Follow Us

DMN on Feedburner
Connect with:
divider image

Pandora Hates Gay People…

Outed…

pandoracontribution

 

At least five Pandora executives, including founder Tim Westergren, have now been found contributing money to one of the most anti-gay legislators in US Congress.  Utah Republican Representative Jason Chaffetz supports dramatically lower royalties for internet radio stations, but he is also adamantly anti-gay marriage.

He has even pursued legislation to nullify existing, already-consummated gay marriages.

Thanks to Trichordist for breaking this story.

blue bar background graphic
Comments (57)
    1. Anonymous

      So it’s OK to support your local child molester/pirate/rapist/murderer if he agrees with your political views?


      Reply
      1. hippydog

        Well, hes a member of congress.. so if 1/3 of a state supports the guy, why cant a company?


        Reply
    2. Anonymous

      It’s funny how we accept the buying of laws as a natural thing. Not saying Pandora is the only one that does it, but it’s kinda fucked up. This is suppose to be a democracy, not a kleptocracy.


      Reply
  1. Anonymous

    lol, oh my god!

    Forgive me, I know this isn’t funny for gay people… it’s just that I’ve never seen a company screw up like this before, with the possible exception of Google/YouTube during the recent Indiegate.

    I mean, every single move Pandora makes is ridiculously wrong.


    Reply
  2. TruthSeeker

    Wow.

    You’ve pretty much re-defined “yellow journalism,” to a new low here Paul. Your parents must be so proud!

    You DO know that Zoe Lofgren – another politician that also got Pandora’s top contributions – DOES support Gay Marriage, right?

    It is beyond morally reprehensible for you to try and frame Pandora as some sort of political activist with respect to gay or gay marriage. Thank God that no one with any influence cares about this site (or Lowery’s Trichordist site) and that it is obvious that you look really, really, dumb, trying to make this ridiculous point.


    Reply
    1. Anonymous

      “You DO know that Zoe Lofgren – another politician that also got Pandora’s top contributions – DOES support Gay Marriage, right?”

      Ah, so it’s OK to support your local child pornographer if you support decent people, as well?

      Geez…


      Reply
      1. Anonymous

        I think the point is that it’s not OK to suggest someone is “anti-gay” simply because they may have limited dealings with ANOTHER person, who may be.

        You’re supporting Digital Music News, a confirmed yellow journalism site, right now. Does that make YOU a yellow journalist?

        You buy gasoline from companies that do business with terrorists. Does doing that make you pro-terrorism?

        Do I need to go on?


        Reply
        1. Anonymous

          “it’s not OK to suggest someone is “anti-gay” simply because they may have limited dealings with ANOTHER person”

          We’re not discussing “limited dealings” here. Back on topic: Do you also think it’s OK to support pirates, thieves, child rapists and murderers as long as you support decent people as well?

          “Digital Music News, a confirmed yellow journalism site”

          Um, confirmed by who? You? :)


          Reply
          1. Engineer01

            I think it’s extreme to compare anti-gay legislators to child pornographers/rapists and murderers.


            Reply
            1. Bluto

              Don’t forget about the piratey pirates!


              Reply
            2. Anonymous

              “I think it’s extreme to compare anti-gay legislators to child pornographers/rapists”

              Well, I don’t know about you, but my reaction would probably be pretty much the same whether some jerk a) molested my kids, or b) prevented me from marrying my wife.


              Reply
          2. Anonymous

            We’re not discussing “limited dealings” here.

            We most certainly are discussing THE MOST limited of dealings.

            It’s a political contribution. Nothing more.

            Westergren and Kennedy didn’t go out on some rally for anti-gay legislation. They have no other connection to Chaffetz or Lofgren, have no authority over how their contributions are spent by either of them, and no control over what legislation Chaffetz or Lofgren might pursue.

            As anyone with even limited intellect can deduce, supporting multiple politicians – who have different agendas on gay marriage (and immigration, and minimum wage, etc., etc., etc.) – but who all support internet radio indicates the common denominator – the legislative agenda that Pandora is interested in pursuing.

