As you may have heard, a new documentary about the [tag]Dixie Chicks[/tag], called “[tag]Shut Up & Sing[/tag],” is hitting theaters in LA and NYC today, and the rest of the country on Nov. 11. It sounds pretty interesting — the documentary highlights the band’s experiences after lead singer Natalie Maines said she was ashamed that the president is from Texas, her home state. The right organized boycotts, the group received death threats, there was a bit of a national uproar … the kind of thing that should make for a compelling movie.
As is nearly always the case with major studios, The Weinstein Co. tried to buy airtime to show commercials that would help promote the documentary in advance of its national opening. That’s where the trouble started.
The Weinstein Co. is claiming that [tag]NBC[/tag] and the CW have refused to air national ads for the new Dixie Chicks docu “Shut Up & Sing.”
But while the Peacock has specifically said it won’t accept the spots because they are disparaging of President Bush, a rep for the CW strongly denies the Weinsteins version of events. […]
“It’s a sad commentary about the level of fear in our society that a movie about a group of courageous entertainers who were blacklisted for exercising their right of free speech is now itself being blacklisted by corporate America,” Harvey Weinstein said in a statement. “The idea that anyone should be penalized for criticizing the president is profoundly un-American.”
Is the commercial somehow offensive? Not at all. According to Variety, the ad shows a clip of Bush authorizing troops to fight in Iraq, then cuts to a clip of Maines’ “ashamed” comment. Next is a clip of the president saying publicly that the Dixie Chicks shouldn’t have their feelings hurt if people don’t want to buy their records anymore. The final frame shows Maines saying that Bush is a “real dumb (bleep).”
According to the Weinstein Co., NBC’s commercial clearance department said in writing that it “cannot accept these spots as they are disparaging to President Bush.” This doesn’t seem like much of a standard for commercials.
What’s more, as long-time readers know, this is part of a trend.
In April, two NBC affiliates refused to air MoveOn.org commercials as part of the group’s “red handed” campaign.
It was the latest in a series of similar moves by broadcasters. In March, all of the major TV networks rejected an ad by the United Church of Christ that told viewers, “No matter who you are or where you are on life’s journey, you’re welcome here.” In November 2005, Fox News wouldn’t run anti-Alito ads. Also last year, MoveOn.org raised enough money to buy an ad during the Super Bowl, but CBS rejected it, noting its “long-term policy not to air issue ads anywhere on the network.” Just a few weeks prior, CBS and NBC refused advertising from the UCC because the church’s open, tolerant message of inclusion was labeled “too controversial.” Last summer, a Utah television station (owned by Clear Channel) refused to air an anti-war ad featuring Cindy Sheehan. In 2002, ABC and CBS affiliates rejected an ad encouraging consumers not to buy SUVs with poor gas mileage.
In light of NBC’s decision about the Dixie Chicks, Glenn Greenwald noted:
The very idea that it is in the “public interest” to prohibit ads that criticize the Leader is ludicrous on its face. The President is constantly given free airtime to argue his views and propagandize on virtually every issue, and the networks endlessly offer forums for his followers and surrogates to defend him. And the networks’ argument is particularly absurd now, given that networks are awash with cash from offensive, obnoxious, and repugnant political ads of every kind.
What possible justification is there for a network to prohibit the promotion of films which are critical of the nation’s political leaders? Worse, the networks’ recent history of ostensible avoidance of “controversial” political material seems extremely selective and one-sided. “Controversial” in this context seems actually to mean “likely to trigger displeasure among the Leader and his supporters.”
The networks are still a very powerful public opinion instrument, and allowing them to become political propaganda venues — where messages that “disparage” the Leader are prohibited while all sorts of pro-Leader messages are allowed — has the potential to be quite harmful. We seem to be well on our way to that result.
So much for the “public’s airwaves”?