I’m actually, sincerely, truly NOT tempted to sign on to the slam list to watch the mess I know must be happening there. I think I’m getting over it.
Y’know, I have less trouble with the tobacco company sponsorship than I do with Clear Channel. At least there are smoking poets in our ranks…
But ClearChannel? CLEARFUCKINGCHANNEL?
Who banned the Dixie Chicks from their airwaves? Who decided that John Lennon’s “Imagine” was an inappropriate song for airplay following 9/11? Who routinely dumb down and buy out local outlets to replace them with lowest common denominator CRAP?
Does anybody have a fucking clue?
Does anybody understand that the NPS has struck a deal with an organization that stands in opposition to what we claim to stand for?
(I know you do. This is rhetoric.)
Fuck fuck fuck.
It’s easy enough to be outraged — but who will take the first step to walk away?
Let’s see you do it, big bad revolutionaries…
Dark Matter 
July 10th, 2004 at 10:01 am
ficking grammar. should read “..music has obviously been getting stupider..”
July 10th, 2004 at 10:01 am
ficking grammar. should read “..music has obviously been getting stupider..”
July 10th, 2004 at 10:01 am
ficking grammar. should read “..music has obviously been getting stupider..”
July 10th, 2004 at 10:01 am
ficking grammar. should read “..music has obviously been getting stupider..”
July 9th, 2004 at 12:07 pm
it doesn’t matter if they actually banned the songs or not. any company that would seriously consider dumbing down their media base for political reasons is to be closely scrutinized. when having a problem with people taking the power back, or imagining living life in peace, one can be sure that there is nothing good coming out of the company.
nevermind the fact that they’d be profiting of off our art. never mind the fact that they DID ban the dixie chicks from airplay for speaking out against the power structure. never mind the fact that they fund the current pure-evil administration. never mind that they obviously don’t give a shit about their consumers, because they have a virtual monopoly. and most of all, never mind the fact that music has obviously getting stupider as time goes on.
July 9th, 2004 at 12:07 pm
it doesn’t matter if they actually banned the songs or not. any company that would seriously consider dumbing down their media base for political reasons is to be closely scrutinized. when having a problem with people taking the power back, or imagining living life in peace, one can be sure that there is nothing good coming out of the company.
nevermind the fact that they’d be profiting of off our art. never mind the fact that they DID ban the dixie chicks from airplay for speaking out against the power structure. never mind the fact that they fund the current pure-evil administration. never mind that they obviously don’t give a shit about their consumers, because they have a virtual monopoly. and most of all, never mind the fact that music has obviously getting stupider as time goes on.
July 9th, 2004 at 12:07 pm
it doesn’t matter if they actually banned the songs or not. any company that would seriously consider dumbing down their media base for political reasons is to be closely scrutinized. when having a problem with people taking the power back, or imagining living life in peace, one can be sure that there is nothing good coming out of the company.
nevermind the fact that they’d be profiting of off our art. never mind the fact that they DID ban the dixie chicks from airplay for speaking out against the power structure. never mind the fact that they fund the current pure-evil administration. never mind that they obviously don’t give a shit about their consumers, because they have a virtual monopoly. and most of all, never mind the fact that music has obviously getting stupider as time goes on.
July 9th, 2004 at 12:07 pm
it doesn’t matter if they actually banned the songs or not. any company that would seriously consider dumbing down their media base for political reasons is to be closely scrutinized. when having a problem with people taking the power back, or imagining living life in peace, one can be sure that there is nothing good coming out of the company.
nevermind the fact that they’d be profiting of off our art. never mind the fact that they DID ban the dixie chicks from airplay for speaking out against the power structure. never mind the fact that they fund the current pure-evil administration. never mind that they obviously don’t give a shit about their consumers, because they have a virtual monopoly. and most of all, never mind the fact that music has obviously getting stupider as time goes on.
July 9th, 2004 at 5:07 am
I don’t think they ever did offically deny it…I know about thier other background stuff…I just think that not all the facts were presented and people over-reacted.
July 9th, 2004 at 5:07 am
I don’t think they ever did offically deny it…I know about thier other background stuff…I just think that not all the facts were presented and people over-reacted.
July 9th, 2004 at 5:07 am
I don’t think they ever did offically deny it…I know about thier other background stuff…I just think that not all the facts were presented and people over-reacted.
July 9th, 2004 at 5:07 am
I don’t think they ever did offically deny it…I know about thier other background stuff…I just think that not all the facts were presented and people over-reacted.
July 9th, 2004 at 4:38 am
Then why did they deny that they did it? It took an internal whistleblower to turn the memo over to the press before they’d admit it happened at all.
If you’ve ever worked in corporate America, you know that a memo from headquarters phrased the way that one was phrased has the force of a rule.
Of course they didn’t officially “ban” any songs…that would look too heavy handed. But trust me…their wording had that force.
Even if they hadn’t done it…there’s plenty of more serious stuff in their background.
July 9th, 2004 at 4:38 am
Then why did they deny that they did it? It took an internal whistleblower to turn the memo over to the press before they’d admit it happened at all.
If you’ve ever worked in corporate America, you know that a memo from headquarters phrased the way that one was phrased has the force of a rule.
Of course they didn’t officially “ban” any songs…that would look too heavy handed. But trust me…their wording had that force.
Even if they hadn’t done it…there’s plenty of more serious stuff in their background.
July 9th, 2004 at 4:38 am
Then why did they deny that they did it? It took an internal whistleblower to turn the memo over to the press before they’d admit it happened at all.
If you’ve ever worked in corporate America, you know that a memo from headquarters phrased the way that one was phrased has the force of a rule.
Of course they didn’t officially “ban” any songs…that would look too heavy handed. But trust me…their wording had that force.
Even if they hadn’t done it…there’s plenty of more serious stuff in their background.
July 9th, 2004 at 4:38 am
Then why did they deny that they did it? It took an internal whistleblower to turn the memo over to the press before they’d admit it happened at all.
If you’ve ever worked in corporate America, you know that a memo from headquarters phrased the way that one was phrased has the force of a rule.
Of course they didn’t officially “ban” any songs…that would look too heavy handed. But trust me…their wording had that force.
Even if they hadn’t done it…there’s plenty of more serious stuff in their background.
July 9th, 2004 at 1:45 am
Tony, regarding the whole “banning songs after 9/11” thing. They actually *didn’t* ban any songs…it was a list that went around the office (it was never released to any station) saying “maybe we should use caution”…I did a report on the whole thing last semester and the banning songs got blown way out of porportion…
July 9th, 2004 at 1:45 am
Tony, regarding the whole “banning songs after 9/11” thing. They actually *didn’t* ban any songs…it was a list that went around the office (it was never released to any station) saying “maybe we should use caution”…I did a report on the whole thing last semester and the banning songs got blown way out of porportion…
July 9th, 2004 at 1:45 am
Tony, regarding the whole “banning songs after 9/11” thing. They actually *didn’t* ban any songs…it was a list that went around the office (it was never released to any station) saying “maybe we should use caution”…I did a report on the whole thing last semester and the banning songs got blown way out of porportion…
July 9th, 2004 at 1:45 am
Tony, regarding the whole “banning songs after 9/11” thing. They actually *didn’t* ban any songs…it was a list that went around the office (it was never released to any station) saying “maybe we should use caution”…I did a report on the whole thing last semester and the banning songs got blown way out of porportion…
July 8th, 2004 at 11:42 pm
Re: i won’t walk away…
a deep-seated amen. the money is an amazing thing, and it’s definately good for the slam community. but it also means that the community itself will change. think more cookie-cutter identity pieces because that’s what cc is trying to pimp for their image. slam was always intended as a way for poetry to get to the masses, and it’s doing exactly that. power to it. the idea has become the institution. so now it’s up to us to grow the stones to make another idea.
