Mass Media, Muted Voices, and the Case of the Dixie Chicks
 

Dr. Jamel Santa Cruze Bell
Boston College

Welcome to the modern discourse of war, where the media can make you wish you’d never opened your mouth, even when you didn’t really say anything that unforgettable—Parker, 2003, p. 1

The U.S. Constitution protects the right to freedom of speech; however, it does not protect people from the possible consequences associated with speaking freely.  You have the right to remain silent.  In other words, freedom of speech means protection against government censorship but does not safeguard a person from societal censorship or from having to abide by the socially constructed standards of acceptable or unacceptable speech.  The consequences of committing a public, unacceptable speech act may be extremely costly, particularly if the political elite and corporate media view the act as a threat to the social order or status quo.  Mass media, as the most commonly shared source of information, are a critical part of the social landscape that constrains public discussion by framing it and informs citizens about acceptable and unacceptable speech. 

Frames function rhetorically to narrow the communicative options (Entman & Rojecki, 1993) and to structure and recount a story (Jamieson & Waldman, 2003).  Mass media not only use framing to restrict acceptable public discourse within certain boundaries, but also to help citizens understand and perceive how that discourse functions within a broader story, event, or sociopolitical context.  Restricting speech and keeping it within a framework prescribed by the political and corporate elite is important to the maintenance of social order. 

Social order is critical during a time of social unrest, and mainstream media play a pivotal role in preserving order by advancing the government elite’s frames while also discouraging public expression of dissenting voices and contrary frames (perspectives that challenge those defined by the power elite).  In essence, media gatekeepers have the power to determine the parameters of public discussion on consequential issues, like the war in Iraq, by accepting, rejecting, or muting certain perspectives from the realm of debate.  If a contrary perspective is expressed publicly and perceived as a threat to the social order, it will be framed as a minority perspective (invalid and with little public support) and the people who expressed that perspective may be punished as a way to discourage further expression of that perspective.  Consequently, the people holding that view are vilified and their perspective is portrayed as one that deserves censure instead of public discussion and debate.  

Since the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the U.S., muting and censure have become more prevalent, and questioning government policy and activity has been more scant for fear of being perceived as un-American or disloyal to the U.S.  Government officials and mainstream media continuously used this powerful frame, good versus bad American, throughout the war on terror and leading up to the war in Iraq. During this time of heightened concern for American safety, President Bush, Colin Powell, and other high government officials stressed, with great confidence, the need for a preemptive strike in Iraq to stop Saddam Hussein and to recover the weapons of mass destruction that he was illegally building and planning to use.   

In addition to the overarching good versus bad American dichotomy, President Bush and his administration strategically constructed four dominant frames—patriotism, U.S. troops, radical, and free speech—that saturated the public discourse surrounding the U.S. war on Iraq.  Media adopted and inundated the public with these frames that represent the dominant political assumptions.  This compliance does not mean that media outlets did not present opposing political viewpoints, but how those viewpoints are constructed, shaped and communicated is critical to their viability. 

The patriotism frame is based on rhetorical polarity, which equates inquiry with disloyalty and lack of patriotism and acquiescence with being a true, loyal American.  The radical frame was used for people and perspectives that question and critique governmental policy or decisions regarding the war.  The free speech frame includes government and media responses that acknowledge or address the right to free speech, with certain caveats about when that right should be exercised.  The U.S. troops frame includes media coverage that focused on support, or lack thereof, for the troops.   

The use of these frames helped to advance the political agenda and seemed pivotal to the groundswell of support for Bush and for going to war in Iraq, although the United Nations did not support it.  Veith (2003) said, “Nearly 80 percent of Americans pulled together to support the war, feeling a loyalty and solidarity that went beyond ordinary patriotism” (p. 2).  

