Here In The (Un)Real World

The CMA this week decided that, when it comes to the red carpet and backstage media room at the Wednesday, November 8th "51st Annual CMA Awards," the press shall be required to refrain from coverage (read: questions) regarding "the Las Vegas tragedy, gun rights, political affiliations, or topics of the like." (Gee, that last restriction is conveniently broad and open to interpretation). As an added bonus, anyone straying from these guidelines will be subjected to their credentials being, "reviewed, and potentially revoked, via security escort."

Yeah, because it's so much better to simply pretend Las Vegas, and many other unprecedented, significant social issues of our time simply aren't happening, or have never happened at all. Even better, let's pretend today's artists don't have a point of view on any of that, and the media has no right to be curious about that insight.

But, I get it. So, here's the deal: as long as we're living in a bubble, only acknowledging rainbows, unicorns, fairy dust, and a controlled, make believe world, then I guess I can expect the same restrictions for show producers, writers, presenters, and artists on stage during the CMA telecast, right?

That means no heartfelt tributes, musical or otherwise, and no reference whatsoever to the Las Vegas incident. And, if presenters or performers "stray from these guidelines," or spontaneously display an ounce of empathy, toss out a political joke – even as an aside – or "topics of the like," then I fully expect producers of the show to cut them off, possibly via security escort.

Just like the media.

An hours-old example of this imaginary, perfect world scenario coincides with this ridiculous and oppressive directive from the CMA. A chaotic change in leadership and company name for Webster PR – following multiple allegations of sexual harassment by company founder Kirt Webster – was sufficiently sanitized by some, characterizing it as a "rebranding."

Except, it's not rebranding.

That's because, by its very definition, rebranding is: "To change the corporate image of a company or organization." For Webster PR, it's far too late for an image makeover now.

See, when you change your logo, you're rebranding. When you change your music position, you're rebranding. When you adjust your consumer target, you're rebranding. When you say the company is no longer in business, then backpedal hours later and say, "No! We're actually back in business, but have renamed the company," you're fucked up beyond all recognition, grasping at straws, and operating in total crisis mode. You're a mess.

But, you're sure as hell not "rebranding."

I guess all those skeptical people on the outside of our format looking in are right. That we work so hard – too hard – amongst ourselves to create a false reality filled largely with magical thinking.

Well, I have news for all of us. This format, and the people who work in it, are a fascinating and wonderful blend of diverse, imperfect, and – yes, even flawed – humans, no matter how hard we try to appear otherwise. We're just as screwed up as the rest of the world.

Get the hell over it.

We have mean people, narcissistic ones, and others who are complete assholes. Some have treated other people in a grossly inappropriate manner at one time or another. Some are opinionated as hell. As an industry, we've got warts. We should own every one of them.

But, no. Instead, the CMA has decided preventive maintenance is the more viable option in 2017. I always thought Country music was about real life, things that are genuine, and steeped in honesty. Geez, I've been so naive.

Unlike the CMA, I have complete confidence that artists – whether questioned on a red carpet, or in a backstage media room – have the wherewithal and media savvy to deflect a question they don't feel like answering, and the ability to do so with finesse. Or, to address it head on, in a way that's thoughtful and meaningful.

Creating boundaries like the CMA announced yesterday is an insult to those artists, most of whom who are intelligent, and possess a point of view. They're part of a generation of younger people who are more worldly and informed than ever before. What the CMA is essentially telling artists is twofold: we don't care what you have to say, and we don't have faith in your ability to articulate your thoughts.

They're also dictating a narrative to the press, which, at its core, flies in the face of the first amendment. And, all of this during a socially charged era, the likes of which have not been seen since the 60s.

Here's a theory I have, and it's an ironic one: before the CMA announced this stupid policy, I'll bet the majority of media members hadn't even planned on asking many, if any, socially targeted questions, outside the topic of music, in the midst of "Country's biggest night."

The red-carpet environment is rarely a source of anything beyond a brief happy talk: a micro-conversation focused mainly on "who are you wearing," which yields nothing more than a lightweight soundbite.

The backstage media room is a little better, but comes after an artist has arrived off stage after a performance, presenter slot, or a CMA win. Particularly with the latter situation, tossing a real hardball question is mostly out of context, potentially rude, and equally rushed. Most media journalists wouldn't go there anyway, knowing the response would be unfulfilling. It's the very reason I don't cover red carpets or media rooms. I recently spent one hour in a round table interview setting with Luke Bryan, and even the one question I was able to ask in the allotted time gave me better content than any red carpet or backstage room ever could.

But, hell, now that that the CMA planted the seed, there's no telling what kind of questions journalists in that room are cooking up now. I wonder who will exercise their civil disobedience muscle and ask it with their outside voice?

Or, maybe the CMA will heed Brad Paisley's sound advice today, as he tweeted, "I'm sure the CMA will do the right thing and rescind these ridiculous and unfair press guidelines. In 3 ... 2 ... 1 ..."