July 8th, 2004 at 11:42 pm
Re: i won’t walk away…
a deep-seated amen. the money is an amazing thing, and it’s definately good for the slam community. but it also means that the community itself will change. think more cookie-cutter identity pieces because that’s what cc is trying to pimp for their image. slam was always intended as a way for poetry to get to the masses, and it’s doing exactly that. power to it. the idea has become the institution. so now it’s up to us to grow the stones to make another idea.
July 8th, 2004 at 11:42 pm
Re: i won’t walk away…
a deep-seated amen. the money is an amazing thing, and it’s definately good for the slam community. but it also means that the community itself will change. think more cookie-cutter identity pieces because that’s what cc is trying to pimp for their image. slam was always intended as a way for poetry to get to the masses, and it’s doing exactly that. power to it. the idea has become the institution. so now it’s up to us to grow the stones to make another idea.
July 8th, 2004 at 11:42 pm
Re: i won’t walk away…
a deep-seated amen. the money is an amazing thing, and it’s definately good for the slam community. but it also means that the community itself will change. think more cookie-cutter identity pieces because that’s what cc is trying to pimp for their image. slam was always intended as a way for poetry to get to the masses, and it’s doing exactly that. power to it. the idea has become the institution. so now it’s up to us to grow the stones to make another idea.
July 8th, 2004 at 8:37 pm
Re: Not all ends justify means
It’s not that CC is a big company subject to FCC regs that I object to,
It’s that CC is a virtual monopoly in many palces, with strict control over a lot more than just radio airplay, who have used that monopoly to stifle artists’ voices that run counter to their interests — not just stifle them on their own channels, but (because they hold those monopolies) stifle them in entire geogrpahic areas.
While the Net does provide some alternative access, I think we think of it as more pervasive than it actually is.
I’m sorry, but it’s the fact that it’s Clear Channel that I object to specifically. Hell, I work for a Fortune 200 company, and our CEO is a big Bush supporter. And I like my job.
It’s counter to my beliefs and abhorrent to me that this is happening.
The feeling that I expressed about not being done with slam? Let’s just say I’m not sure how to express how I feel about it right now.
July 8th, 2004 at 8:37 pm
Re: Not all ends justify means
It’s not that CC is a big company subject to FCC regs that I object to,
It’s that CC is a virtual monopoly in many palces, with strict control over a lot more than just radio airplay, who have used that monopoly to stifle artists’ voices that run counter to their interests — not just stifle them on their own channels, but (because they hold those monopolies) stifle them in entire geogrpahic areas.
While the Net does provide some alternative access, I think we think of it as more pervasive than it actually is.
I’m sorry, but it’s the fact that it’s Clear Channel that I object to specifically. Hell, I work for a Fortune 200 company, and our CEO is a big Bush supporter. And I like my job.
It’s counter to my beliefs and abhorrent to me that this is happening.
The feeling that I expressed about not being done with slam? Let’s just say I’m not sure how to express how I feel about it right now.
July 8th, 2004 at 8:37 pm
Re: Not all ends justify means
It’s not that CC is a big company subject to FCC regs that I object to,
It’s that CC is a virtual monopoly in many palces, with strict control over a lot more than just radio airplay, who have used that monopoly to stifle artists’ voices that run counter to their interests — not just stifle them on their own channels, but (because they hold those monopolies) stifle them in entire geogrpahic areas.
While the Net does provide some alternative access, I think we think of it as more pervasive than it actually is.
I’m sorry, but it’s the fact that it’s Clear Channel that I object to specifically. Hell, I work for a Fortune 200 company, and our CEO is a big Bush supporter. And I like my job.
It’s counter to my beliefs and abhorrent to me that this is happening.
The feeling that I expressed about not being done with slam? Let’s just say I’m not sure how to express how I feel about it right now.
July 8th, 2004 at 8:37 pm
Re: Not all ends justify means
It’s not that CC is a big company subject to FCC regs that I object to,
It’s that CC is a virtual monopoly in many palces, with strict control over a lot more than just radio airplay, who have used that monopoly to stifle artists’ voices that run counter to their interests — not just stifle them on their own channels, but (because they hold those monopolies) stifle them in entire geogrpahic areas.
While the Net does provide some alternative access, I think we think of it as more pervasive than it actually is.
I’m sorry, but it’s the fact that it’s Clear Channel that I object to specifically. Hell, I work for a Fortune 200 company, and our CEO is a big Bush supporter. And I like my job.
It’s counter to my beliefs and abhorrent to me that this is happening.
The feeling that I expressed about not being done with slam? Let’s just say I’m not sure how to express how I feel about it right now.
July 8th, 2004 at 8:13 pm
Again, lots of big businesses support Bush. CC does have communication access, which makes them more visible than other campaign donors — but it doesn’t make them more evil.
I mean, Repubs are for deregulation, and communications are so highly regulated that if you ran a huge communications firm, whose side do you think YOU’d be on? Clear Channel wants to grow, and they see Bush as their meal ticket to that. Also, conservative jackass radio hosts do much better than liberal jackass radio hosts, as Air America is proving.
July 8th, 2004 at 8:13 pm
Again, lots of big businesses support Bush. CC does have communication access, which makes them more visible than other campaign donors — but it doesn’t make them more evil.
I mean, Repubs are for deregulation, and communications are so highly regulated that if you ran a huge communications firm, whose side do you think YOU’d be on? Clear Channel wants to grow, and they see Bush as their meal ticket to that. Also, conservative jackass radio hosts do much better than liberal jackass radio hosts, as Air America is proving.
July 8th, 2004 at 8:13 pm
Again, lots of big businesses support Bush. CC does have communication access, which makes them more visible than other campaign donors — but it doesn’t make them more evil.
I mean, Repubs are for deregulation, and communications are so highly regulated that if you ran a huge communications firm, whose side do you think YOU’d be on? Clear Channel wants to grow, and they see Bush as their meal ticket to that. Also, conservative jackass radio hosts do much better than liberal jackass radio hosts, as Air America is proving.
July 8th, 2004 at 8:13 pm
Again, lots of big businesses support Bush. CC does have communication access, which makes them more visible than other campaign donors — but it doesn’t make them more evil.