Once it seemed that a majority of U.S. citizens were in support of going to war, mainstream media outlets narrowed the debate about Bush and the decision for a preemptive strike on Iraq by muting or devaluing divergent voices and framing them as unpatriotic, radical, and not supportive of the country or U.S. troops.  In essence, mass media seemed to politically align themselves with the government’s agenda, which, according to Entman and Rojecki (1993) is expected: “When elites and a majority of the public support the president, we can expect journalism to be cautious in separating itself from the government line” (p. 172).  Despite this blackout of anti-war media coverage, there were some organized protests, and several public figures (e.g. Susan Sarandon, Tim Robbins, Michael Moore, Danny Glover) refused to remain silent about their discomfort and lack of support for Bush and his decision to go to war, especially without support from the United Nations.   

Dixie Chick, Natalie Maines, was the most condemned public figure for her open criticism of Bush during a concert at the Shepherd’s Bush Empire in London.  Maines said, ‘Just so you know, we’re ashamed the President of The United States is from Texas [where the group members are from],’ (ABC News, 2003a).  Maines made the unplanned statement while introducing the group’s number one single, Travelin’ Soldier, to the 2,000 fans who attended the March 10, 2003 concert, which was just nine days before the war between the U.S. and Iraq officially began.  Maines said the comment was made out of frustration with Bush’s rush to war and lack of compassion for those who had questions (ABC News, 2003a).  After the Associated Press reported Maines’ comment, outrage quickly spread throughout the mainstream media and the country music fan base, as the Dixie Chicks’ patriotism and support of U.S. troops was questioned. 

The Dixie Chicks are extremely popular and successful country and pop artists.  They are the top-selling female artists of all time, winning four Grammy Awards in 2003 (Soeder, 2003) and selling nearly 30 million records (ABC News, 2003a).  They sang the national anthem at the 2003 Super Bowl and held the number one country and pop album, Home, in addition to the top single (Parker, 2003). 

After the expression of the anti-Bush sentiment, sales of their album plummeted by 40 percent and quickly dropped from number one on the music charts (Veith, 2003), and Travelin’ Soldier fell off the charts completely within two weeks time (Hull, 2003).  The Dixie Chicks were booed at the Academy of Country Music Awards when their name was announced as a nominee (Paxman, 2003; Pynn, 2003) and they also began receiving death threats.         

While the Dixie Chicks were not the only entertainers to speak publicly against Bush and the war they were the most unexpected critics given their conservative and nationalistic fan base.  “By definition, the country music crowd is a patriotic bunch” (Koltnow, 2003, p. 1).  It was, in large part, the orchestrated public outcry by patriotic country music fans that spawned an organized boycott of the Dixie Chicks’ music—largely based on the media’s reinforcement of dominant political assumptions and the way the Dixie Chicks were framed as disruptive to the social order that contributed to the severity and longevity of the public outcry.

The power of the media to vilify a group and to delegitimate a perspective is evident when examining this case.  The questioning and outrage resulting from Maines’ comment led to several radio stations banning the Dixie Chicks’ music from the airwaves, Deejays hosting Dixie Chicks CD smashing rallies and other media professionals framing the Dixie Chicks as possessing an un-American sentiment. 

Using the Dixie Chicks as an exemplar, this chapter will examine mass media’s use of the framing to deter the expression of unfavorable attitudes toward the U.S. war on Iraq.  Various print articles and broadcast transcripts, all retrieved from the Lexis Nexis research database, will be analyzed.  Corporate radio’s response and the interview of the Dixie Chicks with Diane Sawyer will be the focal point of this essay.   

The Function of Framing

Framing suggests an active process and a result (Reese, 2003).  The term also implies the existence of an incomplete and potentially distorted depiction.  There are several practical uses of the term framing that may help one to better understand how framing functions from a mediated perspective.  One is the idea of being framed, or set up, which is most commonly used in legal situations.  A person claims that she/he is made to appear guilty as a result of a falsely constructed case by another person.  This false construction causes the authorities to focus their attention and investigation on the innocent person, all the while leading them further away, or deflecting their attention from the person who really committed the crime.

A more practical use of framing relates to the frame of a picture.  The purpose of this type of frame is to focus attention on particular elements of a picture while hiding others with a border.  Entire people or scenes can be hidden as a result of the frame’s ability to only allow an observer to see what is selected and within the boundaries of the frame.  The observer may then assume that whatever is hidden from view is not of importance or value to be seen.