            Back on topic:

            “Digital Music News, a confirmed yellow journalism site”
            Um, confirmed by who?

            Confirmed by everybody.


            Reply
      2. hippydog

        Quote “Ah, so it’s OK to support your local child pornographer if you support decent people, as well?”

        Really?

        Your actually going to try and equate a member of congress, from the state of Utah (which might explain why the guy is a mormon and is against gay marriage)..
        with being a pedophile?

        Really?


        Reply
        1. Anonymous

          “Your actually going to try and equate a member of congress, from the state of Utah (which might explain why the guy is a mormon and is against gay marriage).. with being a pedophile?”

          Sure, both are violating human rights and crushing innocent people’s dreams — without any reason what so ever.

          It’s hard to think of anything that’s more cruel, with the exception of torture and murder.


          Reply
  3. Hetero

    Who cares? Gay ist NOT okay!


    Reply
    1. Anonymous

      Uh… are you trying to portray Germans as nazis, or something?


      Reply
    2. Ralph Mouth

      Closeted, much?


      Reply
    1. Paul Resnikoff

      There’s a reason for this. Billboard operates on the principle that advertising and sponsorship trumps everything, and that affects every word in their publication. But it’s not just paying sponsors that get soft treatment, it’s anyone that has paid them in the past, or could possibly pay them in the future. They want sponsorship money, they want Tim Westergren to sit on a panel at one of their conferences, etc.

      More than that, these writers still operate under the illusion that Tim Westergren and Billboard are part of some club, sort of like the old fraternity that existed in the major labels back in the 90s and early 2000s. But I would be surprised if Tim Westergren even knows who the Billboard writers are, or if he even reads the magazine.

      That club is dead.


      Reply
      1. Journalism Prof

        I’ll withhold my comment on the “yellow journalism” for now.

        However the Billboard article is flawed in many ways. It does not address why many people consider Chaffetz anti-gay nor does it consider his Washington DC gay marriage legislation. It also fails to address Lowery’s point that the donations were not limited to Westergren. Half the board of directors and other key executives were cited in the piece. That seems to be the main point of Lowery’s article.

        It does indeed appear to be a puff piece to counter bad publicity.


        Reply
      2. Kelly McBride

        Ha! That’s good!

        Paul ResnikoffThere’s a reason for this. Billboard operates on the principle that advertising and sponsorship trumps everything, and that affects every word in their publication.

        Yes. But somehow, you here at Digital Music News are immune to the lure of amassing a substantial readership and the advertising it can command….

        I know, I know…. Even though you court sponsors, just as Billboard does, well, you are just above the sort of writing for your audience that is a hallmark of a truly “commercial” publication, like Billboard. You would NEVER distort facts, post sensationalist, unfounded headlines just to keep the readers, who you know love to see that stuff, coming back. No, this site is about integrity, and quality reporting… *sigh*

        Paul Resnikoff But it’s not just paying sponsors that get soft treatment, it’s anyone that has paid them in the past, or could possibly pay them in the future. They want sponsorship money, they want Tim Westergren to sit on a panel at one of their conferences, etc.

        And the implied corollary to this is supposed to be that you here at DMN DON’T succumb to any of these temptations? You don’t want sponsors? You’re not trying to make money? You don’t want speakers at your conferences?

        Bottom line: You write for your audience (and the potential advertisers and other affiliates doing so might get you), just like any other commercial publication. Far from being immune to those editorial biases, you actually have far less ethical compass than most.

        Paul ResnikoffMore than that, these writers still operate under the illusion that Tim Westergren and Billboard are part of some club, sort of like the old fraternity that existed in the major labels back in the 90s and early 2000s. But I would be surprised if Tim Westergren even knows who the Billboard writers are, or if he even reads the magazine.

        That club is dead.

        That’s a really, REALLY out-of-touch assessment.

        If Billboard serves a “club” it is the fraternity of major labels (and, int he past, brick-and-mortar retailers). Pandora was never a part of that “club” – and certainly isn’t now, either.

        Major labels hate Pandora. The major labels and their affiliated music publishers (to whom you kowtow) are in a very public and protracted war with Pandora.

