The radio station is privately owned. They are under no obligation to play music that agrees with demographics of any sort. If the owner of the station simply doesn't like Christian rock, or the message that they deliver, he should be able to choose a different format. Do you not agree?The Christian rock bands MUSIC does not appeal to the demographics of the radio station - if you got a problem with that, it's something you need to take up with the progtam manager and somehow prove to him/het that the inclusion of these bands would up ratings. In the Dixie Chicks case, their MUSIC is/was not considered. Even though their sound was exactly the type of music their listeners enjoyed, they were taken of the playlist as a result of political censorship. Now that is wrong in my view.
How can you advocate forcing a station or programmer to play music they, for whatever reason, don't want to play? Where is their freedom?
If anything, the radio station owner is exercising his right to free speech. He is telling his audience how he feels about the Dixie Chicks' stance, and his means of expression is to not play their music. You are in favor of freedom of expression, right?
I am not sure what you mean, so let me re-phrase my stance. The Dixie Chicks' right to free speech is not being usurped because they still have many avenues to publish their views. Hell, they can create their own radio stations and broadcast their views 24 hours a day if they wish. What they cannot do is force someone else to carry their message for them.Isn't that the same as them giving an interview and airing their views? I say yes coz they're both media publicity and my argument at the beginning was that even this is being censored.