By Jess Santacroce
Music Writer, Phoenix Radio

Each morning, you check your facebook page to see what’s new in the lives of your friends, family members, and coworkers. This morning there isn’t much. People are posting reports about their morning commute to work, pictures of food they made, political memes, events, and things they have for sale. A couple of your contacts shared Bible verses and prayers. More memes follow. Some are fitting. Others are confusing, as they seem to have nothing to do with any of your interests. Suddenly, you find yourself reading an article about one of your favorite musicians. Random articles about television stars, historical figures, writers, movie stars, and musicians seem to pop upon facebook at random. Some of these articles may be completely accurate, while others contain misinformation, or outright lies. That piece that popped up on your feed may be nothing more than the 2026 equivalent of those tabloids we used to see all over every supermarket checkout stand….only worse.

Those supermarket tabloids could only spread rumors about people who are fully prepared, often with legal teams, to have rumors spread about them. They wasted the dollar or two you spent on them, and the time you spent reading them. Their digital descendants may also be going for a lazy and dishonest payday, churning out “AI slop” to take advantage of facebook’s creator bonus program. The program rewards creators who get a lot of attention, not creators who do a particularly good job of researching, writing, and editing their articles. But they may also be attempting to spread malware that allows them access to your computer.

Avoid clicking on any links that take you outside of facebook, and do some independent fact-checking before believing anything you learn from articles with the following signs:



The hosting page has an odd, overly general, or untraceable name

Legitimate pages have names you can find someplace other than facebook. The name of the musician or band, for example, can be found on their official website. “The Metropolitan Opera” is a verifiable arts organization. Articles posted by ABC, NBC, or CNN were provided by that news organization. Pages that post spam or scam content often have random names. They may make little sense, such as “Fun music fun days,” or be vague like “Celebrity facts.” When you type the name into a search engine outside of facebook, the results either do nothing more than loop back to that same facebook page, or they bring up something completely unrelated. There is no music blog, magazine, podcast, or channel with that name and content.

Information that is common knowledge is presented as though it is something new

The Beatles consisted of Paul McCartney, John Lennon, George Harrison, and Ringo Starr. Elvis Presley was a famous American singer. The Rolling Stones were British. No kidding. If you have access to facebook, you have access to the internet. If you have access to the internet, you almost certainly live someplace where people have heard of the Beatles, Elvis Presley, and The Rolling Stones. If an article is full of common music knowledge, there is a good chance that it was placed there not to educate or inform, but to get you to open or share the article simply because it covers an artist you like. While the first sentence or even the first paragraph may be common knowledge, there is a chance that any specific information you find later in the article is untrue. 

Clicking on a link seems to be the focus of the piece

Links are normal. Constant prompts to click here for more information are a red flag that the only reason the article was posted was to get people to click on something, the ultimate clickbait. If all the content provider seems to be interested in doing is getting you to click on their link, the main goal was not to inform or entertain you. They just want you to click over to the page that link leads to, often to install malware on your computer.  Articles posted to serve as nothing but clickbait have no reason to be carefully researched, written, and edited for accuracy.


There is nothing specifically “wrong” about the article, but the tone is flat and generic

Technically correct grammar and perfectly acceptable word choice in an article that still manages to sound robotic and flat is the hallmark of AI generated content, known as “AI slop.” And while some of the content may be stolen from long-ago abandoned blogs or wikipedia articles or comments on sites like Reddit, the vast majority of this click-bait and creator-program exploitation content is indeed AI slop. When all you care about is either clicks or money or both, the fastest way to get content that is going to be clicked on and/or spread around is to use AI to generate it.


Your best weapon against this type of content is your lack of attention to it. Scroll past it as soon as you realize what it is. Avoid reading it, and as tempting as it may be, resist the urge to comment under the article informing everyone that this or that detail is inaccurate, or that your favorite artist would not appreciate being portrayed as they are in the article. The algorithm that rewards these dishonest content creators can’t tell the difference between flattering and critical attention. Any time spent reading the piece, any reaction button click, and any comment rewards them. 

By Jess Santacroce
Music Writer, Phoenix Radio

Attempting to replace artists, educators, and other content creators with AI nearly often results in disasters known as “AI slop.” We get portraits of people with six huge fingers on each hand, lyrics for songs nobody could even sing, videos featuring ten people with the same eyes, fiction that holds the attention of absolutely no one, and essays and reports featuring exactly what would be expected to come next after each sentence, including the misinformation pulled from the most accessible reddit posts and personal blogs. Lesson templates and lectures are similarly bland and standard, with no originality or acknowledgment of audience.

At the same time, AI is praised for its ability to complete those tasks that we want to be basic and expected. Once you enter your pertinent information, a bot can create a budget or a schedule much faster than you with a stack of pens and pieces of scrap paper and a calendar or bank statement. It can count exactly how many verses in the Bible (or whatever scripture is sacred in your faith or path) address money or rest or safety much faster and more accurately than you could ever search and catalog the same information.

What about those things that lie somewhere in between, particularly, music choice? We’ve all seen the Netflix or the YouTube algorithm produce some strange and questionable choices based solely on things we’ve clicked on. But what if the bot were given just a little bit more information?

Playlists are reportedly increasingly generated by AI today,  but like anything else, the question isn’t so much if AI can do it, but if AI can do it well, or even adequately. 

Experiment # 1: Can an AI chat bot create a good themed playlist?

For this experiment, chatgpt was asked, “Can you make me a playlist for staying inside on a cold winter’s day?”

In response, the bot generated a weird “Ohhh yes. Cold winter day, nowhere to be, maybe a blanket burrito situation? I got you. This is cozy-with-a-little-dramatic-energy—perfect for watching snow fall or pretending you’re in an indie film.” answer, but it did add on a list of twelve songs.

The song choices had some successes and some failures. It did provide a bit of variety. There were a couple of Taylor Swift songs, one by Coldplay, one by Billy Joel, and one by Kacey Musgraves. Oddly, it reportedly based its choices on what it called “vibes” rather than lyrics. In one instance, it adds a second song by the band “Bon Iver,” with the comment, “Yes another Bon Iver, winter allows it.” (bon hiver is “nice winter” or “good winter” in French). This seemed more like a programmer’s attempt to insert more human word choice into the bot than the bot displaying genuine ability. A band being named after winter doesn’t mean their work is suitable for any particular winter situation. 

Perhaps the most perplexing choice was “The Night We Met” by Lord Huron. The chatgpt bot described the song as “Main character staring at snow energy.” The song is about a main character who wishes they could go back in time and not even start a relationship with someone, because the situation faded away painfully and ended badly. One certainly could contemplate such a situation while staring at snow, so the bot isn’t entirely wrong….but this song definitely isn’t suitable for everyone stuck inside on a winter’s day.