I mean, Repubs are for deregulation, and communications are so highly regulated that if you ran a huge communications firm, whose side do you think YOU’d be on? Clear Channel wants to grow, and they see Bush as their meal ticket to that. Also, conservative jackass radio hosts do much better than liberal jackass radio hosts, as Air America is proving.
July 8th, 2004 at 8:10 pm
Re: Not all ends justify means
When one is running a non-profit public image and the opinions of core supporters DO have as much priority as money. Especially if it is an Arts non-profit which relies heavily on membership dues. You don’t disregard these things for ad time of questionable worth.
This, to me, is the most compelling argument of all. Although, it’s three stations in St. Louis owned by Clear Channel, and my understanding is that two of them cater to a primarily non-white audience. It’s no more directly feeding money to Bush than, say, shopping at Wal-Mart or using an MBNA credit card (MBNA is now Bush’s biggest lifetime campaign donor) or buying an American car (contributions heavily skewed to Bush over Kerry).
Being a big company subject to FCC regulations isn’t inherently evil — but it can be odious, depending on how it decides to operate.
How’s that for equivocal?
July 8th, 2004 at 8:10 pm
Re: Not all ends justify means
When one is running a non-profit public image and the opinions of core supporters DO have as much priority as money. Especially if it is an Arts non-profit which relies heavily on membership dues. You don’t disregard these things for ad time of questionable worth.
This, to me, is the most compelling argument of all. Although, it’s three stations in St. Louis owned by Clear Channel, and my understanding is that two of them cater to a primarily non-white audience. It’s no more directly feeding money to Bush than, say, shopping at Wal-Mart or using an MBNA credit card (MBNA is now Bush’s biggest lifetime campaign donor) or buying an American car (contributions heavily skewed to Bush over Kerry).
Being a big company subject to FCC regulations isn’t inherently evil — but it can be odious, depending on how it decides to operate.
How’s that for equivocal?
July 8th, 2004 at 8:10 pm
Re: Not all ends justify means
When one is running a non-profit public image and the opinions of core supporters DO have as much priority as money. Especially if it is an Arts non-profit which relies heavily on membership dues. You don’t disregard these things for ad time of questionable worth.
This, to me, is the most compelling argument of all. Although, it’s three stations in St. Louis owned by Clear Channel, and my understanding is that two of them cater to a primarily non-white audience. It’s no more directly feeding money to Bush than, say, shopping at Wal-Mart or using an MBNA credit card (MBNA is now Bush’s biggest lifetime campaign donor) or buying an American car (contributions heavily skewed to Bush over Kerry).
Being a big company subject to FCC regulations isn’t inherently evil — but it can be odious, depending on how it decides to operate.
How’s that for equivocal?
July 8th, 2004 at 8:10 pm
Re: Not all ends justify means
When one is running a non-profit public image and the opinions of core supporters DO have as much priority as money. Especially if it is an Arts non-profit which relies heavily on membership dues. You don’t disregard these things for ad time of questionable worth.
This, to me, is the most compelling argument of all. Although, it’s three stations in St. Louis owned by Clear Channel, and my understanding is that two of them cater to a primarily non-white audience. It’s no more directly feeding money to Bush than, say, shopping at Wal-Mart or using an MBNA credit card (MBNA is now Bush’s biggest lifetime campaign donor) or buying an American car (contributions heavily skewed to Bush over Kerry).
Being a big company subject to FCC regulations isn’t inherently evil — but it can be odious, depending on how it decides to operate.
How’s that for equivocal?
July 8th, 2004 at 4:02 pm
Re: part II
This might be a good way to get the number back to 45…
July 8th, 2004 at 4:02 pm
Re: part II
This might be a good way to get the number back to 45…
July 8th, 2004 at 4:02 pm
Re: part II
This might be a good way to get the number back to 45…
July 8th, 2004 at 4:02 pm
Re: part II
This might be a good way to get the number back to 45…
July 8th, 2004 at 2:16 pm
Does the fact that ClearChannel directly supports Bush and conservative causes change that at all?
It does for me. As I said, I actually have less trouble with RJR than with ClearChannel, simply because there’s a lot of conflict, for me, with aligning myself with a corporation that has made a business practice out of limiting freedom of expression for profit’s sake. ClearChannel has fucked a lot of artists. I’m an artist. I won’t stand with them. It strikes me that it’s diametrically opposed to what I do and what I believe.
I think Nathan’s argument is crap. I think selling out to CC is selling out, in truth, versus striking a deal that allows us to move forward.
Yesterday I posted a statement to this diary that I thought something needed to shake the slamiverse. I guess I got my wish.
July 8th, 2004 at 2:16 pm
Does the fact that ClearChannel directly supports Bush and conservative causes change that at all?
It does for me. As I said, I actually have less trouble with RJR than with ClearChannel, simply because there’s a lot of conflict, for me, with aligning myself with a corporation that has made a business practice out of limiting freedom of expression for profit’s sake. ClearChannel has fucked a lot of artists. I’m an artist. I won’t stand with them. It strikes me that it’s diametrically opposed to what I do and what I believe.
I think Nathan’s argument is crap. I think selling out to CC is selling out, in truth, versus striking a deal that allows us to move forward.
Yesterday I posted a statement to this diary that I thought something needed to shake the slamiverse. I guess I got my wish.
July 8th, 2004 at 2:16 pm
Does the fact that ClearChannel directly supports Bush and conservative causes change that at all?
It does for me. As I said, I actually have less trouble with RJR than with ClearChannel, simply because there’s a lot of conflict, for me, with aligning myself with a corporation that has made a business practice out of limiting freedom of expression for profit’s sake. ClearChannel has fucked a lot of artists. I’m an artist. I won’t stand with them. It strikes me that it’s diametrically opposed to what I do and what I believe.
I think Nathan’s argument is crap. I think selling out to CC is selling out, in truth, versus striking a deal that allows us to move forward.
Yesterday I posted a statement to this diary that I thought something needed to shake the slamiverse. I guess I got my wish.
July 8th, 2004 at 2:16 pm
Does the fact that ClearChannel directly supports Bush and conservative causes change that at all?
It does for me. As I said, I actually have less trouble with RJR than with ClearChannel, simply because there’s a lot of conflict, for me, with aligning myself with a corporation that has made a business practice out of limiting freedom of expression for profit’s sake. ClearChannel has fucked a lot of artists. I’m an artist. I won’t stand with them. It strikes me that it’s diametrically opposed to what I do and what I believe.
I think Nathan’s argument is crap. I think selling out to CC is selling out, in truth, versus striking a deal that allows us to move forward.
Yesterday I posted a statement to this diary that I thought something needed to shake the slamiverse. I guess I got my wish.
July 8th, 2004 at 2:14 pm
Not all ends justify means
First, what is really being gained here? Clear Channel is not donating money, it’s giving ad time for which it gets a tax deduction and NPS is still paying $1500. Is this the best use of NPS money? Are ads on commercial radio even necessary? Will those ads reach any new audience members? How will this affect the relationship with local and independent media which reach slam’s potential audience far more directly? What happens if any negative stories get written about this deal?
