Tim Jonze on the NME apology

I think two questions on Twitter hardly maketh a confrontation.

Someone needs to bring up the simpering email to Merck. That's where is Jonze banged to rights.

"they didn't mention race once". Yeah, they just heavily implied it!

Given the fractured history between the two I think they had to say something cause Moz's comments were at best ill advised to that of all magazines. But the way it was editorialized and taken out of that journalist's hands was shady, he didn't make the sensationalist cover.

Although notice how they completely ignored it when he made similar remarks in 2004 during his recrowned comeback to the "Mozfather" and New Morrissey Express. Even a very good Asian writer there remarked on the letters page that while he was slightly uncomfortable with it, he didn't see any problem with it.

Up until that article I thought Tim Jonze was one of the better writers left there, most of the last good ones like Moz fave Alex Needham had left. I also don't believe for one second Moz's story about Jonze not knowing early Bowie records or whatever - come the fuck on a. who DOESN'T know Bowie and b. he's a music journalist for chrissakes.

There was little to apologise for? Really?

One of several illuminating posts by Worm on this in the previous story -

That's more of what I was talking about, above. Choice morsels from McNicholas' email to Merck:

"we're not able to either support them"
"I wish I'd never fond myself in this position" [sic]
"depressing...I don't have a reputation of running pieces such as this because it's not in my nature"
"I never wanted to be in this place"
"this whole difficult process"

Nobody wanted to take credit, nobody wanted to take the blame. The story had taken on a life of its own, according to Conor, and not even its writers and editors could control it. Five men in a firing squad, only one loaded rifle. Everyone deeply apologetic for the bullet between the prisoner's eyes, but please you must understand, these things happen, there was simply no other choice.

When Conor wrote, "obviously no-one is accusing Morrissey of racism - that would be mad given what Morrissey says - but we do say that the language Morrissey uses is very unhelpful at a time of great tensions", he took Jonze's position: walks like a duck, talks like a duck, isn't a duck. Trusting their readers would get the point, which they did.

It's just cowardly, all of it. They decided Morrissey was racist and wanted to paint him as such without actually calling him racist. They did so in way calculated to absolve them of any culpability. Totally embarrassing for Jonze, McNicholas, and the NME. Hatchet job, indeed. Their "apology" is very much in keeping with the spirit of the 2007 article.

And the press continue to follow the trail -
http://www.prefixmag.com/news/morris...tlement/66287/

http://pitchfork.com/news/46821-nme-...-to-morrissey/

And legal eagles like it - http://www.rjw.co.uk/latest-news/art...#axzz1xsnYstdv

I hate this guy, I really do

It sounds to me like you can take the facts as they are known and interpret them two completely different ways. One version is that the NME set him up, and the other is that he started making these difficult statements and they were forced to conclude that he is somewhat xenophobic.
Jonze says he knows Morrissey is not racist. None of the quotes in the email from Jonze are damning. If you interviewed Morrissey and he suddenly started talking about the floodgates being opened to immigrants, I think you might have "never wanted to be in this position."

Is Morrissey surprised that any English music paper, especially NME, would sensationalize a controversial interview in order to sell more papers?

I don't think Morrissey is racist, and apparently not many people do, despite what could be put forth as "the evidence." At the same time, any writer who got those answers to those questions would be in a tight spot. You could ignore it and edit it out, confront him during the interview and make sure he has a chance to explain after hearing your perception of what he is saying (I don't really think that is the journalist's job; that is for his publicist.) or stick to talking about Madonna and some random X-Factor judge or Justin Beiber or something. Morrissey's controversial interviews seemed more entertaining when he talked about other pop stars.

All in all, while I am no fan of NME, and will always be a fan of Morrissey's, I can't honestly say that I would have expected them to handle his quotes much differently than they did. If you are going to make troubling quotes to a music paper, which is closer to a red top tabloid about pop stars than it is to a newspaper, you should probably expect them to exploit it for sales.

Maybe Morrissey could revamp "Journalists Who Lie" with scathing references to Tim Jonze?

Jonze is scum, trying to sneak through the lines

The wording these NME fucks assemble is always annoying. You feel their squirming discomfort in both the "apology" and follow-ups.