        FWIW, I absolutely love “Journalism Prof”‘s take on the Billboard article, repleat with acknowledgement of complete ignorance of the basic backgound facts.

        Priceless!


        Reply
        1. Anonymous

          “Major labels hate Pandora”

          Major labels hate Pandora. Indie labels hate Pandora. Rap artists hate Pandora. Classical, r&b, EDM artists hate Pandora.

          In fact, most of the entire industry hates Pandora.

          And I’m sure you know why.


          Reply
  4. 1488

    Pandora “hates” gay people? No, they just don’t like them.

    But it looks like Digital Music News is full of gays which hate anti-gay-orgs :-)


    Reply
    1. Anonymous

      So… we’re gay because we think you’re entitled to marry the person you love?

      Anyways, you’re probably right that Pandora just don’t like gays.


      Reply
      1. hater

        man + woman = love / family

        man + man = only sex / fake love / fake family


        Reply
        1. Anonymous

          Fake love. Now, that’s an interesting concept.


          Reply
    2. Willis

      I hate hate.


      Reply
  5. Sarah

    ….so?


    Reply
  6. Richard

    This article is baseless and gay.


    Reply
  7. Joe Sixpack

    I care less about queerios, but I am sick of hearing about them in every other story. They only make up about 3% of the population.


    Reply
    1. Paul Resnikoff

      “All, too, will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will, to be rightful, must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal laws must protect, and to violate which would be oppression.”

      Thomas Jefferson


      Reply
      1. Joe SIxpack

        Why does the hysterical screeching of 3% of the population consume 95% the media? It’s not about equality, bubba. It’s about forcing a lifestyle upon those who do not condone it.

        Again, I don’t give a dang, but I am sick of hearing about all things queer. STFU and go live your lives like the rest of us, and quit demanding special treatment.


        Reply
        1. Anonymous

          Marriage is special treatment?

          Where? When?

          Berlin 1940? Alabama 1960? South Africa 1970?


          Reply
  8. Joe Sixpack

    Can we please stop with all the queerio nonsense?


    Reply
  9. Anonymous

    Watch and see one of them will turn up in a LGBT sex scandal!


    Reply
  10. Snidely

    President Obama was anti-gay marriage for a long time, too. Remember? Reportedly, the reason his position “evolved” is because Joe Biden came out in favor of it and forced the president’s hand.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N6K9dS9wl7U

    http://www.cnn.com/2012/05/10/politics/obama-same-sex-marriage/

    In any case, I’m of the opinion that politics and music don’t mix. Musicians risk pissing off half their audience when they take a partisan stand, so do blogs. If you MUST wade into politics, treating people like pariahs because they disagree with your position is foolish and immature. I’m pro-gay marriage, for the record.


    Reply
  11. john

    i’m sure the donations had everything to do with incumbency and helping pandora lower royalties. i’m so sick of seeing everything spun into “anti-gay” bs. no gays are being arrested in america, calm the fuck down.


    Reply
  12. danwriter

    The idea that Westergren, et al. making political contributions to elected officials who are in accord with how they want their business landscape to proceed is somehow linked to those same elected officials’ positions on other issues is ridiculous. Others have made the same point here, but I couldn’t let it go without joining in. This is a low point for DMN. Paul, you quote Thomas Jefferson but you sound more and more like Thomas Paine. And not at his best.


    Reply
    1. Paul Resnikoff

      So, as long as Chaffetz supports IRFA, all other issues are also supported? That makes little sense, and highlights an ‘ends justifies the means’ mentality at Pandora that has made them a huge enemy or artists, rights owners, and now, gay people.

      Let’s make this a more extreme example. Imagine if Chaffetz supported a return to racial segregation. BUT, he also supported IRFA. Still willing to defend Mr. Westergren now?


      Reply
  13. Anon

    This is a ludicrous headline. Pandora donated to Chaffetz for 1 reason, so he would sponsor their bill, IRFA. They are not endorsing or even addressing his other positions, just like they are not endorsing or addressing Lofgren’s other positions. This donation is all about IRFA, nothing else.


