Ok, I am going to play devil's advocate here. Even assuming that the list of songs reported on fuckedcompany.com is accurate, and that the station owners are actually *commanding* (not just recommending) that their radio stations not play those songs for a while... so what? Don't the owners of a set of commercial (not NPR, not community, not public) radio stations have the right to play (or refrain from playing) any song that they want to? And is it such a terrible thing for them to be sensitive enough to direct that their disk jockeys refrain for a while from playing songs that might be taken to be making light of last week's events, or songs into which listeners might read upsetting connotations that they normally would not? I mean, a set comprised of, say, "Leaving on a Jet Plane", "The Roof is On Fire" and "Gone, Gone, Gone" would be in damn poor taste, to say the least.
After reading the Salon article, I think that ClearChannel's management style is the pits. I think that there should be a law against any single corporate entity controlling that number of stations. I disagree with their "no play" list; I think that the only reason that songs like "Imagine" and "Blowin' in the Wind" were placed on the list is that some tight-assed ClearChannel exec stuck his finger in the wind and determined that public sentiment among their advertisers' target audience of 13-25 year old males (or whatever) was running in favor of military action. So, I'm not saying that there is anything to admire about the ClearChannel company at all. But -- they own the radio stations and can play/not play whatever they please on their stations.