Nonetheless, most of the headlines include "NME apologize" or a variation thereof so no matter how twisted their knickers get -- that is how the news is seen and will be remembered.

Originally Posted by King Leer

The wording these NME fucks assemble is always annoying. You feel their squirming discomfort in both the "apology" and follow-ups.

Nonetheless, most of the headlines include "NME apologize" or a variation thereof so no matter how twisted their knickers get -- that is how the news is seen and will be remembered.

I think most people who read the "apology" headline will manage concentrate long enough to read the two paragraphs beneath it and see that it isn't an apology at all (and nor should it have been). They'll wonder, though, why Morrissey didn't have the bottle to pursue his case to court.

Genuinely, genuinely gutted this didn't reach court.

Originally Posted by Anonymous

Genuinely, genuinely gutted this didn't reach court.

then you need to get out more.

Tim Jonze was never "the blame" but the way the NME presented it so they took his interview and wrapped it up with "Words by NME". Jonze is now head of Guardian music, part of the ultra-PC mob along with many other ex-NME'ers so his comments on Twitter are just sticking to the party line. Professionally, he's not in a position to risk his career and say otherwise. Whether he is a "c***" or not as some people here argue, the piece was taken out of his hands. The NME used Jonze for their own gain as much as they used Morrissey and it backfired on everybody.

The NME were to blame - specifically editor Conor M - for the crime of poor journalism and cheap sensationalism. They might have had a story of genuine worth to challenge Morrissey on his views but acted like over-excitable sixth form kangaroo courters and made a farce of the presentation, dragging up all the corny old Bengali In Platforms stuff (didn't they get the name/album wrong?) and being nudge, nudge, wink, wink. NME sales are notoriously poor these days, around 16,000 a week, so they were after all the extra sales they could get.

It is a shame it never went to court but Morrissey must have relented as up until recently he'd taken out an injunction which would have restricted press coverage of the trial (so as not to repeat the false allegations of racism). A statement on true to you clarifying his position would be greatly beneficial to all in understanding exactly why he chose to drop the case.

Originally Posted by Anonymous

Genuinely, genuinely gutted this didn't reach court.

Morrissey, on the other hand, is overcome by a feeling of relief. He feels very fortunate.

Originally Posted by Anonymous

the ultra-PC mob

People who aren't racist, you mean?

Agreed, thats if he has indeed dropped the case, we only have the NMES say so,
the high court seems to think its still on.???

Originally Posted by Anonymous

Tim Jonze was never "the blame" but the way the NME presented it so they took his interview and wrapped it up with "Words by NME". Jonze is now head of Guardian music, part of the ultra-PC mob along with many other ex-NME'ers so his comments on Twitter are just sticking to the party line. Professionally, he's not in a position to risk his career and say otherwise. Whether he is a "c***" or not as some people here argue, the piece was taken out of his hands. The NME used Jonze for their own gain as much as they used Morrissey and it backfired on everybody.

The NME were to blame - specifically editor Conor M - for the crime of poor journalism and cheap sensationalism. They might have had a story of genuine worth to challenge Morrissey on his views but acted like over-excitable sixth form kangaroo courters and made a farce of the presentation, dragging up all the corny old Bengali In Platforms stuff (didn't they get the name/album wrong?) and being nudge, nudge, wink, wink. NME sales are notoriously poor these days, around 16,000 a week, so they were after all the extra sales they could get.

It is a shame it never went to court but Morrissey must have relented as up until recently he'd taken out an injunction which would have restricted press coverage of the trial (so as not to repeat the false allegations of racism). A statement on true to you clarifying his position would be greatly beneficial to all in understanding exactly why he chose to drop the case.

Originally Posted by Anonymous

any writer who got those answers to those questions would be in a tight spot. You could ignore it and edit it out, confront him during the interview and make sure he has a chance to explain after hearing your perception of what he is saying (I don't really think that is the journalist's job; that is for his publicist.)

Agreed. You'd be in a tight spot. But one of the options you missed is a direct conversation with Morrissey about race, immigration, and so forth. Not a confrontation, a conversation. I keep reading about "giving Morrissey a chance to answer for his comments", as if he were in the dock. But an interview is supposed to be a conversation. Why not have a simple, civil discussion, face to face, right there and then, to draw out the various points of Morrissey's thinking on the subject? Could Jonze not have thought of some good follow-up questions?

