Talk:Clear Channel memorandum

Archives

Recent verified version

I've got this article on my watchlist, but in the event that I'm unable to keep up with it, I'm going to try to maintain a link to a recent verified version of the article. Tons of the edits to this article are done to add songs that aren't on the referenced list, or occasionally to remove a song that is on the referenced list. Hopefully, this will make it easier to revert such changes, even if the article goes for a month or two without being checked.

4 September 2007 version

--Dachannien^Talk_Contrib 19:47, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The recent verified version includes "What a Wonderful World" by Louis Armstrong - are you sure of that? I can't imagine even the wingnuts at Clear Channel finding anything objectionable in that song. - Mark Dixon 15:29, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is indeed on the list. See the sources cited at the end of the article. Personally, I have trepidation regarding the veracity of these sources, since they seem to have arrived at the information second- or third-hand. Nevertheless, the cited sources seem at least to agree on the song list, and investigation by reputable sources (snopes.com) indicate that there was some sort of list issued by ClearChannel at the time. Whether this list is the actual list released by ClearChannel is anybody's guess, but the AfD last year would seem to indicate that even the questionable sourcing provided is good enough to evade deletion. If we're going to treat those sources as verifiable, then the article should match those sources. --Dachannien^Talk_Contrib 20:51, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article title

The article's title is misleading. It invites people to come and add songs arbitrarily, despite there being a single referenced list for the songs that was generated by a single third party (ClearChannel). I'd like to propose moving the article to something more indicative of the purpose of this article, such as "ClearChannel's list of songs with..." I'll go ahead and take care of this if there's no response within a week or so. --Dachannien^Talk_Contrib 19:50, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

go for it. 72.189.48.223 20:10, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Went for it. Moved the article back to its old home, which coincidentally decreases the number of double redirects by a hefty amount. --Dachannien^Talk_Contrib 21:39, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Commentary at article head

This article has been plagued with people coming in to alter the list away from that presented by the cited sources, but it also has a lot of original research in the lead-in section regarding songs that are about (insert topic here) but were for (insert bizarre reason here) reason not included on the list. I'll go through and delete all of it in a few days unless cited sources can be presented for those statements as well. --Dachannien^Talk_Contrib 21:50, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Somebody beat me to it. Thanks :) --Dachannien^Talk_Contrib 15:30, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename and work into an article?

I'd heard of this article before and just came across it randomly looking at recent changes where an editor linked to it from another article. I did a Lexis/Nexis search and found a number of useful articles referring to this list (and the controversy surrounding it) in the immediate aftermath of 9/11. The article could be sourced much better, and indeed does not need to be a list--it could be a full article. We could cover reaction from various observers, from Clear Channel, and the ultimate conclusions about the whole list scandal (I think Snopes pretty much got it right in the article we already cite, but we could go into a lot more detail). I think a change in title would obviously be in order if we wanted to rework this, perhaps something along the lines of "Clear Channel 9/11 Song List Controversy" (ideally we would think of something better as that title is unwieldy and annoying, but it might have to be).

This might be something I could put some time into, as could anyone with access to Lexis/Nexis. Any thoughts on changing this from a list article to a full blown article? We could either keep the full list here or (probably a better option) simply link to it on Wikisource or somewhere else.

Here's one examples of an interesting source from L/N, an article in Billboard from October 13, 2001 called "Ban Rumors Dispelled, Songs Don't Suffer."

In an exclusive analysis of airplay at Clear Channel-owned stations monitored by Broadcast Data Systems (BDS), Billboard has determined that songs on the list have, by and large, not suffered in light of the Sept. 11 events. In fact, many of the allegedly banned songs are currently receiving similar amounts of airplay on Clear Channel-owned stations as they did prior to Sept. 11. Rage Against the Machine, alleged recipient of the "across the board" ban, is currently receiving airplay on Clear Channel-owned XTRA San Diego and KIOZ San Diego with such socio-politically charged songs as "Guerilla Radio" and "Testify." The amount of airplay given to Lennon's "Imagine" has barely changed over the past few weeks, according to a review of BDS-monitored heritage rock stations.

Anyhow, I'd like to hear what others think about turning this into a fully sourced article.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 07:51, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That would be a huge improvement. Are the sources you mentioned freely available online? --Dachannien^Talk_Contrib 15:32, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One would need access to LexisNexis, which is generally available through most universities but also through a number of law firms, media outlets, and I would imagine a number of corporations. It's also probably the kind of thing that could be accessed through a good public library, but I don't think it's free to the general public. Most folks in college/academia or in the legal world could get into it though. I can try try to work on this down the road (not in the next few days) and place some new material on the talk page. Any title change suggestions?--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 18:03, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Snopes