When one is running a non-profit public image and the opinions of core supporters DO have as much priority as money. Especially if it is an Arts non-profit which relies heavily on membership dues. You don’t disregard these things for ad time of questionable worth.
There is a big difference between a questionable product like a tobacco and a company which profits from practices in direct opposition to the entire spirit of the event. People have a choice about smoking – Clear Channel is a de facto monopoly which engages in censorship and shady political tactics to deny choice.
I’m stunned by the arrogance and stupidity of doing this during such a politically polarized time, in complete disregard of participants feelings, for a deal which require PAYING for the privelege of a controversial situation.
July 8th, 2004 at 2:14 pm
Not all ends justify means
First, what is really being gained here? Clear Channel is not donating money, it’s giving ad time for which it gets a tax deduction and NPS is still paying $1500. Is this the best use of NPS money? Are ads on commercial radio even necessary? Will those ads reach any new audience members? How will this affect the relationship with local and independent media which reach slam’s potential audience far more directly? What happens if any negative stories get written about this deal?
When one is running a non-profit public image and the opinions of core supporters DO have as much priority as money. Especially if it is an Arts non-profit which relies heavily on membership dues. You don’t disregard these things for ad time of questionable worth.
There is a big difference between a questionable product like a tobacco and a company which profits from practices in direct opposition to the entire spirit of the event. People have a choice about smoking – Clear Channel is a de facto monopoly which engages in censorship and shady political tactics to deny choice.
I’m stunned by the arrogance and stupidity of doing this during such a politically polarized time, in complete disregard of participants feelings, for a deal which require PAYING for the privelege of a controversial situation.
July 8th, 2004 at 2:14 pm
Not all ends justify means
First, what is really being gained here? Clear Channel is not donating money, it’s giving ad time for which it gets a tax deduction and NPS is still paying $1500. Is this the best use of NPS money? Are ads on commercial radio even necessary? Will those ads reach any new audience members? How will this affect the relationship with local and independent media which reach slam’s potential audience far more directly? What happens if any negative stories get written about this deal?
When one is running a non-profit public image and the opinions of core supporters DO have as much priority as money. Especially if it is an Arts non-profit which relies heavily on membership dues. You don’t disregard these things for ad time of questionable worth.
There is a big difference between a questionable product like a tobacco and a company which profits from practices in direct opposition to the entire spirit of the event. People have a choice about smoking – Clear Channel is a de facto monopoly which engages in censorship and shady political tactics to deny choice.
I’m stunned by the arrogance and stupidity of doing this during such a politically polarized time, in complete disregard of participants feelings, for a deal which require PAYING for the privelege of a controversial situation.
July 8th, 2004 at 2:14 pm
Not all ends justify means
First, what is really being gained here? Clear Channel is not donating money, it’s giving ad time for which it gets a tax deduction and NPS is still paying $1500. Is this the best use of NPS money? Are ads on commercial radio even necessary? Will those ads reach any new audience members? How will this affect the relationship with local and independent media which reach slam’s potential audience far more directly? What happens if any negative stories get written about this deal?
When one is running a non-profit public image and the opinions of core supporters DO have as much priority as money. Especially if it is an Arts non-profit which relies heavily on membership dues. You don’t disregard these things for ad time of questionable worth.
There is a big difference between a questionable product like a tobacco and a company which profits from practices in direct opposition to the entire spirit of the event. People have a choice about smoking – Clear Channel is a de facto monopoly which engages in censorship and shady political tactics to deny choice.
I’m stunned by the arrogance and stupidity of doing this during such a politically polarized time, in complete disregard of participants feelings, for a deal which require PAYING for the privelege of a controversial situation.
July 8th, 2004 at 1:59 pm
Re: part II
I think there are a few teams waiting to get in … but also, I’ve heard Las Vegas is bailing.
July 8th, 2004 at 1:59 pm
Re: part II
I think there are a few teams waiting to get in … but also, I’ve heard Las Vegas is bailing.
July 8th, 2004 at 1:59 pm
Re: part II
I think there are a few teams waiting to get in … but also, I’ve heard Las Vegas is bailing.
July 8th, 2004 at 1:59 pm
Re: part II
I think there are a few teams waiting to get in … but also, I’ve heard Las Vegas is bailing.
July 8th, 2004 at 1:47 pm
I’m actually working on a corporate sponsorship policy now, that doesn’t tie our hands but at the same time doesn’t align us with companies that compromise our public image. And, right now, Clear Channel falls into a huge, huge gray area made even more gray by recent developments in Internet radio and subscriber services like iTunes. There are censorship issues, to be sure, but I think access issues are getting less and less germane w/r/t Clear Channel. Do I think it’s bullshit that the Dixie Chicks were briefly banned from Clear Channel stations? Yes. Does that limit the band’s ability to sell their records and make a living? No. I mean, yes, my computer at work runs Microsoft Windows, but I’m also using a Mozilla browser and while I type this, I’m listening to an indie band called The Fitness, from an album out on an indie record label called Control Group, on KEXP (an independent radio station based in Seattle) through iTunes.
July 8th, 2004 at 1:47 pm
I’m actually working on a corporate sponsorship policy now, that doesn’t tie our hands but at the same time doesn’t align us with companies that compromise our public image. And, right now, Clear Channel falls into a huge, huge gray area made even more gray by recent developments in Internet radio and subscriber services like iTunes. There are censorship issues, to be sure, but I think access issues are getting less and less germane w/r/t Clear Channel. Do I think it’s bullshit that the Dixie Chicks were briefly banned from Clear Channel stations? Yes. Does that limit the band’s ability to sell their records and make a living? No. I mean, yes, my computer at work runs Microsoft Windows, but I’m also using a Mozilla browser and while I type this, I’m listening to an indie band called The Fitness, from an album out on an indie record label called Control Group, on KEXP (an independent radio station based in Seattle) through iTunes.
July 8th, 2004 at 1:47 pm
I’m actually working on a corporate sponsorship policy now, that doesn’t tie our hands but at the same time doesn’t align us with companies that compromise our public image. And, right now, Clear Channel falls into a huge, huge gray area made even more gray by recent developments in Internet radio and subscriber services like iTunes. There are censorship issues, to be sure, but I think access issues are getting less and less germane w/r/t Clear Channel. Do I think it’s bullshit that the Dixie Chicks were briefly banned from Clear Channel stations? Yes. Does that limit the band’s ability to sell their records and make a living? No. I mean, yes, my computer at work runs Microsoft Windows, but I’m also using a Mozilla browser and while I type this, I’m listening to an indie band called The Fitness, from an album out on an indie record label called Control Group, on KEXP (an independent radio station based in Seattle) through iTunes.
July 8th, 2004 at 1:47 pm
I’m actually working on a corporate sponsorship policy now, that doesn’t tie our hands but at the same time doesn’t align us with companies that compromise our public image. And, right now, Clear Channel falls into a huge, huge gray area made even more gray by recent developments in Internet radio and subscriber services like iTunes. There are censorship issues, to be sure, but I think access issues are getting less and less germane w/r/t Clear Channel. Do I think it’s bullshit that the Dixie Chicks were briefly banned from Clear Channel stations? Yes. Does that limit the band’s ability to sell their records and make a living? No. I mean, yes, my computer at work runs Microsoft Windows, but I’m also using a Mozilla browser and while I type this, I’m listening to an indie band called The Fitness, from an album out on an indie record label called Control Group, on KEXP (an independent radio station based in Seattle) through iTunes.