Framing may also be viewed as the interplay of media practices, cultures, audiences, and producers (Reese, 2003).  Media frames tell people what is important by what is amplified or what is muted.  As such, media can manipulate issue salience by framing.  Media frames affect the way one understands and perceives social reality (Baylor, 1996; Entman, 1993; Jamieson & Waldman, 2003; McQuail, 2000).  “Frames tell us what is important, what the range of acceptable debate on a topic is, and when an issue has been resolved” (Jamieson & Waldman, 2003, p. xiii). 

Frames are part of a much larger set of structural or societal ideology that is manifested in texts (Gitlin, 1980).  In other words, frames do not exist in a vacuum nor do they occur in isolation, but instead speak to broader socio-political issues.  Similar to the way one uses the picture frame, media use framing to establish the acceptable and unacceptable boundaries or parameters of a discussion and to focus the audience’s attention, or delimit the discourse about a certain societal issue, in this case the war.       

Consequently, frames help to mold and shape public opinion about a social issue and isolate a perspective as a minority view while highlighting another perspective as the majority view. 

Framing the Dixie Chicks

Reese (2003) describes framing as an exercise of power particularly as it affects one’s understanding of media and the political world.  Frames reveal the mass media’s posture and, in most instances, media frames are aligned with government frames (Jamieson & Waldman, 2003). 

In this case, media gatekeepers protected government interests by shifting the frame from one focusing on the concern by the Dixie Chicks about the war to one of the rhetorical positions used by the Bush administration—lack of patriotism or lack of support for U.S. troops—to describe those who expressed unfavorable attitudes.  This alignment and frame switching by the U.S. mainstream media deterred people from engaging in any sort of critical inquiry or public dialogue about the decision to engage in war and those who refused to back down were penalized. 

The Dixie Chicks not only faced a fan protest, but also a radio boycott where stations, including the nation’s two largest radio conglomerates, Clear Channel Communications (which owns over 1,200 stations) and Cumulus Media (which owns 42 country stations), removed the Dixie Chicks’ music from their play lists (Maestri, 2003; Parker, 2003).  Some radio stations even sponsored pro-war and anti-Dixie Chicks rallies where Dixie Chicks CDs were smashed and run over with tractors.  The ongoing criticism and boycotting led to their number one album plummeting in the charts, never to rebound (Paxman, 2003). 

Maines posted an apology on the Dixie Chicks’ Web site just four days after the comment was made.  She said, in part, that the wording of the comment was disrespectful, and for that she apologized, but she said the comment was made due to genuine concerns and unanswered questions about the war.  Although this apology didn’t seem good enough for radio stations and their listeners to forgive the Dixie Chicks, it was radio’s swift and harsh response to this incident that forced Maines to post the explanation and apology.

Radio’s Response to the Dixie Chicks

Inclusion in radio’s rotation is the lifeline for many music artists, and the Dixie Chicks are no exception.  So, when radio stations removed the Dixie Chicks from their playlists and fans began to turn the station when a Dixie Chicks song was played, it’s no wonder that their once number one hit Travelin’ Soldier, fell from the music charts two weeks after Maines’ comment (Hull, 2003).  After country music fans heard about Maines’ comment they began calling radio stations and asking that Dixie Chicks’ songs no longer be played.  Some angry listeners said the fact that the comment was made on foreign, although friendly, soil only compounded their anger.  

Cumulus Media decided to ban the Dixie Chicks from their 42 stations for one month or until a live public apology was given (Parker, 2003), and some of Clear Channel Communications’ (the largest radio conglomerate) 1,200 stations also removed the Dixie Chicks from their rotation.  Many country music stations in places like Texas, the nation’s fifth largest radio market, said they had never seen such a response from an audience (Heidgerd, 2003), and their ban on the singing trio was in response to the hundreds of listener complaints.  Maybe the reason radio stations had never witnessed such a response is because the radio stations themselves had never responded in such a way before. 