Using AI to create a themed playlist is not a bad idea for a first draft of the playlist, but human editing for audience might be in order before setting the playlist for a specific situation or person.

Experiment # 2: When given some personal details about an individual’s music tastes, can AI come up with a playlist that person would want to listen to at least once a week or more?

The prompt for this experiment was: I like at least some of all types of music, but my favorite genre is Punk/alternative and I also love Christian pop, Jazz, Blues, classic country, and modern folk. My favorite bands are the Beatles, Train, the Replacements, Blink 182, and Gaslight Anthem. My favorite solo artists are John Mayer, Bruce Springsteen, and Norah Jones. What ten songs should I put on my main playlist first?

My expectation for chatgpt was that it would be able to easily do this. I gave it a list of bands and artists, so I would think it could easily find the most popular song from each of them, pop them onto a list, and fill it out with one or two more from the list of genres I also gave it.

The bot failed. Giving it a list of my favorite bands and artists didn’t tip it off that I actually might like to listen to those bands and artists. Only one John Mayer song made it onto the list. The rest were all artists and songs that chatgpt described as a sort of synthesis of everything I input into the prompt.

Experiment #3: Playlists for moods and situations are all over streaming services. Can AI create a personalized playlist when given a situation?

Mental health experts have nearly unanimously issued strong warnings against using Microsoft copilot, chat gpt, Replika, or any other AI chat bot as a therapist, life coach, or even peer counselor. Anyone experiencing any mental health issues should seek treatment from a human being who has been properly trained and licensed to provide mental health care. If that is not an option for you,  contact a human being on a free help line dedicated to dealing with the issue you face, or speak to your pastor or other religious or spiritual leader for guidance.

Assuming a person is already doing all of this, that they just need some music that reflects the way they feel and what they are going through, can AI generate an appropriate, helpful playlist?

As an initial prompt, I entered my real situation into chat gpt. I explained that I am an independent writer, and my writing work varies widely, from writing and presenting lessons in writing to rooms full of college students and grading, to writing a music blog, to networking to doing research for and writing my own blog and novels. I then asked it for an encouraging playlist. 

Oddly, the bot seemed to pick up on my past prompts, and offered me a list of songs that included Springsteen, Norah Jones, Blink 182, and Gaslight Anthem. It then asked me if I wanted certain modes, one of which included music blog writing. I followed up with that prompt, and received another list, one that was suitable, a mix of the artists and genres previously entered. But just like before, the bot also made choices that sharply illustrate the fact that these things can only predict what is likely to come next in any given situation, not thoughtfully reflect on real human experiences as only a real human can do. One of the songs on the list is “Subterranean Homesick Blues” by Bob Dylan. Chat gpt groups this song under the heading “Smart, Writerly Energy.” And while I do like Dylan and the song, the tempo and lyrics make it more than a little distracting to listen to while writing. Perhaps the idea is to listen to it for inspiration beforehand, but it certainly isn’t suitable for background music while writing.

Overall, AI seems to be suitable for creating first drafts of playlists in limited circumstances, but not something to be trusted completely. As of the middle of February of 2026, the bot’s responses also make it clear that issues of the dialogue being overly and unnecessarily flattering have not been addressed. Each one of these lists came with not just the list of songs it was asked for, but some type of attempt to sound like a life coach or even a friend, such as “Ooh I love this prompt” or “you’ve got taste taste.” That may be annoying at worst, even amusing or cute in some situations when you’re just asking for playlists, but can be dangerous for vulnerable people looking for deeper insight or information.

 Similarly, the constant use of terms like “vibes” and “energy” is concerning. These are terms borrowed from new age philosophies, which is going to be a concern for many Christians and others who follow spiritual paths that do not welcome new age influence already. But regardless of your opinion on new age thought and spirituality, this should still concern you, as these terms are contemporary human speech trends. Despite promises from the CEOs of the companies that market these bots, they are clearly not being programmed to sound more clinical and computer-like, and less like a human talking to you. The exact opposite appears to be true. 

By Jess Santacroce
Music Writer, Phoenix Radio 

As generative artificial intelligence, or “AI” continues to weave its way into every part of life, debates continue as to how deep its impact could ever be on music. While many musicians and devoted music fans maintain that true music, like any true form of any art, must come from a human being, other people create and promote music and even musicians that are generated entirely from AI. Look for a side hustle or day job to finance a project in your music career, and you’re greeted with a screen full of videos promising that you can easily run a money making business by using AI to create all or most of the content you might need. 

Can you simply prompt AI to do things you don’t actually know how to do yourself?

The Heat Beat conducted an experiment to see if someone who has an extensive background in music, but no training or experience in song writing could use AI prompts to produce a song. The person entering the prompts is fifty years old, and has been singing since she was about three or four. She is a professional artist, but her paid work consists of novel writing, teaching writing skills to other adults, and content writing/copy writing for musicians, educators, and other content creators. She currently sings as a hobby/volunteer, but is not and has never been a professional musician. In other words, me. 

Rules

1. Since AI is promoted as the fast, easy way to attribute material to yourself that you didn’t actually create, I can only use up to ten prompts.

2. The song must be created entirely by me interacting with AI. Phoenix Radio has some amazing professional musicians working with it, including the owner and SHE-o herself, a talented children’s song writer, and my own husband, a professional musician and songwriter in addition to hosting “Masters of Jazz” and “Blues Power” for the station. I’m not allowed to talk to any of those people about this until the experiment is over, or attempt to actually learn anything about songwriting myself from any other source.

3. The song produced must be one that I would be willing to sing in front of other people. If the song passes that test, at least one other person, this time a professional musician, must express willingness to perform or record it without being prompted. 

4. I can’t “throw” the experiment by intentionally asking the bot to write about strange topics. I have to create a love song, a protest song, or a song about a situation typically addressed in song lyrics.

The experiment

I began by telling chat gpt I needed to write a song. The bot offered me a guide on songwriting followed by an offer to write lyrics from scratch, help me finish a half-written song, match a specific style or artist, focus on melody and chord vibes or make it sad sad or pretty sad. I asked it to write lyrics from scratch, told it I did not want to mimic any specific artist, and listed my real favorite genres, which are Punk/Alternative, Christian Pop, Blues, Classic Country, and Jazz. I mentioned I also like Metal. I asked it for a song about a woman who feels isolated even though she is married and has an office job, a description of a character I recently created for a novel I am working on.