July 8th, 2004 at 1:37 pm
Re: part II
This is a well-stated case from someone who has been able to personally rationalize an “ends justifies the means” logic. It’s particularly interesting that he sees RJR’s contributions as blood money while Clear Channel’s isn’t.
Most troubling, though, is this: If you leave, there are teams waiting to replace you.
WTF? First of all, last I checked, they still hadn’t hit 80 teams so, outside of a few possibly waiting for the list to hit 75 teams, there’s actually NOT anyone waiting to jump in. This kind of logic is like telling people not to protest the war because they’re going to fight it anyway!
Secondly, so what? Let other teams jump in. Why should that affect anyone’s desire to protest via a boycott? If the protest is legit, and not just grandstanding, who cares that there’s others who have no problem with the sponsorship? Do what you think is right and let the chips fall where they may. It’s your own conscience you have to deal with.
July 8th, 2004 at 1:37 pm
Re: part II
This is a well-stated case from someone who has been able to personally rationalize an “ends justifies the means” logic. It’s particularly interesting that he sees RJR’s contributions as blood money while Clear Channel’s isn’t.
Most troubling, though, is this: If you leave, there are teams waiting to replace you.
WTF? First of all, last I checked, they still hadn’t hit 80 teams so, outside of a few possibly waiting for the list to hit 75 teams, there’s actually NOT anyone waiting to jump in. This kind of logic is like telling people not to protest the war because they’re going to fight it anyway!
Secondly, so what? Let other teams jump in. Why should that affect anyone’s desire to protest via a boycott? If the protest is legit, and not just grandstanding, who cares that there’s others who have no problem with the sponsorship? Do what you think is right and let the chips fall where they may. It’s your own conscience you have to deal with.
July 8th, 2004 at 1:37 pm
Re: part II
This is a well-stated case from someone who has been able to personally rationalize an “ends justifies the means” logic. It’s particularly interesting that he sees RJR’s contributions as blood money while Clear Channel’s isn’t.
Most troubling, though, is this: If you leave, there are teams waiting to replace you.
WTF? First of all, last I checked, they still hadn’t hit 80 teams so, outside of a few possibly waiting for the list to hit 75 teams, there’s actually NOT anyone waiting to jump in. This kind of logic is like telling people not to protest the war because they’re going to fight it anyway!
Secondly, so what? Let other teams jump in. Why should that affect anyone’s desire to protest via a boycott? If the protest is legit, and not just grandstanding, who cares that there’s others who have no problem with the sponsorship? Do what you think is right and let the chips fall where they may. It’s your own conscience you have to deal with.
July 8th, 2004 at 1:37 pm
Re: part II
This is a well-stated case from someone who has been able to personally rationalize an “ends justifies the means” logic. It’s particularly interesting that he sees RJR’s contributions as blood money while Clear Channel’s isn’t.
Most troubling, though, is this: If you leave, there are teams waiting to replace you.
WTF? First of all, last I checked, they still hadn’t hit 80 teams so, outside of a few possibly waiting for the list to hit 75 teams, there’s actually NOT anyone waiting to jump in. This kind of logic is like telling people not to protest the war because they’re going to fight it anyway!
Secondly, so what? Let other teams jump in. Why should that affect anyone’s desire to protest via a boycott? If the protest is legit, and not just grandstanding, who cares that there’s others who have no problem with the sponsorship? Do what you think is right and let the chips fall where they may. It’s your own conscience you have to deal with.
July 8th, 2004 at 1:23 pm
i won’t walk away…
i do see this as a step in the right direction…but not using clear channel. i’m for selling out, but it depends on the master i’m selling out to.
July 8th, 2004 at 1:23 pm
i won’t walk away…
i do see this as a step in the right direction…but not using clear channel. i’m for selling out, but it depends on the master i’m selling out to.
July 8th, 2004 at 1:23 pm
i won’t walk away…
i do see this as a step in the right direction…but not using clear channel. i’m for selling out, but it depends on the master i’m selling out to.
July 8th, 2004 at 1:23 pm
i won’t walk away…
i do see this as a step in the right direction…but not using clear channel. i’m for selling out, but it depends on the master i’m selling out to.
July 8th, 2004 at 1:15 pm
part II
Finally, responses to what’s already happened. Personally, I think
boycotting and street demonstrations at this event would be unfortunate and counter-productive. And I say that as someone who gets paid to occupy corporate hq’s and block busy streets and intersections. This event is a celebration of our community. It makes little sense to disrupt that celebration with demonstrations when we have easy and direct access to the decision-makers. Why do we want the rest of the world to know that we can’t take care of our disagreements within the community? Who does that help? And
more importantly, how does that help us communicate with each other? This isn’t the little guy taking on The Man here, it’s us having a serious disagreement.
Boycotts: What does that accomplist except deny your poets the opportunity to be in community with other poets? What is it supposed to accomplish? To register your discontent with the direction of NPS 2004? Can’t you do that with a phone call or e-mail? To put pressure on the OC to change it’s sponsorship direction? Do you really think that pulling out will do that? If you leave, there are teams waiting to replace you. If you leave you have no leverage and won’t have the opportunity to directly confront the people you have a grievance with. To publically embarrass NPS 2004? Maybe. If you can get someone in the press to give a shit and cover it so the rest of the world knows.
I’m not trying to shut you down. Personally I think that direct action is a key tactic in advancing an issue. I am questioning whether it is the appropriate tactic in this case at this time (and it could be, despite my carping). I am also pleading for people to remember that lots of people come together at this thing to participate in community building and to make connections with other poets and all-around cool people. A community naturally has grievances and disagreements and we’re in the middle of a controversy here. But do we have to attack them with conflict before we’ve even tried other means of advancing our own points of view? I mean, there
aren’t even any guidelines on who and who can’t sponsor a PSI event. Before we pillory the OC, maybe we can come up with some so that next time there is a way to hold the OC accountable to the wide community.
Okay, that’s my $.02.
Nathan
Team Berkeley 2004
July 8th, 2004 at 1:15 pm
part II
Finally, responses to what’s already happened. Personally, I think
boycotting and street demonstrations at this event would be unfortunate and counter-productive. And I say that as someone who gets paid to occupy corporate hq’s and block busy streets and intersections. This event is a celebration of our community. It makes little sense to disrupt that celebration with demonstrations when we have easy and direct access to the decision-makers. Why do we want the rest of the world to know that we can’t take care of our disagreements within the community? Who does that help? And
more importantly, how does that help us communicate with each other? This isn’t the little guy taking on The Man here, it’s us having a serious disagreement.