    Reply
  14. Verify Your Humanity *

    Paul,

    Look at the rest of the contributors on the list:

    Zoe Lofgren: Voted NO on Constitutionally defining marriage as one-man-one-woman.
    http://www.ontheissues.org/CA/Zoe_Lofgren_Civil_Rights.htm

    Bob Goodlatte: Voted YES on Constitutional Amendment banning same-sex marriage.
    http://www.ontheissues.org/VA/Bob_Goodlatte.htm

    David Cicilline: is gay.
    https://cicilline.house.gov/issue/lgbt-issues
    “David is a lead sponsor of the Respect for Marriage Act, which would repeal the discriminatory Defense of Marriage Act and would guarantee all of the federal benefits of marriage to all legally married couples, including same-sex couples.”

    James Sensebrenner: Voted YES on Constitutionally defining marriage as one-man-one-woman
    http://www.ontheissues.org/house/James_Sensenbrenner_Civil_Rights.htm

    That doesn’t justify your conclusion. You’re left to explain that Pandora gave money to supporters of same-sex marriage, including an openly gay Congressman, but they hate gays?

    You could draw other conclusions, of course: Pandora only cares about Pandora and gives money to anyone to advance their cause, regardless of their other views, etc. They’re callous. They’re greedy, opportunistic, purchasers of radio towers to bend legal definitions…etc. You’ve used those already, and you were right to do so.

    I like where you’re taking the fight – follow the money, right? – but why didn’t you continue following after you found a controversial headline?

    Please don’t fall into Clickbait Country. I really like what you do.


    Reply
    1. hippydog

      excellent post!


      Reply
  15. Verify Your Humanity *

    Paul:

    Look at the rest of the contributors on the list:

    Zoe Lofgren: Voted NO on Constitutionally defining marriage as one-man-one-woman.
    http://www.ontheissues.org/CA/Zoe_Lofgren_Civil_Rights.htm

    Bob Goodlatte: Voted YES on Constitutional Amendment banning same-sex marriage.
    http://www.ontheissues.org/VA/Bob_Goodlatte.htm

    David Cicilline: is gay.
    https://cicilline.house.gov/issue/lgbt-issues
    “David is a lead sponsor of the Respect for Marriage Act, which would repeal the discriminatory Defense of Marriage Act and would guarantee all of the federal benefits of marriage to all legally married couples, including same-sex couples.”

    James Sensebrenner: Voted YES on Constitutionally defining marriage as one-man-one-woman
    http://www.ontheissues.org/house/James_Sensenbrenner_Civil_Rights.htm

    That doesn’t justify your conclusion. You’re left to explain that Pandora gave money to supporters of same-sex marriage, including an openly gay Congressman, but they hate gays?

    You could draw other conclusions, of course: Pandora only cares about Pandora and gives money to anyone to advance their cause, regardless of their other views, etc. They’re callous. They’re greedy, opportunistic, purchasers of radio towers to bend legal definitions…etc. You’ve used those already, and you were right to do so.

    I like where you’re taking the fight – follow the money, right? – but why didn’t you continue following after you found a controversial headline?

    Please don’t fall into Clickbait Country. I really like what you do.


    Reply
  16. Another anon

    DMN just climbed a few rungs down the ladder. Congrats!
    You didn’t get me to read the article but the comments are worth it. Come to think of it, I only read the comments on many of the articles…. hmmm… :)


    Reply
  17. Pop Tate

    Yeah, you probably should be sued for this slanderous piece. I think that gay marriage is ridiculous and I don’t “hate” gay people. Most homosexuals had zero interest in getting married until the two political parties who manipulate the weak-minded people of this country saw the value in making it a hot dividing issue.


    Reply
    1. Anonymous

      “Most homosexuals had zero interest in getting married”

      Nah, they’re just like negroes.


      Reply
  18. Why did you post this stupid clickbait headline?