The bot immediately pulled out the most stereotypical details possible. It wrote me bland lyrics about marital problems, which I noted my character does not have. Of course since I like country music, a truck had to be in there. I prompted it to remove those things, along with some things that did not make sense, like nods after I prompted it that the character becomes engrossed in an online environment. Once I fed it the information that my character is a musician, it wouldn’t stop writing lyrics about a waiting guitar until I directed it to take that out. One of the prompts was that it was meant to be a love song, another asked it to stop repeatedly mentioning the city after I told it that my characters lived in one.

Results 

After more prompts replying to revision questions it asked me and adding a few more similar notes, here is the song AI produced:

In a Way That Feels Kind
Verse 1
He’s working late, I’m here again
With hours I don’t know how to spend
I’m not unhappy, just alone
With questions I don’t say out loud
Chorus
I just want to feel loved
In a way that feels kind
Not corrected, not fixed
Just met, just aligned
I don’t want a second life
Or secrets I can’t keep
I just want to feel loved
When someone reads me
Verse 2
We speak in long and careful lines
About the weight of ordinary lives
Everyone arrives unsure
We leave sounding more the same
Chorus
I just want to feel loved
In a way that feels kind
Not rescued, not praised
Just seen, just aligned
I don’t want a second life
Or somewhere else to be
I just want to feel loved
When someone reads me
Bridge
If love is being understood
Then this must count as love
Final Chorus
I just want to feel loved
In a way that feels kind
Not corrected, not fixed
Just met, just aligned
If belonging feels like breathing
And silence feels too deep
I just want to feel loved
When someone reads me
Outro
When someone reads me


Its final message to me said that “we” could talk about where the song might appear in the novel. I may not be a songwriter, but I am a writer, and I could not think of a blander and less realistic plot line than if my musician character got into trouble in an online chat room, and responded to that situation by writing a song about looking for attention in an online chat room. Whatever went on in the online community would probably stand out much more for her than the fact that she was on a website.

When I started this experiment, I expected it to either succeed for AI, and end in a moving song written from the point of view of a lonely woman who got in trouble looking for affection and attention online, but was not necessarily about that, or simply fail and produce bland, corny content. It certainly did produce something bland and corny. I do not even need to show this to any professional musicians, as this is definitely not usable for me, either as something I would care to sing in an open mic nor as something I would incorporate into my novel.

I didn’t expect it to so clearly illustrate some of the reasons that non-musicians will never be able to replace songwriters with the help of AI. The AI bot failed to even pick up the detail that the character is set to get into some type of trouble in the online environment. None of the follow up questions asked about further plot details of the novel the song was to be based on. It didn’t even generate any follow up questions about the character’s husband and their relationship, despite being prompted that this was a love song. I would expect even the most predictable human-written song to be a “his love saved me” song, given the prompt that it was a love song, and that there were no problems in the marriage. Both AI bots and people can ask the most basic, the most likely, predictable questions and determine what would most commonly come next given a prompt. AI bots can even do that much faster and more thoroughly than people. But having the empathy required to care and ask which details would be the most meaningful to a human being in a situation is something only a human can do….and it is this caring...about anything...that is the root of a truly well-written song. 

By Jess Santacroce
Music Writer, Phoenix Radio 

Over the past several days, several musicians, including Jazz group The Cookers and folk singer-songwriter Kristy Lee have canceled performances at the Kennedy Center in protest of the December 18 announcement that it would now be officially named the “Donald J. Trump and John F. Kennedy Memorial Center for the Performing Arts.” Many of the musicians released individual press statements, but the consensus seems to be that they find it inappropriate and alarming that a President would rename the national arts center after himself, and they believe that this move is just one in a series of acts indicating that Trump intends to take over the center and only allow art that reflects his own beliefs to be performed. The musicians who have canceled performances at the Kennedy Center so far are engaged in an effective form of protest with their music, but refusing to perform in a venue that no longer represents freedom of expression is just one way artists use their music and other art to protest, even though it may not be immediately classified as a protest by others, or in some cases, even thought of that way by the artists themselves. 

Refusing to serve as a consultant or advisor for any organization or venue that does not allow artists to freely express themselves

As news spread of musicians backing away from the Kennedy Center due to the name change, some national news reports incorrectly announced that someone named “Renee Flaming” had resigned her advisory role in protest of Trump adding his name to the arts center. There is no musician named “Renee Flaming,” but the writers of these articles probably heard that opera soprano Renee Fleming had resigned from an advisory role in protest of Trump renaming the center after himself. While Fleming did indeed resign from an advisory role in deliberate protest of the actions of Donald Trump, she acted long before the name change. Fleming’s decision to step down was reported in the magazine “Opera Wire” in an article written by Francisco Salazar on February 12, 2025. According to the article, Fleming resigned in response to the action that would allow Trump to push through the name change ten months later, his becoming Chair of the Board and appointing people who would do whatever he wished. 

Choosing themes that promote a worldview or message in opposition to something the artist sees around them

Protest music itself falls into this category, but music does not have to be created in direct opposition to a specific person, occurrence, or issue to serve as a form of protest. Writing, recording, and performing music offering a worldview different than the prevailing culture can also serve as a way to protest what the artist sees as flaws in the culture.

Christian contemporary music is perhaps the most well-known example. While modern secular pop music tends to promote glorifying oneself, focusing on a person’s own wants and needs and image, Christian pop is characterized by a focus on the glory and the will of Jesus.

Secular pop songs about achieving goals and getting what you need and want in life tend to follow a similar theme to Katy Perry’s 2013 hit “Roar,” with lyrics centering around personal power and achievement. Contrast that with “The Lord Will Provide” by Passion and Landon Wolfe, featuring the line, “everything I need, my father has it.” 

Boycotting products or services from companies or individuals they do not agree with in the process of creating and/or promoting their art

This form of protest is always deliberate, and it is often mocked, mainly because people who choose it so often go about it in an ineffective or even counterproductive way. Rapper Kid Rock co-owns a bar in Nashville. He uses his image as a musician to promote the bar, and the bar to promote his image in music, as the place is called “Kid Rock’s Big <expletive> Honky Tonk and Steakhouse.”

In 2023, Kid Rock wanted to protest what he saw as Budweiser’s support of the transgender community when the company briefly worked with a transgender content creator. In protest, Kid Rock posted a video of himself shooting bottles of the company’s product. Unfortunately, he had to first purchase the items, meaning all he did was waste his own money. Lending even less credibility to his boycott, multiple news outlets investigated and found Budweiser products still being served at the bar Kid Rock uses to promote his music, even during the supposed “boycott.”

Had he quietly removed the company’s products from the shelves of the business intertwined with his music career, refused any sponsorships from them, declined to have their products available at any shows he performed, and posted a video simply urging fans not to purchase from them, he would have had a genuine example of this type of protest.