Boycotts: What does that accomplist except deny your poets the opportunity to be in community with other poets? What is it supposed to accomplish? To register your discontent with the direction of NPS 2004? Can’t you do that with a phone call or e-mail? To put pressure on the OC to change it’s sponsorship direction? Do you really think that pulling out will do that? If you leave, there are teams waiting to replace you. If you leave you have no leverage and won’t have the opportunity to directly confront the people you have a grievance with. To publically embarrass NPS 2004? Maybe. If you can get someone in the press to give a shit and cover it so the rest of the world knows.
I’m not trying to shut you down. Personally I think that direct action is a key tactic in advancing an issue. I am questioning whether it is the appropriate tactic in this case at this time (and it could be, despite my carping). I am also pleading for people to remember that lots of people come together at this thing to participate in community building and to make connections with other poets and all-around cool people. A community naturally has grievances and disagreements and we’re in the middle of a controversy here. But do we have to attack them with conflict before we’ve even tried other means of advancing our own points of view? I mean, there
aren’t even any guidelines on who and who can’t sponsor a PSI event. Before we pillory the OC, maybe we can come up with some so that next time there is a way to hold the OC accountable to the wide community.
Okay, that’s my $.02.
Nathan
Team Berkeley 2004
July 8th, 2004 at 1:15 pm
part II
Finally, responses to what’s already happened. Personally, I think
boycotting and street demonstrations at this event would be unfortunate and counter-productive. And I say that as someone who gets paid to occupy corporate hq’s and block busy streets and intersections. This event is a celebration of our community. It makes little sense to disrupt that celebration with demonstrations when we have easy and direct access to the decision-makers. Why do we want the rest of the world to know that we can’t take care of our disagreements within the community? Who does that help? And
more importantly, how does that help us communicate with each other? This isn’t the little guy taking on The Man here, it’s us having a serious disagreement.
Boycotts: What does that accomplist except deny your poets the opportunity to be in community with other poets? What is it supposed to accomplish? To register your discontent with the direction of NPS 2004? Can’t you do that with a phone call or e-mail? To put pressure on the OC to change it’s sponsorship direction? Do you really think that pulling out will do that? If you leave, there are teams waiting to replace you. If you leave you have no leverage and won’t have the opportunity to directly confront the people you have a grievance with. To publically embarrass NPS 2004? Maybe. If you can get someone in the press to give a shit and cover it so the rest of the world knows.
I’m not trying to shut you down. Personally I think that direct action is a key tactic in advancing an issue. I am questioning whether it is the appropriate tactic in this case at this time (and it could be, despite my carping). I am also pleading for people to remember that lots of people come together at this thing to participate in community building and to make connections with other poets and all-around cool people. A community naturally has grievances and disagreements and we’re in the middle of a controversy here. But do we have to attack them with conflict before we’ve even tried other means of advancing our own points of view? I mean, there
aren’t even any guidelines on who and who can’t sponsor a PSI event. Before we pillory the OC, maybe we can come up with some so that next time there is a way to hold the OC accountable to the wide community.
Okay, that’s my $.02.
Nathan
Team Berkeley 2004
July 8th, 2004 at 1:15 pm
part II
Finally, responses to what’s already happened. Personally, I think
boycotting and street demonstrations at this event would be unfortunate and counter-productive. And I say that as someone who gets paid to occupy corporate hq’s and block busy streets and intersections. This event is a celebration of our community. It makes little sense to disrupt that celebration with demonstrations when we have easy and direct access to the decision-makers. Why do we want the rest of the world to know that we can’t take care of our disagreements within the community? Who does that help? And
more importantly, how does that help us communicate with each other? This isn’t the little guy taking on The Man here, it’s us having a serious disagreement.
Boycotts: What does that accomplist except deny your poets the opportunity to be in community with other poets? What is it supposed to accomplish? To register your discontent with the direction of NPS 2004? Can’t you do that with a phone call or e-mail? To put pressure on the OC to change it’s sponsorship direction? Do you really think that pulling out will do that? If you leave, there are teams waiting to replace you. If you leave you have no leverage and won’t have the opportunity to directly confront the people you have a grievance with. To publically embarrass NPS 2004? Maybe. If you can get someone in the press to give a shit and cover it so the rest of the world knows.
I’m not trying to shut you down. Personally I think that direct action is a key tactic in advancing an issue. I am questioning whether it is the appropriate tactic in this case at this time (and it could be, despite my carping). I am also pleading for people to remember that lots of people come together at this thing to participate in community building and to make connections with other poets and all-around cool people. A community naturally has grievances and disagreements and we’re in the middle of a controversy here. But do we have to attack them with conflict before we’ve even tried other means of advancing our own points of view? I mean, there
aren’t even any guidelines on who and who can’t sponsor a PSI event. Before we pillory the OC, maybe we can come up with some so that next time there is a way to hold the OC accountable to the wide community.
Okay, that’s my $.02.
Nathan
Team Berkeley 2004
July 8th, 2004 at 1:15 pm
here goes (very long)
Folks,
I think, as others have noted, we’re looking at a few things here.
First, we’re looking at the sponsors the organizing committee (OC) have gotten for NPS2004. Second we’re thinking about what kinds of guidelines there should or should not be for getting sponsors for official PSI events in the future. Third, we’re thinking of how to respond to the kinds of sponsors that have been secured.;
The two sponsors everyone is concerned about are RJR and Clear Channel. It’s pretty clear that RJR is in the business of addicting and killing people to make money. It’s also clear the product they sell is currently legal and consumed by large sections of the slam community and, most likely, large sections of our audience. Clear Channel’s product doesn’t kill people, but it does kill diversity, spontenaity, and local culture on the radio dial. They are also legal.
Both of these sponsors are huge corporations with lots of money and
influence and power, all of which they use directly for their own
self-interest. Just like any other corporation. Just like any other
corporation they use their marketing and sponsorship dollars to increase their brand awareness and market share. Slam reaches a demographic they wish to reach, so slam is something they are interested in sponsoring. That’s the corporate side of it.
Slam and NPS in particular is about as underfunded as you can get. In order to build an audience and run a dynamic show money is an essential ingredient, with in-kind donationa coming in a close second. RJR has $$$ and is willing to give us some. Clear Channel is willing to publicize the show on radio stations that reach a mass audience that should come to hear the kind of work we do.
As an organizer (not of slams, but of poor people), these are atractive offers, especially the clear channel deal. That kind of investment in publicity is worth way more than $106,000. The reality of the situation is that most people don’t listen to the kind of media that we are comfortable supporting. Most people listen to commercial radio and most people listen to clear channel’s stations. If we are about reaching a mass audience, then we need to be mass communicating. If we can get people to come to poetry that offers a whole different way to think about the world and their relationship
to it thorugh using the corporate-owned media, then we fucking rock. Talk about subverting the dominant paradigm. Or something.
The RJR deal I think incorporates a whole new level of morality into the discussion. And I think, personally, that taking tobacco money is a serious problem, despite the legality of it all, despite the fact that our audience and participants are consumers of the product. It’s real blood money and we should have an open discussion about whether we want that or not.
