[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: [dvd-discuss] ClearChannel Plays It Safe
- To: "'dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu'" <dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu>
- Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] ClearChannel Plays It Safe
- From: "Ballowe, Charles" <CBallowe(at)usg.com>
- Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2001 10:57:49 -0500
- Reply-To: dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
- Sender: owner-dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
It may be an overreaction, but it's hard to see such
a change and not wonder why they're doing it. Many of the songs
on that list advocate peace or are anti-war -- I'm not sure
why they might ban those.
There are other songs that are much worse, given recent events,
that I didn't see on that list.
My opinion is that, as long as their advertisers let them do it,
they can do whatever they want -- listeners can find another
station if it bothers them. I am, however, curious as to
what their criteria were for that list.
-Charles Ballowe
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Richard Hartman [mailto:hartman@onetouch.com]
>
> Radio stations have always made their own playlists. Is
> this really any different from a station manager that hates
> Bob Dylan and never plays any of his songs? What are you
> going to do, pass "equal time" legislation so that every
> song must be played once before you can ever repeat one?
>
> I think this falls under the category of "overreacting".
>