The banning of Dixie Chicks music started with KAJA in San Antonio when program director, Keith Montgomery, decided to remove the group’s music from their playlists for 24 hours (Parker, 2003).  Radio stations like KSCS-FM in Dallas-Fort Worth posted photos on their Web site of the Dixie Chicks with tape over their mouths.  Kansas City’s WDAF put a trashcan outside of their radio station so Dixie Chicks fans could throw away their Dixie Chicks CDs.  One radio station, KFRG-FM in Colton, CA filled the Dixie Chicks spots with “patriotic tunes” (Maestri, 2003).  Shreveport, LA station, KRMD hosted an anti-Dixie Chicks rally where Dixie Chicks CDs were smashed with a tractor (Parker, 2003). Key players in the radio industry also began hosting and promoting pro-war and anti-Dixie Chicks rallies, including Clear Channel Communications Vice-Chairman, Tom Hicks—who happens to have a personal and financial relationship with President Bush after purchasing the Texas Rangers from him in 1998 (Sharplin, 2003).   

The boycott continued for several months and as of November 2003, some radio stations and their corporate owners still refused to play the Dixie Chicks’ music or were only playing their older songs (Paxman, 2003).  The Dixie Chicks began their 50-state U.S. tour in South Carolina on May 1, 2003 with a competing anti-Dixie Chicks concert 30 miles from their venue.  Nationally syndicated radio talk show host Mike Gallagher promoted the concert and donated the proceeds, $120,000, from the 3,300 attendees, to military families.  Gallagher agreed only to lead the charge to forgive Maines and the Dixie Chicks if they matched the donation dollar for dollar (Fox News, 2003).

The systematic and commercial banning of the Dixie Chicks’ music and the organizing of pro-war and anti-Dixie Chicks rallies by Cumulus Media and Clear Channel Communications is illustrative of the type of interdependent relationship that exists between big business, government, and media corporations.  As Sharplin (2003) says, “Corporate power and political power in the U.S. are far from separate” (p. 1).  Country music radio listeners may have been outraged but to indefinitely ban the group’s music speaks more to the need of commercial media outlets to help the government maintain social order by discouraging the public expression of dissenting voices, showing others that there is a disadvantage to not remaining silent. 

Some legislators condemned Cumulus Media and Clear Channel Communications for using their power inappropriately.  On CNN’s Crossfire (2003), Paul Begala said the censoring of the Dixie Chicks by Clear Channel was an example of too much power, which stifles free speech.  Republican Senator John McCain also admonished Cumulus Media’s misuse of power saying to CEO Lewis Dickey, ‘I was as offended as anyone by the statement of the Dixie Chicks, but to restrain their trade because they exercised their right to free speech is remarkable’ (Hull, 2003, p. 1).  Other political figures, like Senator Barbara Boxer likened Cumulus Media’s action to McCarthyism (Hull, 2003).  Despite the criticism against actions like those taken by Cumulus Media and Clear Channel, there is no recourse for the Dixie Chicks, who were handed a cruel and unusual sentence for exercising a right to free speech that should be positively rewarded.  Instead they were framed as outsiders, muted by radio stations then further vilified and admonished during their interview with Diane Sawyer.             

Diane Sawyer Interviews the Dixie Chicks

The Dixie Chicks’ April 24, 2003 interview with Diane Sawyer on ABC’s Primetime Live was the only television interview regarding the scandal.  This interview best illustrates the affects of media framing and how elite media outlets reinforced Bush and his administration’s political agenda by adopting the same language, which is critical to the framing process, and themes or frames used by the President and other government officials to categorize certain perspectives as pro or anti American. 

The interview seemed to be a one-sided attempt by Sawyer to remind the public about how outraged they should be and to get the Dixie Chicks to show remorse for the inappropriate comment.  Taylor (2003) criticized Sawyer for what he said was a choice to “…stand in for the bullies [Bush and his administration]” after failing to offer the Dixie Chicks as sacrificial lambs (p. 2).  “From the beginning, Sawyer aimed to put the Dixie Chicks in their place” (p. 2).   

Sawyer said that the Dixie Chicks were at the center of an important debate about who is patriotic and loyal to America, a role that, Sawyer says, “…no one expected them to play” (ABC News, 2003a, p. 9).  She asked if people thought they were encouraging the enemy by making such a statement.  This was a reinforcement of the government’s rhetorical positioning that included Vice President Cheney’s comment, “You’re either with us or against us” (Taylor, 2003, p. 1).  In other words, if a person asks questions, he/she is obviously encouraging and supporting the enemy.