Then, of course, the biggest issue for me is not that RJR is evil or that Clear Channel is ruthless, but that they might try to change what I say. If they don’t do that, then, fine, let’s take their money and use it to culture jam the system.
Working for ACORN as a Development Director, I’ve taken money from some interesting sources. But the money doesn’t stop us from doing protests and taking over buildings or tackling the issues that our members care about, because we’re accountable to our members, not our donors. If corporate sponsorship stops poets from being true to their visoin and truth, then we’ve got a problem. If it doesn’t then, I’m open to taking money from people who have it to support art, our art. It’s not like art funding is growing on trees here in the USA. If some multi-national drops .000001% of their budget on slam, I’m inclined to cash the check and pay some people.
However, that doesn’t mean that we, as a community, shouldn’t have some guidelines that govern what kinds of corproate and other cash finds its way into our official events. I can see us creating something that would limit or eliminate the inolvement of companies like RJR and Clear Channel in our events. And given the controversy genreated by the idea of these two companies getting involved, I think this is something we should revisit. With alacrity. This IS our thing, after all. We should decide who we pimp our poetry out to, collectively.
(part II next…)
July 8th, 2004 at 1:15 pm
here goes (very long)
Folks,
I think, as others have noted, we’re looking at a few things here.
First, we’re looking at the sponsors the organizing committee (OC) have gotten for NPS2004. Second we’re thinking about what kinds of guidelines there should or should not be for getting sponsors for official PSI events in the future. Third, we’re thinking of how to respond to the kinds of sponsors that have been secured.;
The two sponsors everyone is concerned about are RJR and Clear Channel. It’s pretty clear that RJR is in the business of addicting and killing people to make money. It’s also clear the product they sell is currently legal and consumed by large sections of the slam community and, most likely, large sections of our audience. Clear Channel’s product doesn’t kill people, but it does kill diversity, spontenaity, and local culture on the radio dial. They are also legal.
Both of these sponsors are huge corporations with lots of money and
influence and power, all of which they use directly for their own
self-interest. Just like any other corporation. Just like any other
corporation they use their marketing and sponsorship dollars to increase their brand awareness and market share. Slam reaches a demographic they wish to reach, so slam is something they are interested in sponsoring. That’s the corporate side of it.
Slam and NPS in particular is about as underfunded as you can get. In order to build an audience and run a dynamic show money is an essential ingredient, with in-kind donationa coming in a close second. RJR has $$$ and is willing to give us some. Clear Channel is willing to publicize the show on radio stations that reach a mass audience that should come to hear the kind of work we do.
As an organizer (not of slams, but of poor people), these are atractive offers, especially the clear channel deal. That kind of investment in publicity is worth way more than $106,000. The reality of the situation is that most people don’t listen to the kind of media that we are comfortable supporting. Most people listen to commercial radio and most people listen to clear channel’s stations. If we are about reaching a mass audience, then we need to be mass communicating. If we can get people to come to poetry that offers a whole different way to think about the world and their relationship
to it thorugh using the corporate-owned media, then we fucking rock. Talk about subverting the dominant paradigm. Or something.
The RJR deal I think incorporates a whole new level of morality into the discussion. And I think, personally, that taking tobacco money is a serious problem, despite the legality of it all, despite the fact that our audience and participants are consumers of the product. It’s real blood money and we should have an open discussion about whether we want that or not.
Then, of course, the biggest issue for me is not that RJR is evil or that Clear Channel is ruthless, but that they might try to change what I say. If they don’t do that, then, fine, let’s take their money and use it to culture jam the system.
Working for ACORN as a Development Director, I’ve taken money from some interesting sources. But the money doesn’t stop us from doing protests and taking over buildings or tackling the issues that our members care about, because we’re accountable to our members, not our donors. If corporate sponsorship stops poets from being true to their visoin and truth, then we’ve got a problem. If it doesn’t then, I’m open to taking money from people who have it to support art, our art. It’s not like art funding is growing on trees here in the USA. If some multi-national drops .000001% of their budget on slam, I’m inclined to cash the check and pay some people.
However, that doesn’t mean that we, as a community, shouldn’t have some guidelines that govern what kinds of corproate and other cash finds its way into our official events. I can see us creating something that would limit or eliminate the inolvement of companies like RJR and Clear Channel in our events. And given the controversy genreated by the idea of these two companies getting involved, I think this is something we should revisit. With alacrity. This IS our thing, after all. We should decide who we pimp our poetry out to, collectively.
(part II next…)
July 8th, 2004 at 1:15 pm
here goes (very long)
Folks,
I think, as others have noted, we’re looking at a few things here.
First, we’re looking at the sponsors the organizing committee (OC) have gotten for NPS2004. Second we’re thinking about what kinds of guidelines there should or should not be for getting sponsors for official PSI events in the future. Third, we’re thinking of how to respond to the kinds of sponsors that have been secured.;
The two sponsors everyone is concerned about are RJR and Clear Channel. It’s pretty clear that RJR is in the business of addicting and killing people to make money. It’s also clear the product they sell is currently legal and consumed by large sections of the slam community and, most likely, large sections of our audience. Clear Channel’s product doesn’t kill people, but it does kill diversity, spontenaity, and local culture on the radio dial. They are also legal.
Both of these sponsors are huge corporations with lots of money and
influence and power, all of which they use directly for their own
self-interest. Just like any other corporation. Just like any other
corporation they use their marketing and sponsorship dollars to increase their brand awareness and market share. Slam reaches a demographic they wish to reach, so slam is something they are interested in sponsoring. That’s the corporate side of it.
Slam and NPS in particular is about as underfunded as you can get. In order to build an audience and run a dynamic show money is an essential ingredient, with in-kind donationa coming in a close second. RJR has $$$ and is willing to give us some. Clear Channel is willing to publicize the show on radio stations that reach a mass audience that should come to hear the kind of work we do.
As an organizer (not of slams, but of poor people), these are atractive offers, especially the clear channel deal. That kind of investment in publicity is worth way more than $106,000. The reality of the situation is that most people don’t listen to the kind of media that we are comfortable supporting. Most people listen to commercial radio and most people listen to clear channel’s stations. If we are about reaching a mass audience, then we need to be mass communicating. If we can get people to come to poetry that offers a whole different way to think about the world and their relationship
to it thorugh using the corporate-owned media, then we fucking rock. Talk about subverting the dominant paradigm. Or something.
The RJR deal I think incorporates a whole new level of morality into the discussion. And I think, personally, that taking tobacco money is a serious problem, despite the legality of it all, despite the fact that our audience and participants are consumers of the product. It’s real blood money and we should have an open discussion about whether we want that or not.
Then, of course, the biggest issue for me is not that RJR is evil or that Clear Channel is ruthless, but that they might try to change what I say. If they don’t do that, then, fine, let’s take their money and use it to culture jam the system.
Working for ACORN as a Development Director, I’ve taken money from some interesting sources. But the money doesn’t stop us from doing protests and taking over buildings or tackling the issues that our members care about, because we’re accountable to our members, not our donors. If corporate sponsorship stops poets from being true to their visoin and truth, then we’ve got a problem. If it doesn’t then, I’m open to taking money from people who have it to support art, our art. It’s not like art funding is growing on trees here in the USA. If some multi-national drops .000001% of their budget on slam, I’m inclined to cash the check and pay some people.