Actions taken by fans of these and other artists who use their art practice to speak out vary. Some choose to separate the artist from the art, and continue to enjoy the person’s work, regardless of their level of agreement with the artist’s actions or beliefs.  Others choose to act in agreement with their favorite artists. Some fans respond by boycotting or protesting artists whose messages they disagree with.  For others, it depends on the artist and the issue. Just as each artist has a choice in what they promote, protest, or express through and with their art, the choice of how to respond belongs to each fan.










Works referenced:

Salazar, F. (2025). Following Trump takeover, Renee Fleming resigns from Kennedy Center. Opera Wire website. Following Trump Takeover, Renée Fleming Resigns From Kennedy Center - OperaWire OperaWire
December 30, 2025

By Jess Santacroce
Music Writer, Phoenix Radio

On November 19, 1990. Milli Vanilli had their Grammy revoked, as it had been revealed that the people in the duo were not singing, but only lip-syncing to vocals provided by others people. Thirty-five years later, the fake musician hoax has only gotten worse, as today’s fake singers are fake in every sense of the word. That is, they are AI generated people singing AI generated songs.

 At least one AI generated musician is the project of a real human artist. Xania Monet, famous for songs such as “How was I supposed to know” and “She ain’t supposed to matter” is the AI avatar of poet Telisha “Nikki” Jones. In order to create Xania Monet and her songs, Jones started with her own real poetry. She uses the poetry as Xania Monet’s lyrics, relying on AI software to prompt a bot to form the background music, the voice, and the musican herself. 

Other artists who have been revealed to be AI generated in recent months are completely AI. While somebody had to have prompted a bot to create them, nothing else about them is human-generated. When “Walk my Walk” by someone using the stage name “Breaking Rust” topped the Billboard Country Digital Songs Chart, it was later revealed to be an AI generated artist prompted by Aubiere Rivaldo Taylor, someone who is often listed as a “songwriter” by AI-generated search results, but does not appear to have done more than use AI to generate songs. Another “new country singer” revealed to be AI generated, Cain Walker, does not even have anyone stepping forward to claim him as of the writing of this article. 

Most musicians and others who love and value music want to support their fellow artists rather than seeing their work ignored in favor of singing virtual robots. Since the technology is both new and growing increasingly sophisticated at an alarming rate, it can be difficult to tell if that “new artist” you’re listening to is a real person or not, but there are some signs to watch out for. 

Lyrics and images return high “AI generated” scores

Looking for signs that something is AI generated may seem pointless when you can just run things through AI content detectors. AI content detectors can be used for song lyrics, but something coming back with a high “AI generated” score is a sign that it’s AI generated, not proof. Running lyrics you suspect of being created by AI through a detector and getting a high score  means that you likely found something written by a bot, but it is not definitive proof, and it does not prove that the musician was also created by AI. While you can certainly run anything that seems “off” for any reason through one of these detector tools, look for other signs before you conclude that you have found the latest “fake musician” hoax. 

The artist appears from nowhere to the extreme

We often think musicians achieve national, or even local, fame suddenly “came out of nowhere.” But anyone who has ever even attempted to play music or sing, or knows somebody who has, is aware that you do not just jump up one day at random and become a musician. Everybody who plays or sings in front of others, online or offline, is going to have some type of career or practice history, often one spanning years or even decades. Even somebody who has been singing alone in their basement their entire life, and just got up the nerve to sing in front of people for the first time yesterday will have their name on a sign up sheet at the open mic, a friend or family member who used to hear them sing years ago, or an account on whatever platform they posted that first clip. AI-generated musicians go from nothing to a finished, produced, final cut of a track or even a video. 

Every photo or video of the musician shows signs of being AI generated

Despite growing more and more realistic, AI generated images and videos still have a bit of a “cartoonish” quality to them. Textures may be too smooth, giving skin and hair a “painted” look. AI is particularly bad at creating human hands. If you look closely at the photos of Cain Walker on his lyric videos, you can see that his fingers are oddly long and square shaped. Breaking Rust features a singer with much better produced hands, but his jaw movements when he’s shown singing are noticeably robotic. 

While it would be possible for a real artist to use AI to create their photos and videos, it becomes a red flag when every photo or video of an artist or band appears to be AI generated. 

Lyrics and music sound technically correct, but are bland or full of over-used phrasing, words, or themes

Clearly, whether something is “good music” or not is subjective. Plenty of people must have liked Breaking Rust’s “Walk My Walk,” or it wouldn’t have been downloaded enough to top a digital downloads chart. But even if you love the song, there’s no denying that it hits on more than a few rather tired country music stereotypes. The imagery centers around mud on clothes, rocks, boots and a worn hat. It rhymes “eyes” and “rise.” The theme appears to be that others can dislike the narrator, but they’re tough so they’re going to keep going, making it about the millionth country song to be about somebody being tough and keeping going. Other songs on the “artist’s” YouTube channel similarly heavily feature being scarred, getting up, and dust and dirt. 


The lead vocals are sung correctly, but by somebody with an emotionless or flat voice

Real singers have quirks and flaws in their voices, no matter how good of a singer they might be. They also experience human emotions that will be reflected in some way in the song. AI generated voices, like the one used for “Breaking Rust” can be programmed to be gravelly and deep, but they can never reflect a genuine reaction to what they’re singing. This is especially noticeable when listening to Xania Monet. The voice gets a bit more forceful on certain words and phrases, but never truly changes in any way, never breaks, never shows any sign of intensifying or shifting emotion, even when the lyrics, a real poet’s poetry, shift and change. 

There is no evidence of the musician doing anything but playing or singing on recorded tracks and filming videos. 

Keeping your personal page separate from your business page on social media is common, and is in fact a good business practice and safety measure, not a sign of being AI generated. There is also nothing wrong with, and nothing suspicious about someone choosing to only use social media, or even the internet overall, for their career and avoid it for anything personal. 

Still, the person must have done something in their life sometime other than record themselves singing or playing. If you type the name of a real local  musician into a search engine, the first several things that come up will likely be the pages where you can purchase their music, but you will also get links to interviews they’ve sat for, photos and/or of them performing live at various venues, and pictures of them from the social media pages of family and friends, at the very least. If audio and video recordings of their music appear to be all that exists of the person, they might be because they do not actually exist. 
​
Stumbling across bands and solo artists you’ve never heard of before is great. Just make sure to do a  bit of research into anyone who displays any of these warning signs. And don’t forget to support local musicians you see performing and promoted in your hometown and places you visit offline too. 

By Jess Santacroce
Music Writer, Phoenix Radio

It’s no secret music can be political, or that our favorite musical artists often have and express strong opinions about politics, both through their art and in interviews and statements made on social media and other outlets. But what about our elected officials’ connection to music? What are the people we put in power listening to? And are any of them musicians themselves? 

