowed one person or corporation to own multiple media businesses, such as broadcast television, cable television, radio, newspapers, and internet sites. If any organization owns at least two media outlets, then it is considered a participant in cross-ownership. In media cross-ownership, one person or corporation can own multiple media businesses, such as broadcast television, cable television, radio, newspapers, and internet sites. If any organization owns at least two media outlets, then it is considered a participant in cross-ownership; for example, in 2001, Clear Channel Communications owned over one thousand radio stations as well as outdoor advertising, FOX News Radio, and over 40 local television stations. The major concerns with media cross-ownership regard the fact that a single company may control far too many media outlets.
Critics of Clear Channel and its cross-media ownership argued that Clear Channel was exerting far too much control over the music its radio stations played. According to Glen Robinson, a former commissioner of the Federal Communications Commission, "I can't say that this [list] violates any of a broadcaster's obligations, but it sounds like borderline manufacturing of the news." To opponents of Clear Channel's list, the company was censoring certain messages and artists in order to promote a specific point of view. According to the company itself, they suggested avoiding specific songs after 9/11 out of respect for the victims' families, who might have been unduly affected by the messages of those songs.
"The music industry's actions at the time of 9/11 and since have been actions driven by patriotism in most instances, and greed and stupidity to a lesser degree. Sounds like real life doesn't it?"