However, that doesn’t mean that we, as a community, shouldn’t have some guidelines that govern what kinds of corproate and other cash finds its way into our official events. I can see us creating something that would limit or eliminate the inolvement of companies like RJR and Clear Channel in our events. And given the controversy genreated by the idea of these two companies getting involved, I think this is something we should revisit. With alacrity. This IS our thing, after all. We should decide who we pimp our poetry out to, collectively.
(part II next…)
July 8th, 2004 at 1:15 pm
here goes (very long)
Folks,
I think, as others have noted, we’re looking at a few things here.
First, we’re looking at the sponsors the organizing committee (OC) have gotten for NPS2004. Second we’re thinking about what kinds of guidelines there should or should not be for getting sponsors for official PSI events in the future. Third, we’re thinking of how to respond to the kinds of sponsors that have been secured.;
The two sponsors everyone is concerned about are RJR and Clear Channel. It’s pretty clear that RJR is in the business of addicting and killing people to make money. It’s also clear the product they sell is currently legal and consumed by large sections of the slam community and, most likely, large sections of our audience. Clear Channel’s product doesn’t kill people, but it does kill diversity, spontenaity, and local culture on the radio dial. They are also legal.
Both of these sponsors are huge corporations with lots of money and
influence and power, all of which they use directly for their own
self-interest. Just like any other corporation. Just like any other
corporation they use their marketing and sponsorship dollars to increase their brand awareness and market share. Slam reaches a demographic they wish to reach, so slam is something they are interested in sponsoring. That’s the corporate side of it.
Slam and NPS in particular is about as underfunded as you can get. In order to build an audience and run a dynamic show money is an essential ingredient, with in-kind donationa coming in a close second. RJR has $$$ and is willing to give us some. Clear Channel is willing to publicize the show on radio stations that reach a mass audience that should come to hear the kind of work we do.
As an organizer (not of slams, but of poor people), these are atractive offers, especially the clear channel deal. That kind of investment in publicity is worth way more than $106,000. The reality of the situation is that most people don’t listen to the kind of media that we are comfortable supporting. Most people listen to commercial radio and most people listen to clear channel’s stations. If we are about reaching a mass audience, then we need to be mass communicating. If we can get people to come to poetry that offers a whole different way to think about the world and their relationship
to it thorugh using the corporate-owned media, then we fucking rock. Talk about subverting the dominant paradigm. Or something.
The RJR deal I think incorporates a whole new level of morality into the discussion. And I think, personally, that taking tobacco money is a serious problem, despite the legality of it all, despite the fact that our audience and participants are consumers of the product. It’s real blood money and we should have an open discussion about whether we want that or not.
Then, of course, the biggest issue for me is not that RJR is evil or that Clear Channel is ruthless, but that they might try to change what I say. If they don’t do that, then, fine, let’s take their money and use it to culture jam the system.
Working for ACORN as a Development Director, I’ve taken money from some interesting sources. But the money doesn’t stop us from doing protests and taking over buildings or tackling the issues that our members care about, because we’re accountable to our members, not our donors. If corporate sponsorship stops poets from being true to their visoin and truth, then we’ve got a problem. If it doesn’t then, I’m open to taking money from people who have it to support art, our art. It’s not like art funding is growing on trees here in the USA. If some multi-national drops .000001% of their budget on slam, I’m inclined to cash the check and pay some people.
However, that doesn’t mean that we, as a community, shouldn’t have some guidelines that govern what kinds of corproate and other cash finds its way into our official events. I can see us creating something that would limit or eliminate the inolvement of companies like RJR and Clear Channel in our events. And given the controversy genreated by the idea of these two companies getting involved, I think this is something we should revisit. With alacrity. This IS our thing, after all. We should decide who we pimp our poetry out to, collectively.
(part II next…)
July 8th, 2004 at 1:06 pm
Re: general mood = fcuk clear channel
If you’ve got time, and energy, sure. That’d be great.
July 8th, 2004 at 1:06 pm
Re: general mood = fcuk clear channel
If you’ve got time, and energy, sure. That’d be great.
July 8th, 2004 at 1:06 pm
Re: general mood = fcuk clear channel
If you’ve got time, and energy, sure. That’d be great.
July 8th, 2004 at 1:06 pm
Re: general mood = fcuk clear channel
If you’ve got time, and energy, sure. That’d be great.
July 8th, 2004 at 1:04 pm
general mood = fcuk clear channel
Do you want me to cut & past Nathan’s response to talks of boycotts, etc.? It’s very interesting. An equal number of messages express outrage about the RJR sponsorship rumors.
July 8th, 2004 at 1:04 pm
general mood = fcuk clear channel
Do you want me to cut & past Nathan’s response to talks of boycotts, etc.? It’s very interesting. An equal number of messages express outrage about the RJR sponsorship rumors.
July 8th, 2004 at 1:04 pm
general mood = fcuk clear channel
Do you want me to cut & past Nathan’s response to talks of boycotts, etc.? It’s very interesting. An equal number of messages express outrage about the RJR sponsorship rumors.
July 8th, 2004 at 1:04 pm
general mood = fcuk clear channel
Do you want me to cut & past Nathan’s response to talks of boycotts, etc.? It’s very interesting. An equal number of messages express outrage about the RJR sponsorship rumors.
July 8th, 2004 at 12:59 pm
Nope. I’m off, and I’m staying off.
But I’m not surprised that Nathan did that, based on past interchanges.
What’s the general mood?
July 8th, 2004 at 12:59 pm
Nope. I’m off, and I’m staying off.
But I’m not surprised that Nathan did that, based on past interchanges.
What’s the general mood?
July 8th, 2004 at 12:59 pm
Nope. I’m off, and I’m staying off.
But I’m not surprised that Nathan did that, based on past interchanges.
What’s the general mood?
July 8th, 2004 at 12:59 pm
Nope. I’m off, and I’m staying off.
But I’m not surprised that Nathan did that, based on past interchanges.
What’s the general mood?
July 8th, 2004 at 12:56 pm
You know, Nathan Henderson from Team Berkley just posted a very thoughtful analysis of the situation. You can skip all of the back and forth except that one. Especially avoid any message from Thom Holcomb.
July 8th, 2004 at 12:56 pm
You know, Nathan Henderson from Team Berkley just posted a very thoughtful analysis of the situation. You can skip all of the back and forth except that one. Especially avoid any message from Thom Holcomb.
July 8th, 2004 at 12:56 pm
You know, Nathan Henderson from Team Berkley just posted a very thoughtful analysis of the situation. You can skip all of the back and forth except that one. Especially avoid any message from Thom Holcomb.
July 8th, 2004 at 12:56 pm
You know, Nathan Henderson from Team Berkley just posted a very thoughtful analysis of the situation. You can skip all of the back and forth except that one. Especially avoid any message from Thom Holcomb.