Mary Katharine Ham

They're so oppressed that they're getting segments on primetime cable news shows! Man, it's rough being silenced.

The Chicks gave props to the Free Republic and corporate America for bringing them down. Ha, I bet the Freepers are lovin' that.

I got some flak from commenters the last time I posted about this-- liberals telling me to put my claws away and asking why I was so angry at the Chicks for voicing their opinions. I'm not angry. I don't think the Chicks are evil, or a scourge upon the country, and I continue to like their music. I do think they're wrong, and they compound being wrong by being silly and spoiled and obnoxious. All that obnoxious understandably spills over into my music-listening and taints it.

They are not victims because people chose not to buy their albums. Those people gave them a stage in the first place because they liked their music. The Dixie Chicks used that stage to insult something those people believed in. Those people had no obligation to prop up that stage with their money and time after they were insulted. Simple as that.

The victim act is really tiresome, especially when it comes from uber-rich international music stars. The victim act will continue with a vengeance from now until their "Shut Up and Sing" movie opens and flops, however. Now, the Chicks are claiming the ads for their movie were turned down by NBC because they're "disparaging to President Bush."

All right, am I the only one who doesn't think that passes the smell test? Networks are, of course, welcome to turn down advertising, but that seems an exceedingly odd and unlikely move by NBC. Keep in mind that it's the Chick movie's distribution company making the claim, though that's not made very clear in the ledes to most of the stories:

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."

TWC also quoted a rep from the CW as saying it had concerns that "we do not have appropriate programming in which to schedule this spot."

The CW brass disputes the Chicks' version of events:

"That's not true," he said. "The spot was not declined. In fact, we were told they were not going to make a national spot buy on CW."

An email exchange obtained by Daily Variety between a media buyer for TWC and a CW standards and practices rep seems to back that up. The CW reps asks the media buyer if "you have a buy with us for the Dixie Chicks movie?" The ad rep for TWC replies, "We do not currently have a national buy with CW."

Oops. Then, there's all this oppression:

The Weinstein Co. isn't facing a total blockade against its ad.

Spot in question aired on the ABC-owned stations in New York and L.A. earlier this week during a broadcast of "The Oprah Winfrey Show" featuring the Dixie Chicks.

Ad has also aired on Peacock-owned stations in New York and L.A., as well as on CW affils in the same markets.

Yeah, the silencing of the Dixie Chicks is positively deafening.  

And, lest you think I'm in the business of silencing the Chicks myself, here's a link to their subversive ad on Think Progress. The only thing outrageous about it is how utterly predictable it is. Could the Bush-hate be any more passe?

Update: In comments, someone makes the point that the Chicks received death threats. This is true, from all I know, but certainly represents the smallest, smallest, smallest portion of the backlash they received. Death threats are, of course, vile and unacceptable, but the Chicks' movie and current complaints are not about death threats alone. In fact, they're not even mostly about death threats. They're about people just not liking them enough.


Mary Katharine Ham

Mary Katharine Ham is editor-at-large of HotAir.com, a contributor to Townhall Magazine.

Be the first to read Mary Katharine Ham's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com delivered each morning to your inbox.