wnyc.org / 93.9fm / am 820

Plain and simple - prostitution with the lives and blood of millions of poor people.

It's sick because these so called "musicians" *cough* are wealthy beyond belief. I read a while ago, that one "musician" (not on the fame level as Beyonce) made $37 million in one year just selling his music to film/tv. I know people with 2 degrees who can't get a job, middle class people who never stepped out of line who lost jobs, homes, etc. While these "media entertainers" sell prostitute behavior to the young people and act like it's special to snuggle up to these killers.

WNYC should have done a better job with this segment because it's an important issue right now. In fact, it's a life or death issue for our brothers and sisters overseas.

The idea of somebody from NPR discussing a third party's ethics with somebody from Rolling Stone is pretty hilarious.

STOP calling these entertainers "artists". They are purveyors of commodity. Businessmen are making more money from their product than the entertainers. Mainstream commercial pop music is not art, nor are these sell-out entertainers artists. To call them such is an absolute insult to artists.
That said, I agree that if at the time of these performances the U.S. was on good diplomatic terms with Lybia, there should be no question of shady ethics. The music BUSINESS is shady enough in and of itself.

paid in blood money? more like oil money- a fund we have all contributed to

Randy Cohen is great. Funny and smart.

A

I had a small amount of money in a mutual fund with Vanguard, a supposedly good place to invest. I then heard they had investments inthe Sudan who were committing crimes in Darfur. I wrote asking them to divest and they wrote back that they had a committment to their investors.
I withdrew my funds--I did not want to partake in such a company.
This isn't music but I think there's an analogy.

My apologies to Beyonce'. It was Naomi C who took diamonds for Charles. But the ethics issues still hold true. Entertainers are not stupid. They know about the folks that they entertain in private concerts.

What about Elton John playing from Rush Linbaugh even though he donated the money to charity. What makes the more effective point, boycotting or donting the money to charity?

dale from Brooklyn-"Are performers supposed to not take these money?" Yes. It's pretty simple. It's blood money.
One of the reasons I never did drugs was because by doing so you contribute to a violent culture. People are killed because if drug dealing and you are a cog in that wheel. Could you excuse someone who performed for Hitler? To bring back that old slogan-If you're not part of the solution you're part of the problem. And yes you do have blood on your hands of those who have been tortured or killed by the Libyan government. And then there's Lockerbie. I think that performing for them would fall under giving aid and comfort (and entertainment) to the enemy.

Sounds like we are expecting these artists to engage in a cultural boycott. What if the Government DID prohibit American artists from performing for Lybian leaders? THAT would make for a different discussion.

How would it sound if we called for a boycott of Nelly Furtado, et al.? Not very pretty I suspect...

You should have found a better guest to discuss this issue. It's an important topic worthy of discussion but this guy is an idiot!

Some of these artists are so protected from layers of management that it wouldn't surprise me that they were unaware of the fees they collect. Besides, I suspect many artists, like they're less talented brethren, are geographically challenged. "Libya? Is that like Liberia?"

{Randy, Get off your high horse with Lyle Lovett!}

THat's a silly question to ask us . Sure I am sure we all did things we don't know that had collateral damage. Heck, I gave 1000 to wnyc the year that I got a bonus from JPMorgan, you wanna give that back ?
Having said that ehtics is what it is. Most young people don't get it. It's money first.

Beyonce' presumably also took a gift a diamonds from the criminal Charles Taylor...
I never did follow up if the Intl. Court concluded on Taylor's guilt of killing hundreds of thousands of people. But Beyonce seems to go for the geld.

I feel better about Naomi Campbell's conflict diamonds now. Everyone's doing it...

But when you look at it, how many sources of pop music income are unethical? How many drugs dealers and murderers go to concerts and buy records? Are performers supposed to not take these money? They are getting paid to do a job. The performers are not harming anyone.

it can be cheap and easy, to play the game of, "how many degrees of moral seperation". so let us all be careful, of summarily dissmissing people, for their economic choices. how about monsanto, and wall st. apples and oranges,maybe,but we are talking about a moral continuum, are we not. so let us not go too crazy on this. and i do think, a lot of the musicians mentioned, are pretty dumb,or at least, superficial as hell.

We all know that business people and corporations will do anything with anyone for a buck. For some reason a lot of people think singers and actors are nice people that do it for the art and love their fans. That's the only reason this is news. People have to get over this. Most singers, especially pop singers, are in it for the money and fame. If they weren't they would release a lot of music for free download.

Few years back, I was hired to paint copies of some of the paintings in the Koch brothers collection.( massive collection that they made copies of to have in their multiple homes) Had no Idea who they were 6yrs ago. wish I could give the money back.

Don't mean to defend millionaire artists and I realize that this show deals with music but why doesn't the media name the oil execs who made millions upon millions "colluding" with Libya's ruling family?

Double standards?

what's weird or ironic about these musical choices is out "unislamic" this music is. it's booty music

is it better, to see these performers as stupid, inane, and apolitical. or is it about money. or, could they actually be, sympathetic to the these politicians. is that possible ? then again i would be pissed at those who perform for neo-cons on our shore,so what about that,as a moral predicament ?

oh boy ...that is "sum" of money

I read Steve Knopper’s article. The artists performed because the price was right. Regardless of whether or not they give the money to charity, what they did was prostitution. A single person “performing” for a “private audience” for a large some of money - sounds like prostitution to me!