Ask yourself something: why does metal get so little mention in the media, in fact just about nothing at all?
It's like there's an invisible veil between safe topics and unsafe topics.
We know it's not because metal is small, since the media frequently covers tiny rallies and fairs and protests.
We know it's not because they avoid covering media topics, since they're awash in various bands.
It might be the indie nature of it, since the media doesn't seem to mention ANYTHING that does not benefit either:
a) an advertiser
b) the morbid, prurient, neurotic public interest
But that doesn't really make sense, since they do mention and profile indie and local artists.
Is it because there's something threatening about metal?
Maybe that it doesn't follow the normal, accepted, moral pattern of events?
It is melodic and achromatic and lawless: it does not have the usual harmonic control points of rock music. And it's not rock music. Like Kraftwerk, it sounds like classical. Like punk, it sounds like an alienated roar from hell. And when was the last time the media mentioned punk bands that weren't from LA, and were hardcore, not punk?
I have yet to see the "National Geographic Special on Discharge."
I argue that metal is not acceptable for its views. It is masculine, assertive, and warlike. It does not toe the line of liberalized ideology, which comprises both conservative and liberal parties at this time. It does not use an accepted structure for controllable mainstream music. It does not attempt to distract.
Like Al-Jazeera, it's a war call. And they don't like that. Control is how we make money. Control is how we force other people to be our wives, friends, neighbors. Control is usurped by the independent, holistic-moral warrior.