The answers ended the conversation right where the conversation ought to have started. I promise you, as a writer, Jonze probably hated to hear Morrissey's comments. But as someone whose job it is to sell product, he was probably thrilled. He had every incentive to walk away with Morrissey's quotes, left raw and unqualified. There was little incentive to keep talking, because Jonze knew that if he engaged Morrissey in a conversation for another thirty or forty minutes, solely discussing immigration and racism, Morrissey would probably make some perfectly sane, reasonable, and decidedly anti-racist remarks. Remember, Jonze's basic position is that Morrissey isn't racist but does stray into very dangerous territory with his remarks, which he (Jonze) assumes are either out of touch or simply irresponsible, rather than malicious. If Jonze believed that, he could have steered the conversation to reflect the complications inherent in Morrissey's views. He didn't. And while I'm sorry to be cynical, the reason why is pretty obvious. "Morrissey's views on race-- like mine, like yours, like everyone's-- are complicated and hard to summarize fairly" just isn't a story that sells papers.

Originally Posted by Anonymous

People who aren't racist, you mean?

no, whether someone is racist or not is determined by their actions, not words

Originally Posted by Worm

Agreed. You'd be in a tight spot. But one of the options you missed is a direct conversation with Morrissey about race, immigration, and so forth. Not a confrontation, a conversation. I keep reading about "giving Morrissey a chance to answer for his comments", as if he were in the dock. But an interview is supposed to be a conversation. Why not have a simple, civil discussion, face to face, right there and then, to draw out the various points of Morrissey's thinking on the subject? Could Jonze not have thought of some good follow-up questions?

The answers ended the conversation right where the conversation ought to have started. I promise you, as a writer, Jonze probably hated to hear Morrissey's comments. But as someone whose job it is to sell product, he was probably thrilled. He had every incentive to walk away with Morrissey's quotes, left raw and unqualified. There was little incentive to keep talking, .

All this is fine. I am glad someone with your ability to make the case is taking the position you are. We would all like to support Morrissey and hate "journalists who lie" (can the man who wrote that be looked upon as an unwitting vicitm?) and just because that is the postion loyal fans want to take, and if it's also the actual case that is wonderful. But this next part... objection, speculation. If he'd kept Morrissey talking you know perfectly well the odds of him clearing it all up with an explanation is absolutely zero and he might have threatened to bomb someone or thing or wished someone would die. I'd have let him talk! haha

Originally Posted by Worm

because Jonze knew that if he engaged Morrissey in a conversation for another thirty or forty minutes, solely discussing immigration and racism, Morrissey would probably make some perfectly sane, reasonable, and decidedly anti-racist remarks. Remember, Jonze's basic position is that Morrissey isn't racist but does stray into very dangerous territory with his remarks, which he (Jonze) assumes are either out of touch or simply irresponsible, rather than malicious. If Jonze believed that, he could have steered the conversation to reflect the complications inherent in Morrissey's views. He didn't. And while I'm sorry to be cynical, the reason why is pretty obvious. "Morrissey's views on race-- like mine, like yours, like everyone's-- are complicated and hard to summarize fairly" just isn't a story that sells papers.

Well it was certainly edited as a hatchet piece and while we can talk about Jonze's motives, and I tend to agree with you that they were to get a hot story above all else. I can still see it both ways. It's interesting to look at the role of the journalist. As in photography where you might think that anyone can click the shutter and we all get the same result with no input from the actual photographer, the truth is that there are countless decisions made that affect the way the final product comes across as a whole. During the conversation, from all possible potential outcomes, the journalist has a huge role in shaping not only his questions but the way the answers of the subject are presented. Clearly they presented Morrissey's words in the most sensational way. But still. The case as I see it would have been much more clear if they had chopped up his answers, or even changed the questions, but I think it was more about taking the words out of context. Well, there are words that don't really work that well in any context, and Morrissey seems to have a handy notebook full of them. He may stay up nights jotting them down when he can't sleep. It's kind of what he does. People just get really fidgety when you talk about immigration. "It's a touchy subject, M, could you please not mention it?"

Remember at the time he was accused of doing it on purpose to sell Swords! It never ends for poor old Morrissey.