New York City Mayor Elect Zohran Mamdani can rap...and some of his work is controversial

Before entering the field of politics, Zohran Mamdani enjoyed a brief career as a rapper. Under the stage names “Young Cardamon” and later “Mr. Cardamom,” Mamdani performed and released songs reflecting his life and the culture he grew up in. 

In “Nani,” a song posted six years ago to the YouTube channel of “Mr. Cardamom,” Mamdani raps from the point of view of an eighty-five year-old grandmother who has had more than enough of her family, particularly her grandson, talking down to her and treating her poorly. The main character in the song is angry enough to cuss people out and demand respect, something the song teaches that she deserves. 

Other songs are not so heartwarming. In 2017, Mamdani released a song titled “Salaam” in which the narrator praises the “Holy Land Five,” a group of people who were convicted of funneling millions to terror group Hamas. Of course, everything a character in a song, or any other piece of performance art, says or does is not reflective of the views of the writer. The sentiments could be that of a character Mamdani created, views he does not share. This song still remains controversial, concerning to many because Mamdani refuses to state that this is not his own view, often sidestepping questions about support for Hamas by quickly changing the subject. 

Several U.S. Presidents have been amateur musicians

As of 2025, America has never elected someone who has made all or at least an important part of their living in music. We have, however, had some presidents who were skilled musicians as a hobby. Multiple sources report that Thomas Jefferson could play both the violin and the cello. John Quincy Adams played the flute. John Tyler played violin. Truman could play the piano. And while most people who were around in the 1990’s remember Clinton playing the saxophone, most Americans forget that Nixon could also play the sax, along with the piano, clarinet, and accordion, and that Obama can sing. 

President Donald Trump is known for liking a wide variety of musical genres

Whether you are a dedicated “Trumper,” a Republican gradually growing ready for new leadership, or a participant in a “No Kings” rally, support for the arts and artists is not something you think of when you think of Donald Trump. He strongly advocates for cutting funding for the arts, and makes a regular habit of calling for the censoring of any artist who expresses disagreement with him or mocks him in any way, going so far as to suggest that Seth Green’s performance mocking him is “probably illegal.” 

It isn’t, but someone with the belief that it is, or even that it should be, illegal to create art that expresses certain beliefs would be expected to have very narrow tastes in art, including music. Surprisingly, the release of Trump’s playlist to the press over the years has revealed his tastes to be quite varied. He seems to listen to a little bit of everything, from Sinatra to tunes from Broadway musicals to classic rock, classic country, and metal. 



Former Representative (D-Texas) / current political activist Beto O’Rourke was in a punk band in the 1990s

Beto O’Rourke served in the House of Representatives from 2013-2019. Although he was defeated by Republican Ted Cruz in 2018, O’Rourke’s time in the House was notable, as it is rare for a Democrat to be so successful in such a heavily Republican state as Texas. According to interviews given to major media outlets such as CBS and The Hill, O’Rourke is undecided as to whether he will run for public office again, and is currently focused on helping other Democrats and progressive causes behind the scenes. 

Regardless of the specific roles he takes on, O’Rourke remains known in American politics as someone who is willing to loudly speak out against things he does not believe in, going so far as to interrupt press conferences and use commencement addresses to speak out against the Trump administration. 

Previously, O’Rourke expressed himself forcefully in a slightly different way, as a member of the post-hardcore punk band Foss. O’Rourke sang and played bass and guitar in the band from 1993-1995. Today their music is a bit difficult to find, but is listed on Discogs, with some clips, including a song titled “Rise” available on YouTube. 

Virginia has the lead singer of a thrash metal band in their state senate 

Danica Roem (D) has served in the state senate in her home state of Virginia since 2024. Previously, she served in the House of Delegates in the same state. Roem most often gains attention from the national media for being openly transgender, formerly known as “Dan.” Roem is one of only three transgender individuals elected to public office as of 2025, and the first in her state. 

Media attention to Roem’s gender identity shifts the focus from a trait that is even rarer to find in politics, one that as of November 2025, is completely unique to Danica Roem. She is the only lead singer of a thrash metal band ever to be elected to public office. 

 Roem’s band, Cab Ride Home, was active between 2006 and 2017. Their music can be found on the website band camp, with clips of performances from 16 years ago available on YouTube. 


Music is indeed a part of nearly everyone’s lives, sometimes in ways we might least expect. 

By Jess Santacroce
Music Writer, Phoenix Radio

Any music person will tell you that no form of AI will ever replace a human being writing music in response to something they experienced or learned. AI is also a poor substitute for a human writer to create a musician’s publicity and promotional materials, as AI generated writing is often bland and ordinary, and no bot is ever going to care whether or not what it wrote actually helped your band. The same holds true for replacing the person who designs your album cover with AI. You are not going to get the same quality, and you will get absolutely no care. But what about music teachers and promoters? Can AI teach us music skills, teach music history and current events, keep us up on the local music scene,  or promote music appreciation? 

Experiment #1: Guitar lessons 

I have been a professional artist for more than twenty years, but I am a novelist, content writer, and writing teacher, not a professional musician. At age fifty, I have sung as a hobby for more than forty years, but I have a good voice for a hobbyist, not a professional level voice in terms of quality. Decades ago, I briefly played guitar, but while I don’t think I was my teacher’s worst student, I was strongly encouraged to be a singer….not so much a guitar player. 

The above paragraph was entered into chat gpt with the question, “Can you teach me to play guitar?”

Chat gpt responded that it would be delighted to teach me guitar. It told me I already have a few major advantages, calling me a “seasoned artist with creative discipline,” and stating “You have the artistic patience and sensitivity to approach practice meaningfully, not mechanically.” 

It followed that up with a six month lesson plan broken down into three phases, from “the foundation,” in weeks one through four to “accompaniment mastery” in months three through six. 

When learning to play music, AI could certainly be used as a basic outlining tool or guide for lessons. The material it suggested I learn began with basic open chords, G major, C major, and D major. It then went on to suggest I learn strumming patterns, and add chords as the weeks progressed. 

The first and most obvious issue is that chat gpt lives up to its reputation of being overly flattering and unrealistic. Someone who can sing a little but struggles to play an instrument is likely going to need more than three to six months to be able to play well enough to accompany their singing. Sitting there reading the unnecessary flattery also wasted time that could have been spent focused on more detailed instruction. 

Despite its reputation for being able to generate things faster than anything else, chat gpt took three times as long to generate a chord diagram for the C chord than it took me to just find a website that somebody created with the same information. Chat gpt further failed to explain the fingering of the chord, while the site “Online guitar books dot com” owned and written by musician Genaaron Diamente from Melbourne, Australia, offered thar information right under the diagram.  