Sawyer also aimed to isolate Maines as the villain in this case.  Although the entire group was punished, it was Maines who made the statement and who was vilified as a result.  Sawyer referred to Maines with names like, “outspoken wild child,” “famously untamed,” and “rebel,” all of which framed Maines as a woman who has always been rebellious, uncontrollable, and deviant.  This radical framing of Maines allowed Sawyer to imply that only someone with those characteristics would make such a comment or hold such a perspective. 

Sawyer’s framing of Maines was juxtaposed to her framing of the other two members, who are sisters.  They were described by Sawyer as “refined,” and “glamorous,” and were asked several questions about whether they could forgive Maines.  One of the voice-overs questioned the plausibility that the group almost split, saying that it would “defy human nature” if they didn’t come close to breaking up (p. 24).  The idea was to frame Maines’ comment as severe and offensive enough to make the two sisters disband the group, which was made to be the only possible and logical reaction the sisters could have.

Sawyer implied, through her questions, that only certain people are qualified to share their perspective, otherwise criticism is not only disrespectful but unpatriotic.  Sawyer said, “The people sitting at home would say to you, you know, if you’re going to criticize the President for his decisions, you better have your own” (p. 11).  So, no American citizen should ever criticize the President because he/she does not have the knowledge to create a policy of his/her own that could be implemented. 

Sawyer, using the U.S. troops frame, skeptically questioned the Dixie Chicks’ support for the troops asking, “…can you really support the troops while doubting their mission” (p. 12)?  This is where being cognizant of frame switching becomes critical. Sawyer draws a direct correlation between questioning the war and supporting the troops as if one cannot exist without the other.  Sawyer goes so far as to say that it doesn’t matter to the troops that the Dixie Chicks believe in what they’re putting their lives on the line for, that is, if the Dixie Chicks don’t support the mission and the President. 

Another example of Sawyer’s use of the U.S. troops frame and her symbolic use of language to vilify the Dixie Chicks was evident when she asked, “If you do support the troops, should you be attacking their Commander-In-Chief” (ABC News, 2003b, p. 2).  This question takes Bush out of the context of President to all United States citizens, gives him more authority and credibility, and makes him more personal to the troops because he is their leader.  This makes the comment appear more offensive, framing it as a personal attack against people (the troops) who the Dixie Chicks claim to support.  Such a perspective may explain the media’s general lack of critical inquiry regarding the war.

In Sawyer’s second reference to Bush as the Commander-In-Chief she defines the issue as being bigger than a simple question about the war and moves it to one about respect for the leader of the United States of America, the patriotic frame.  Sawyer says, “But even people who said it’s fine to question the war, were shocked that someone would stand on stage and attack the Commander In Chief” (p. 12).  Sawyer frames Bush as the foremost authority figure that is larger than life and beyond question or criticism, especially by someone of the Dixie Chicks’ caliber and status who claim to be loyal American citizens. 

And although Sawyer said questioning the war was okay, she simultaneously devalues such questioning by saying that most people had agreed that the U.S. should go to war.  As such, the discussion and debate about it were closed, so why would the Dixie Chicks express criticism?  Sawyer even discusses a poll that 70 percent of Americans were clear in their belief that protesters to the war were wrong.  This line of questioning delegitimated any contrary voice and linked that voice to radical, unpatriotic beliefs.  One of Sawyer’s voice-overs asked, “But wait a minute, if Michael Moore is defending you, what does that say?  Did the Dixie Chicks betray their fans by secretly being Hollywood liberals” (ABC News, 2003a, p. 21), this time, placing the entire group within a radical frame along with Moore who is expected to be a nonconformist and has already been placed in a radical and liberal frame for his views.      