Wouldnt the Snopes article seem to indicate that there was no "list" at all? Torturous Devastating Cudgel 17:20, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There apparently was a list of some kind and Clear Channel did admit to it, which is exactly what the Snopes article says. The "falseness" of the urban legend is that the list was a "banned" list. Rather, it seemed to have been circulated among programming directors (probably originating away from the central corporate office) and was merely a suggested list of songs that may have been inappropriate after 9/11--it was not binding in any way. I came across one article where a Clear Channel spokesperson--acknowledging the existence of the list but noting it was not a ban and claiming it did not originate from corporate headquarters--even noted that some of the items on the list were a bit beyond the pale, in particular Louis Armstrong's What a Wonderful World. Anyhow, there was some kind of list, and it did stir up a great deal of controversy and obviously became a classic urban legend, so we should have an article explaining what really happened and how folks reacted. There are plenty of sources.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 18:13, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the real problem here is that there are no reliable sources for what was or wasn't on the list. I've been following this article for two years, and NOBODY can produce a PDF of any written list or e-mail. As far as I can tell, THERE IS NO DOCUMENT. So, we can discuss the urban legend, but how can we possibly have any kind of list presented here with any confidence? MortonDevonshire Yo · 17:24, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Considering that Slate, Snopes, E!, the New York Times, and so on reported on the list and some of them reprinted a version of the list, I don't see why you insist on a primary source. We as an encyclopedia depend on secondary sources. We should assume that the journalists for these organizations saw a document with the list and, as they tend do, did not scan it for publication but rather reproduced the text. Croctotheface 18:08, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then put citations to them in the article. Fuckedcompany is not the NYT. MortonDevonshire Yo · 18:20, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll put them here: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5]. This is just a few sources I got from quick research. I'm sure there's better stuff out there. I'm not going to make footnotes and put them after every single song. Croctotheface 18:33, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the absence of a copy of a memo or e-mail, it may be difficult to be certain about the exact songs on the list. I'm not sure that this matters too much to me, as I am in favor of reconfiguring this article so it is not a list but rather a discussion of the controversy. While Morton is correct that their is no "primary source" so to speak, they're clearly are secondary sources, and Clear Channel did admit to the existence of some kind of list (not a ban list) so it's existence is not in question, though the precise songs might be. As far as secondary sources, as Croctotheface notes, this Slate article reprinted what it claimed to be the list "with original spellings intact" (I don't know how this compares with the list we have now, but we should look at that). Slate is obviously a reliable source for our purposes, and the fact that they claimed they were presenting a copy of the list is sufficient--we don't need the primary source. My proposal would be to create a document at Wikisource (though I know nothing about the rules over there) which lists all of these songs and sources the list to Slate or, if we can find them, better sources or additional sources. This article can just become a regular article, and we can link to the full list at Wikisource. What do people think of this? I'm open to other suggestions but I think something along these lines would be workable.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 19:58, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not 100% opposed, but I don't see this list as violating the spirit or letter of any policies governing what is or is not appropriate for the encyclopedia. If we can have List of notable cover songs, List of songs of Oklahoma, and innumerable other such lists of songs, I don't see a good reason that this list should not exist while those do. The fact that this list not compiled from multiple sources, in my mind, does not mean that it has a different quality than the lists that are. Croctotheface 22:52, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, still no citation to reputable secondary sources in the article describing what's "on" the list. What gives? Tick tock. MortonDevonshire Yo · 02:28, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Tick tock?" What does saying that accomplish? So far, three editors have commented on the issue here. Two hold my position, and you are alone in yours. Croctotheface 02:31, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See above. Slate reprinted a list of songs, and that is certainly a reputable secondary source which can be put in the article. I'm also not sure what the "tick tock" reference is supposed to mean.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 03:42, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and added in a cite to the Slate article, though folks should feel free to move it somewhere else. I still think someone should compare the Slate list with the one we have. Also I still think this article should be made into more than just a list and I still might try to work on that down the road but not in the immediate future.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 03:54, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This topic should be removed

This topic should be removed without question because most, if not all of these songs were produced before September 11. They make no reference to September 11 and in my mind, I do not think of September 11 when listening to any of these songs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.179.134.81 (talk) 14:20, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's not really the point of the article, but if it ever comes up for AfD again, feel free to chime in. --Dachannien^Talk_Contrib 15:41, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a historically important article. I knew nothing about this before coming across it. It definitely should not be deleted. Aloha, --Laualoha 04:49, 3 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Laualoha (talk • contribs)

I don't think it will be deleted anytime soon, perhaps transformed a bit but I think it's too notable to be deleted or even put up for AfD.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 08:14, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I vote we delete it. I think that this list is wrong.204.14.14.152 12:53, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong in what sense? It has sources to verify it if you mean in the veracity sense. If you mean in some sort of moral manner, wikipedia articles shouldn't be determined by moral compass but rather by encyclopedia standards and I feel this is important enough to keep up. Wolfman Walt 09:31, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]