And just like with writing music, using AI to learn to play still leaves out those things only a human teacher, or at least humans supporting you and cheering you on as you teach yourself would provide, such as telling you what your playing sounds like and noticing whether you seem encouraged and determined or are just going through the motions and might not actually want to play. 

Experiment # 2: Phoenix Radio

As a local station that is both classic and contemporary, Phoenix Radio mixes old school R&B, Jazz, Blues, Rap, Hip-Hop, and Reggae with talk shows focusing on today’s issues. The station is continuously growing, reaching new audiences every week as we add new programs to our lineup and of course, new articles to our blog, all while allowing listeners to enjoy their favorite music from back in the day. 

AI cannot keep up with us. It has apparently never heard of us, and can only find us when told we exist. For this experiment, Microsoft Copilot was asked “Can you tell me about radio stations in Utica, New York?” It responded with a list of what appeared to be every radio station that ever existed in Utica, New York….except Phoenix Radio. 

When asked “What about Phoenix Radio?” Microsoft Copilot AI then appeared to find the very page you’re reading right now, and offered a brief, though slightly incorrect, summary of the station. It appeared to only be able to partially read the first part of the web page, as the only person listed was Scott Carr, the newest member of the Heat Squad, featured in the latest article on the main part of the page. The AI bot completely missed that the article was written by the radio station’s owner and SHE-e-o, Cassandra Harris-Lockwood, as it describes the site owned only by “Phoenix Radio, Inc, a community-focused media organization.” AI further failed to tell the difference between evergreen content on a web page and a comment section, using a fan’s mention of “DJ Butter” on the site “Online radio box”  to conclude that “DJ Butter” is a show. Anyone who has ever listened to the station knows that DJ Butter is a person.

Switching back over to chatgpt and asking “Who are the DJs of 95.5 The Heat: Phoenix Radio?” generated results that at least correctly identified DJ Butter as a person, but could only list two more people, DJ Tone and Bobby Bounce, and could not find the schedule or the names of any more members of the Heat Squad. When prompted with individual names, it could only read portions of the page or pick up articles about the founding of the station posted on the Utica Phoenix newspaper’s website in 2018. 

When looking for information about current events in music, or insight into the local music scene, AI is not only a poor source, it is something to avoid entirely. 

Experiment # 3: Some alternative facts about punk/alternative rock

Current and local events were certainly a failure, but there was still hope that AI could teach a bit of music appreciation and history. For this experiment, the prompt was “Teach me about the beginning of the punk and alternative scene in the 1980s.” 

While I am far from an expert on this subject, it is my favorite genre of music, so I would at least be able to tell if the bot just started spitting out the names of things that weren’t bands, or if it gave me a timeline off by an entire decade. It didn’t quite do that, but it didn’t provide anywhere near an accurate picture either. 

The biggest mistake “open ai,” which opened up a search engine on chatgpt, made in this experiment was to nearly leave out an entire city. According to the outline of the history of punk and alternative music generated by this chat gpt search, there was only one punk band to emerge out of Minneapolis, Husker Du. 

Husker Du was indeed an important punk band, they were just far from the only one in Minneapolis in the 1980s, a fact copilot can only seem to pick up when asked directly for a list of punk and alternative bands in Minneapolis in the 1980s. Following the links provided, and actually reading some of the articles that come up but aren’t picked up by AI teaches us that there were more than forty punk/alternative bands to come from Minneapolis, many of them from the same era. 

Unlike the material offered when asked for lessons, AI did not waste time with unnecessary flattery when asked about 1980’s punk and alternative history. And it didn’t get things completely wrong, like mistaking a person for a show, as it did when prompted to teach about current and local events in music. If you searched further into some of the bands the bot did mention, such as Black Flag and Joy Division, you would indeed find that these are important punk bands, and be encouraged to learn more. It just made a lot of mistakes by omission. If you knew nothing about the punk and alternative scene of the 1980s, relying on AI might leave you with a startlingly incomplete, and therefore inaccurate, picture. 

When learning about music, AI can serve as a helpful starting place or a source of misinformation. Searching using slightly different key words, typing the same ones in a different number of times, or even just performing these same searches on a different day may yield slightly or even entirely different results, perhaps better, maybe worse.  Overall, AI may give you a few ideas to take to your music teacher, favorite music expert, or local music personality, but it could never replace any of those people. 

By Jess Santacroce
Music Writer, Phoenix Radio 

Musicians and other artists are growing increasingly independent. While it’s highly unlikely that you’re going to land a contract with a major record label without securing an agent and having your music professionally produced, today’s technology does allow an artist to design, maintain, and grow a more localized career on their own, or perhaps with occasional collaboration with others in various parts of the field of music. 

This flexibility and opportunity to take greater control of your own career has both benefits and drawbacks for the artist and for the music business overall, one of the most dangerous risks being greater exposure to scammers who target musicians. The most common scams targeting musicians in late 2025 seem to fall into one of three categories. 

Catfish: Agent, manager, and music PR person edition 

An entire television series, numerous blogs, and multiple channels on YouTube have been devoted to “catfish” or “romance scams” in which one or more people target those looking for some form of dating relationship online. Some romance scammers pretend to be entirely fictional people, stealing photos, portions of biographical information, and names from a collection of profiles to craft a character, trick the target into falling in love with them, and then manipulate that person into sending them money. Others use portions of their real identify, but falsify situations and fake the relationship for the same goals. People who do this are more than willing to revise their story if something else will work a bit better to get them to their true goal, getting their targets to send them money. The same people who are online waiting to pretend to be somebody’s boyfriend, girlfriend, or fiance have no problem pretending to be your adopted aunt or sister or your second mom or dad if that’s what they realize you’re looking for…..and that flexibility extends to faking a professional relationship. 

One of the most common scams targeting musicians today is the exact same scam as the now well-known romance or friendship scam, the person is just pretending to be an agent, manager, or public relations person looking to advance your career rather than someone seeking some type of personal relationship with you. The story unfolds in a similar manner. The person approaches you, or baits you to talk to them in some type of online environment. They “love bomb” you, telling you how talented you are, how effortless it is going to be for them to turn your talent into financial success. But just as there is always an excuse as to why the couple or the pair of friends can’t meet in the classic version of the scam, in the musician-targeting version, there is always a reason why the album can’t be made or the gig fell through. Of course, you just need to pay one more fee or pay them for one more month and everything will work out in the end. 