    With all due respect Paul, this is possibly the dumbest headline I’ve seen to date in DMN. Please don’t resort to “clickbait.” While I disagree with Mr. Chaffetz’s position toward gay marriage, he’s still one of the few members of Congress who shows real interest in copyright issues. It’s important to draw a distinction between his stance on gay marriage and on copyright issues, and not insinuate that because Pandora donated to Chaffetz (for copyright purposes) that now Pandora is against gay marriage. This is just downright silly.


    Reply
    1. Anonymous

      “It’s important to draw a distinction between his stance on interracial marriage and on copyright issues”


      Reply
  19. PiratesWinLOL

    This is unreasonable. To make the claim that “Pandora hates gay people”, there should be something real to build it on, like if they fired or demoted a person for being openly gay or removed all the music by Elton John due to him being gay. There is nothing in the article which suggest, that the support he has recieved from Pandora has been motivated by his position on gay marriage. What the article correctly state is that he support “lower royalties for internet radio stations” and obviously this is why they support him. So what is the point? It is just a pointless coincidence. Or does Pandora also for example hate the importation of foreign nuclear waste into the United States? That is just another randomly selected political opinion he has. Fact is that it is a bloody radio station and I dont expect them to have an opinion on all sorts of political matters. It is not their business. Their business is running an internet radio station.

    Another thing that is wrong with this, is the strawman argument about politicians like Jason Chaffetz actually hating gay people. Personally, I do support gay marriage and that homosexuals should have the exact same rights as everyone else. However, the best way to defend this view, I don’t think is to misrepresent the views of others. Their concern usually seem to be what they perceive as an erosion of the concept of traditional marriage. Again, I don’t share this concern, but that is a different matter.


    Reply
  20. Montgomery C Burns

    God….this site has become just so laughable. Pandora has MANY faults for sure but now we’re just getting into BS journalism here. Try not to be so uber transparent in your agenda of hatred for Pandora Paul. Is there no objectivity in this site at all?


    Reply
    1. Paul Resnikoff

      I’m making a point.

      The point is about the ethics of a company like Pandora, and how those ethics (or lack thereof) affect groups that should be benefiting from Pandora: songwriters, artists, performers, rights owners, and yes, gay people.


      Reply
      1. Commenter

        Actually, the only point you’re making is that you are obviously so desperate for views and to keep the comments section of this site alive, you’re willing to post ridiculous headlines like this one, to do so.

        At the risk of making a point that is perhaps too elevated for this site, DMN and David Lowery’s article and C. Castle’s MTP and all the rest of these antics, all of which undermine whatever legitimate arguments you might have (and beleive me, they DO undermine them, with the people that matter) are a big part of the reason why musicians will continue to lose the fight for greater pay, more copyright protection and other concerns.

        Continue to bleat on, with biased hyperbole about Pandora and Google and You Tube and Spotify, etc., etc. and how they “hate gays” or “support piracy” or “make hundreds of millions off of music,while only paying $0.000002 for 50,000,000,000 plays” or whatever – none of whcih is supported by the facts and, you are effectively talking yourself out of the conversation – and entirely out of the room, in fact.

        The politicians, policy-makers and executives that can affect these issues DO recognize when those representing “artist’s interests” are not making legitimate points about the issues. And they tune that crap out.

        Good luck trying to secure/keep a seat at the table where these important topics are being aired, when your reputation as a total huckster precedes you.

        …..just sayin’….


        Reply
        1. Anonymous

          “Pandora and Google and You Tube and Spotify, etc., etc. and how they “hate gays” or “support piracy” or “make hundreds of millions off of music,while only paying $0.000002 for 50,000,000,000 plays””

          Thanks for the reality check.

          Seems we not only need a new YouTube — we need an entirely new tech sector.


          Reply
        2. hippydog

          Quote ” none of whcih is supported by the facts and, you are effectively talking yourself out of the conversation”

          makes a good point..


          Reply
  21. Versus

    Please tone down the headlines. The overly-inflammatory tone may grab views, but is just rude and inaccurate.

    For the record, “against gay marriage” ≠ “hates gay people”.

    Next, we don’t know the stance of Pandora on homosexuality at all.


    Reply

Leave a Reply

Connect with:


× seven = 42

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

  1. OUR SPONSORS

  2.  
  3. Most Heated!