At one point during the interview Sawyer accused Maines of not being sincere or “wholehearted” in her apology.  Sawyer presents the shock and anger of someone being critical as a logical response, which mirrors the government’s juxtaposition of being a good or bad American.  As the Dixie Chicks tried to defend themselves against attacks on their sincerity and patriotism, Dixie Chick, Martie Maguire read a quote from President Theodore Roosevelt that went without comment from Sawyer: ‘To announce that there must be no criticism of the President or that we are to stand by the President right or wrong is not only unpatriotic and servile but is morally treasonable to the American public.’ (ABC News, 2003a, p.15).  While this is a noteworthy quote, it does not appear to be one embraced by the country’s current leadership or by mainstream media, as illustrated in this interview.                    

Conclusion

Media gatekeepers use frames to validate some points while invalidating others.  The prevalence of frames brings about questions of media power and the ability of media gatekeepers to advance some frames and dismiss others.  Gandy (1996) explains how frames guide information processing towards a preferred reading which dominates public understanding.   

Radio’s response and the Diane Sawyer interview were dominated by the patriotism frame, radical frame, free speech frame, and/or the U.S. troops frame.  All of these frames function together simultaneously, and are evident in this case.  Isolating one frame as the most dominant is difficult because “the most important frame,” as Reese (2003) said, “may not be the most frequent” (p. 8).  In other words, the purpose of this analysis was not simply to count and discuss the number of times a certain frame was used but to highlight the ways in which media framed dissenting voices about going to war in Iraq and discouraged public expression of those voices.

“Canadians consider criticizing and challenging their political leaders as a basic democratic right, extending even to times of war, when so much more is at stake” (Pynn, 2003, p. 1).  This type of public expression is discouraged in America, where speech is led, not by citizens, but by political and media elite who seek to create a passive consumer of discourse.  Clear Channel Communications and Cumulus Media, who instituted a month long systematic ban of the Dixie Chicks on all 42 of their radio stations, clearly used their power to punish the Dixie Chicks by not playing their songs.  This political action and commercial punishment by corporate media outlets was a rhetorical symbol of intimidation that spans far beyond an individual’s right not to purchase a Dixie Chicks album.  

The perception was given that the war was beyond question and debate and that those who did not support it held a disruptive minority opinion that, if expressed, warranted harsh criticism and scrutiny.  This passive posture of mass media seems contrary to the role they should play as watchdogs of the government, providing a critical communication link, and encouraging and seeking multiple perspectives.  These are things that a democratic society greatly needs, particularly during a time of social unrest.  In this case, the mainstream media used framing to rhetorically silence dissident voices and to reinforce the government’s agenda to go to war in Iraq by limiting public discourse within a government controlled and accepted framework.  Although the Dixie Chicks were mere casualties in this suppressive media effort, their situation reinforced the spiral of silence for artists like Madonna who substantially edited her music video with war references before releasing it saying, ‘I don’t want to get Dixie Chicked’ (ABC News, 2003a, p. 21).

Public discourse regarding the war in Iraq was, in effect, restricted within well-defined boundaries.  Media professionals protected government interests by shifting the frame from one of concern about going to war to one of the four rhetorically constructed frames crafted by Bush and his administration.  These frames removed the option of critical inquiry unless a citizen didn’t mind being labeled as unpatriotic, unsupportive of the troops, and an enemy of the U.S. 

The polarity of being with us (meaning agreeing with wholeheartedly) or against us (being un-American, disloyal, a traitor) was explicitly stated by Bush and other members of his administration on many occasions and an analysis of Diane Sawyer’s interview with the Dixie Chicks and the reaction by the two largest radio conglomerates, Clear Channel Communications and Cumulus Media, provide an example of the obvious support by the U.S. elite media of the government’s politically rhetorical positions. 

This case is useful to illustrate a broader issue surrounding media framing and the ethics of power.  Everyone has the right to free speech, and at the same time has the right to remain silent.  While government cannot sanction the speech of an American citizen, what citizens say can and will be used against them in a public court run by powerful media interests, which will frame perspectives based on who it benefits or harms and who should be heard, or silenced and punished.  By controlling speech, the government elite and media power maintain social order, which is critical during a time of social unrest.

References

ABC News. (2003a, April 24).  Primetime live.  Transcript.