Processing fees to get your music placed 

Instead of claiming to be your future music industry professional, scammers using this tactic to separate you from your money play on that independence so many musicians and other artists are embracing today. No manager, PR person, agent, or producer is needed, these individuals claim. You can grow your own career by getting your music placed in movies and television shows created for and produced by Netflix, Amazon Prime, and Hulu, placing your work in front of an audience of millions of people every time they sit down to binge watch the latest show or watch a movie at home, all the while drawing royalties. 

Like the fake agent or manager, these scammers first approach you with a lot of flattery. They’re brimming with compliments for you, your music, and your entire career. Not only are they impressed with you, these scammers claim, they know that your music, or even just one particular song, would be absolutely perfect for this show or that movie. All you have to do to get that placement is to pay them a processing fee for doing a little work on your behalf to get it there. 

This may sound reasonable to an independent musician who is used to hiring out various individual tasks while he retains overall control of his music. You’re just paying a person to do some promotion for your art. It isn’t. Anyone asking for any type of fee or payment to get your music placed anywhere is only setting you up for a scam. 

People who legitimately place music in movies and t.v. shows are not just random people with connections and a willingness to pepper a movie or t.v show with your music for a small fee. They are music industry professionals called “music supervisors.” These people are in charge of all facets of securing and placing music in movies and shows, including licensing and budgeting. Their jobs involve dedicated and careful research, networking  and collaboration. Anyone claiming they can just place your music as soon as you send them some cash is not a real music supervisor. 

Pay to play scams

Pay to play scams can be the most difficult ones to detect, because there are situations in which the offer to pay to play someplace is legitimate. For example, a local business might host an open mic event in which all attendees are asked to pay a cover charge to enter. Some venues may choose to waive that fee for those who sign up to perform. Others may not. 

The key difference between a legitimate “pay to play” situation and one that is a scam is that in a legitimate situation, the musician or other artist receives some type of compensation. You pay that cover charge to attend a business’ open mic. They get your money. In return, you get exposure to the audience that is made up of everyone who showed up there just because that particular place hosted the event. 

If the pay to play event is a scam, the audience won’t be there. Some pay to play scammers misrepresent their connection to real events. They claim to be collecting cover charges in advance for this showcase at that bar or coffeehouse, but in reality have no connection to the place or event, and no ability to add you to the list. Others collect fees for completely fake events, pretending to cancel or even simply vanishing with no further contact as the event draws near. Still others operate in a bit of a gray area. They may legitimately own, manage or work for the venue or event, and there may actually be something scheduled, but they may have deliberately and greatly misrepresented the size of the audience, guaranteeing “a crowd” when they know their place will likely be empty at the time, or making outlandish promises, such as claiming a famous music producer might be in attendance when they know this is very unlikely to be true. 

Time and careful research are going to be your best defenses against these scams. Demand verifiable results from anyone claiming they can lead you to success in your music career. Talk to people who have worked with them before, preferably offline, in person, and in a public place. Check out venues and other businesses both online and in person. 

Verified outside experts are another important resource. If you know someone who is a  lawyer, music producer, music PR person, or manager, run the name and online presence of anyone who approaches you by that person before signing or even verbally agreeing to allow them into your music career. 

By Jess Santacroce
Music Writer, Phoenix Radio 

Tales involving twists of fate can serve as both an inspiration and a warning. We hear of someone being upset with their spouse for not waking them up early enough on the day of a big meeting or job interview, only to later learn that a tragedy occurred on what would have been their route. Or their roommate kept asking silly questions as they tried to get out the door, it made them forget their umbrella, and when they ducked into a coffee shop to get out of the rain, they met the love of their life or their new best friend. A few of these tales circulate among music fans. Some are absolutely true. Others turn out to be nothing more than debunked urban legends. Still others cannot be proven, but there is also no proof they didn’t happen. 

True: Country legend Waylon Jennings missed dying in a plane crash at age twenty-one by switching rides with the Big Bopper

Waylon Jennings passed away at a very young age by today’s standards, dying in 2002 at only sixty-four years old. However, he would have only made it to twenty-one had he not done what he believed at the time to be a simple act of kindness for another musician back on February 3, 1959. 

Now often referred to as “the day the music died,” this day refers to a tragedy in the early days of rock music. Buddy Holly, J.P. Richardson, Jr (known professionally as The Big Bopper) and Richie Valens were all killed when the small plane intended to be a more comfortable ride than the freezing tour bus they had available, crashed. 

As the musicians discussed and bickered and bartered to decide where to put everyone between the bus and the plane, Jennings realized that Richardson was already sick from spending time on the bus with a broken heater. He gave up his seat on the plane so that Richardson would not get any sicker, and took his place on the cold bus. The plane would later crash, killing everyone on board. Jennings’ choice of taking the bus over taking the plane saved his life that day. 

Unverifiable: Someone was prevented from ending their own life because a John Denver song began playing in their room.

According to the urban legend, John Denver’s by then ex-wife, Annie Martell, worked as a mental health counselor. During one session, a young woman asked her if she had been married to John Denver. When Martell said that yes, she had been, but then reminded the young woman that it was important to focus on herself during  her counseling session, the woman explained that this story was about her. She had been planning to end her own life when a John Denver song began playing on a record player or radio in her room. The music was so sweet, so loving, and so hopeful, the woman knew she had to stick around in a world that contained such gentleness.

There was once an entire tumblr page devoted to John Denver and how much he meant to his fans, but this particular story has never been verified. Current searches for Annie Martell generate vague answers about her profession, with some referring to her as being “in education,” or “in tv” and not even a counselor at all. Phrasing the question differently only results in an AI generated “Yes” indicating the story is true, backed up by a link to an article that does not even mention Martell as a counselor or anything of this nature happening. This is of course the result of AI being programmed to tell people what it reads them as wanting to hear rather than evidence that the events in the story actually did occur. 

While this story cannot be proven, it does not mean John Denver’s music did not have such a profound and beneficial impact on one or more fans. It is entirely possible that something similar to this story did in fact happen, and the person simply chose not to publicize it, or to come forward as the inspiration for the debunked urban legend. 

False: The Ohio Players’ song “Love roller coaster” just happens to contain a real scream from someone in serious distress. 

It would not be at all unusual for a song that uses a roller coaster as a metaphor to feature a scream as a sound effect. People do after all sometimes scream when things feel like roller coasters in their lives, and they often scream when riding on an actual roller coaster. Hiring a backup singer to scream at a certain time during the recording of a song called “Love roller coaster” would not be at all odd, not a twist of fate at all. 

However, during an interview, a DJ pointed out that the scream on the record sounded particularly anguished, and particularly high-pitched and feminine, and made a crack about someone being deliberately harmed to produce the sound. 

