Media Consolidation Couldn’t Kill the Dixie Chicks

Amid reports of declining numbers of local news outlets, the Democratic Congress has taken to decrying media consolidation. Too many newspapers and TV and radio stations are falling into too few hands, they say. These same companies control network programming, movie studios, and recording labels. Political diversity and diversity of opinion--not to mention innovative, edgy experiments in art and entertainment--are endangered because of a lack of outlets.

The Federal Communications Commission held hearings on media consolidation in Seattle, Washington and Nashville, Tennessee in November and December. Advocates of ownership limits are once again raising the specter of media monopoly and control, despite much evidence that media today is far more diverse and accessible than ever. (See “Drop Outdated Media Rules,” IT&T News, January 2007.)

But if anything stands in stark contrast to the fears of some “Great Blanding” of America, it was the Dixie Chicks’ triumph at February’s Grammy Awards, where the female vocal group, now only nominally country-western, took home five statuettes, including best album for their landmark release, “Taking the Long Way.”

The Comeback

The Chicks’ remarkable comeback also is documented in a recent film that directly addresses the issue of how media concentration might suppress both free speech and artistic freedom.

The film, “Shut Up and Sing,” follows the three-year creative odyssey of the Dixie Chicks, who still rank as the highest-selling female recording group in any genre.

During a 2003 concert in the U.K. that took place shortly after the U.S. invaded Iraq, the band’s lead singer, Natalie Maines, ad-libbed that she was “ashamed” President George W. Bush was from her native Texas.

The remark offended many listeners who made up the core of Dixie Chick fandom and, from a commercial perspective, ran counter to the carefully crafted patriotic, all-American image the group and its managers cultivated. It’s no surprise the comment landed the trio in trouble.

But were the Dixie Chicks victims of political censorship brought on by media consolidation, as some observers have suggested? Or did their experience ultimately validate the resiliency of the free market--its ability to bring producers and consumers together, one way or another?

Three years after that controversial comment in London, market forces appear to have won again. That may explain why the Dixie Chicks are rarely brought up in the media consolidation debate anymore.

Banned but Unbowed

Despite reports that nearly all the media companies were censoring their music, only one company, Cumulous Broadcast Group, actually banned the Dixie Chicks, which it did for a month from its 270 stations, mostly in the South. Although some stations owned by Clear Channel Communications, a favorite poster boy for ownership regulation, also pulled the group from their playlists, many other Clear Channel properties did not.

But putting aside whether the group was actually banned, by whom, and where, there is no denying Maines’ remark caused the Dixie Chicks to suffer commercially in terms of CD sales, sponsorships, and concert bookings.

But the loss of air time, sponsors, and the support of the country music establishment was also liberating. Suddenly freed from an image created more by their marketing than their music, the Dixie Chicks were able to explore new creative avenues, find a smaller, yet more sophisticated and appreciative audience, and in general grow as artists. This by itself pokes holes in the media monopoly argument.

Market Wins

The free market offered the Dixie Chicks a choice rarely given talented, but mainstream, entertainers at the peak of their popularity: a chance to take a real artistic risk. That they did, and succeeded, is testament to the exaggeration and hyperbole we hear about media consolidation.

In the end, the Dixie Chicks weren’t silenced or run out of the business--they re-asserted themselves as popular artists. They found new outlets to distribute their work. Their music can still be heard and easily purchased. Reinforcing their new, edgier approach, their Web site groups material from 2003 and earlier as “historical Dixie Chicks.”

As a result of the reaction from so-called “big media,” the Dixie Chicks have become better artists, rewarding the fans and sponsors who stuck with them with an energized level of talent. Their experience shows media consolidation does not confer the power to control the airwaves, political speech, or the habits of the buying public.

Steven Titch (titch@heartland.org) is senior fellow for IT and telecom policy at The Heartland Institute and managing editor of IT&T News.