ABC News. (2003b, April 24).  Good Morning America.  Transcript

Baylor, T.  (1996).  Media framing of movement protest: The case of American Indian protest.  The Social Science Journal, 33 (3), 241-256.

CNN.  (2003, April 25).   Crossfire. Transcript.

Entman, R. M.  (1993). Framing: Toward a clarification of a fractured paradigm.  Journal of Communication, 43 (4), 51-58.

Entman, R. M., & Rojecki, A.  (1993). Freezing out the public: Elite and media framing of the U.S. anti-nuclear movement. Political Communication, 10 (2), 155-173.

Fox News.  (2003, May 1).  The big story with John Gibson.  Transcript.

Gandy, O. H.  (1996).  If it weren’t for bad luck: Framing stories of racially comparative risk.  In V. T. Berry & C. L. Manning-Miller (Eds.), Mediated messages and African-American culture: Contemporary issues (pp. 55-75).  Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Gitlin, T.  (1980).  The whole world is watching: Mass media in the making and unmaking of the new left.  Berkeley: University of California Press.

Heidgerd, D.  (2003, March 14).  Some Texas stations drop Dixie Chicks tunes.  Associated Press.  Retrieved October 18, 2003, from Lexis Nexis database.

Hull, A.  (2003, August 8).  Uncowed cowgirls: At tour’s end, after the brouhaha and boycott, Dixie Chicks and fans still aren’t singing the blues.  The Washington Post.  Retrieved October 18, 2003, from Lexis Nexis database.

Jamieson, K. H. & Waldman, P.  (2003).  The press effect: Politicians, journalists, and the stories that shape the political world.  New York: Oxford University Press.

Koltnow, B.  (2003, April 29).  Posing nude: Now that’s a good way to defuse a
controversy.  The Orange County Register.  Retrieved October 18, 2003, from Lexis Nexis database.

Maestri, C.  (2003, March 15).  Dixie Chick apologizes for remark about president.  Free Enterprise.  Retrieved October 18, 2003, from Lexis Nexis database.

McQuail, D.  (2000).  Mass communication theory (4^th ed.).  Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Parker, C.  (2003, April 10).  When does a benign anti-war comment become the death of open discourse?  Dallas Observer.  Retrieved October 18, 2003, from Lexis Nexis database.

Paxman, B.  (2003, November 11).  Shut up & Sing.  Country Weekly.  10 (23), 42-44, 46, 48, 50.

Pynn, L.  (2003, August 4).  The vocal Dixie Chicks: The Texas stars paid a heavy price for badmouthing their president, but they’re still big on free speech.  Ottawa Citizen.  Retrieved October 18, 2003, from Lexis Nexis database.

Reese, S. D.  (2003).  Framing public life: A bridging model for media research.  In S. D.

Reese, O. H. Gandy, & A. E. Grant (Eds.), Framing public life: Perspectives on media and our understanding of the social world (pp. 7-31).  Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Sharplin, S.  (2003, September 30).  Banning Dixie Chicks from radio a political move by Bush’s buddy.  Edmonton Journal.  Retrieved October 18, 2003, from Lexis Nexis database.

Soeder, J.  (2003, May 30).  Sale take a lickin’ but loyal fans are stickin’ to the Chicks.  Newhouse News Service.  Retrieved October 18, 2003, from Lexis Nexis database.

Taylor, C.  (2003, April 28).  Chicks against the machine.  Salon.com.  Retrieved October 18, 2003, from Lexis Nexis database.

Veith, G. E.  (2003, May 10).  Chicks fillet.  World Magazine, 18 (18).  Retrieved October 18, 2003, from Lexis Nexis database.

About the Author

            Jamel Santa Cruze Bell (Ph.D., University of Kansas, 2004). Dr. Bell is a critical mass media scholar who currently teaches in the Department of Communication at Boston College. Her research is grounded in notions of social justice and focuses on framing, power, race and identity, and media economics. Her most recent publication, “How Mass Media Delegitimize Rioting as Social Protest,” is a co-authored article in a 2004 special edition of Race, Gender, and Class.

Return to Dialogue List | Return to Top of This Dialogue