This led to speculation that the person screaming was a woman, and that the woman was in great genuine distress. The exact nature of the distress varied, with some versions being especially gruesome. Regardless of the details, the story began to circulate that the band just happened to have recorded the song somewhere near a horrible incident, and instead of stopping, finding the victim, and rendering aid, they simply kept recording, since it fit in well with the song.

Nothing even remotely like this actually happened. There was no woman in distress anywhere near the band when the song was recorded. There wasn’t even a female vocalist hired to make it sound like they’d recorded someone screaming. The scream on the song is actually a screech made by keyboard player Billy Beck. 

Twists of fate certainly can occur in music. Some, like  the story of Buddy Holly, J.P. Richardson, Jr, and Richie Valens, are real and tragic. Others just might be life-saving or life-changing, even if there is no public record to prove they happened. Still others will be wild urban legends, with the only twist being the off-hand comment that launched them coming at the right time to inspire an urban legend. 

 By Jess Santacroce
Music Writer, 95 5 The Heat 

The cancellation of the late-night tv show “Jimmy Kimmel Live!” brought censorship to the news and to social media and all its memes. On September 17, 2025, Kimmel spoke out against the behavior of President Donald Trump following the murder of right-wing content creator and non-profit owner Charlie Kirk. Kimmel’s remarks suggested that Trump’s mourning for Kirk may be insincere, as he was able to shift his focus to the ballroom he’s designing remarkably quickly following Kirk’s passing.
Although not cited as a reason for the show’s cancellation, country singer Margo Price has since become famous as the last musician to play on the show prior to the cancellation, and was reported to have said she was glad she “got the last word” with an anti-fascist song.
Those who support the removal of Kimmel’s show from the air argue that the decision was made by a private corporation, and was not in fact censorship. Others note that the cancellation happened due to pressure from the Trump administration, amounting to government censorship. But what exactly is “censorship?” We all think we know the answer, but there is a lot of misunderstanding surrounding the term, the first amendment, and the concept of “free speech.”
Myth: The first amendment means you get to say anything you want anywhere you want without any unwanted results.

Reality: The first amendment protects you from punishment by the government for what you say, not from the consequences of your actions.
Shortly before the Kimmel cancellation, various content creators on YouTube covered stories of people who were shocked to find themselves fired because of things they posted on TikTok. Most of them did not understand that you could be fired from a job for what you say and do on the air, including the internet, and thought that their firing amounted to censorship. These were not cases of censorship, regardless of how professionally embarrassing they may have been for the person who was fired for their content. Censorship, or denial of your right to free speech ,occurs when the government jails you, fines you, or denies you permits, licenses, or other services because of what you said. None of the people fired for their TikToks were going to jail, paying any fines, or being denied any government services because of their content. As far as the law was concerned, they were still completely free to say whatever they wanted. Their employers had just decided they were not welcome to say it while working for them. This was not censorship, simply the consequences of the individuals’ actions.
In the Kimmel case, Price was definitely not censored in any way. Her song was not cited as a reason for the show’s cancellation. Had ABC independently decided that Kimmel was not welcome to criticize Trump’s reaction to Kirk’s murder on their platform, he would also have experienced no censorship, just the consequences of his actions. Kimmel would have been completely free to go find another network or another platform and say whatever he wanted to say. However, the show’s cancellation is likely due to pressure from Federal Communications Commission Chairman Brendan Carr.. As the chairman of a portion of the government, Carr would be able to exert influence and pressure to prevent Kimmel from saying what he said no matter where Kimmel went by denying licensing to anyone who would host him. When the government decides that you must be prevented from saying whatever it is that you said, that is censorship.
Myth: People who respond to your social media comments by telling you that you are misinformed, asking you to stop harassing or trolling, or threatening to delete and block you are denying your first amendment right to free speech.
Reality: Musicians monitoring their fan pages and other page managers and owners are not agents of the government, they are private citizens deciding what they will and will now allow in private space.
Several musicians have made statements about both Charlie Kirk’s murder and Jimmy Kimmel’s cancellation, and as is the case when statements are made on social media, the posts get widely mixed reactions, some of which may be distasteful to the original poster. Many choose to deal with these unwanted comments by removing them from their page, or even blocking the person who posted them. A musician or other social media account owner deleting your comments and blocking you from their page is not censoring you. That person does not have the power to put you in jail, make you pay a fine, haul you off to a re-education camp, or deny you licensing or other benefits that you could not get someplace else. A fan who is deleted and blocked from a musician’s page still has the option of going on to another artist’s page and saying the same thing, posting the same thing on their own page, or walking around chanting whatever it was they said out loud if they choose to do so.
This still holds true if a lot of people join in on the calls for you to stop posting whatever it is you’re posting on the page in question. This is not censorship. The page owner is doing the same thing a homeowner or renter is doing when they inform someone that promoting social, political, or spiritual beliefs they do not agree with is unwelcome in their home. All those other people are simply stating that if you came over to their real or virtual “house,” you would not be welcome to talk like that there either. You can still say what you said on your own page, or on another page that welcomes sentiments like yours.
Myth: Criticizing someone who experienced violence is a call to violence, and therefore not protected speech under the first amendment.
Reality: The use of violence as a reaction to anything anyone says violates criminal law and is never justified. Criticizing things that person said before the act of violence was done against them does not in any way suggest there should be an exception to the law.
As arguments about Kimmel rage on over the internet and in other public space, additional people, including some musicians, are further taking sides in an argument over whether or not it is acceptable to criticize Kirk’s words in the wake of his murder. Those who argue that it is not link criticism of Kirk with support or even celebration of what happened to him to end his life. Others point out that their criticism is directed at content Kirk himself created and posted, and has nothing to do with the way that his life ended.
Murder is illegal in the United States. It is also in violation of the teachings of Christianity and nearly every other spiritual or religious belief system. What happened to Charlie Kirk should not have happened to him, and should never happen to anyone. This does not change the fact that his YouTube channel alone is full of content that a lot of Americans, and a lot of Christians, point out is not in line with the law or with the teachings of Jesus. Pointing this out does not mean a person is in any way mocking his murder or denying the impact he had on those who loved him. They are simply doing what Kirk is often celebrated for, arguing against a point someone else made.
On September 22, 2025, multiple news outlets announced that Jimmy Kimmel would return to the air on September 23, 2025. While this instance of censorship was quickly corrected, members of both sides of the political spectrum have noted that it sets a dangerous precedent for comedians, other spoken word artists, and everyone else in the arts and beyond.
Disagreement is not censorship. Criticizing someone is not censorship. Private citizens and private entities refusing to allow content on their privately owned space is not censorship. However, any form of pressure, punishment, or threats from anyone acting as an agent of the government in response to what someone says is censorship, a violation of the first amendment of the United States Constitution, and the denial of the right to free speech.