Article: "NME says sorry to Morrissey for the misunderstanding over 2007 article" - NME.com; libel case closed

[Anonymous]

If you're both right then I want to be the first to announce my head remains firmly on my body. What a drama queen.

I asked her on FB if this was the 'earth shattering' news....she simply said "no".....basically my thought is "whatever" and a few other choice words....unless someone is pregnant, getting married or going to die I can't picture what she would consider 'earth shattering' news....my head too is firmly attached and I don't own a 10 gallon hat

[yearsofrefusal]

About time nme has behaved disgracefully

[Anonymous]

The smell you get from this is that neither side had a really foolproof case, and preferred to avoid the showdown without really doing the climbdown.

Possibly. Legal costs are extortionate and neither the NME nor Morrissey would've wanted to shell out all that money unless they had a better-than-good chance of victory. Both sides will have had the benefit of experienced legal opinion and been told that it was far from being an open-and-shut case. On the basis of the actual statement from NME, it certainly looks as though they, their counsel (and Morrissey's lawyers too) felt that the defamation claim was going to be, at best, difficult to prove.

Look at what Morrissey has been forced to accept from the NME. Yes, the words, "sorry," and "apologise" appear in the title and text of the statement, but when you question what it is the NME are saying they're sorry for, you find that it isn't for calling him, or implying that he is, a racist (or even the lesser charge of being xenophobic, which is probably a better characterisation of the article's possible intent). They haven't admitted that they'd tried to besmirch his reputation and, in fact, they've conceded no ground at all to Morrissey, as far as I can see. All that the statement says is that they're sorry he misunderstood the jist of the article. That, I think it's reasonable to presume, would've been the cornerstone of their argument in the courtroom, anyway, had it got there.

In a statement he made after having been granted leave to let the case to proceed to court, Morrissey said the following:

"In 2007 the NME viciously attacked me and labelled me a racist and a hypocrite. Last week they sought to avoid facing me in court to settle the matter once and for all [...]. "I am delighted that the NME's attempt to stifle my claim was unsuccessful and that as a result I will be able to use the very public forum of the high court in London to clear my name, loud and clear for all to hear."

Yeah, there's bound to have been a bit of posturing behind that statement to assure the NME that he was serious in his intent, but Morrissey very clearly wanted his day in court. He wouldn't have taken the unusual step of reviving a four-year-old claim and incurred significant legal costs if he didn't want blood. (The never-ending world tour that he's been doing also suggests that he's been prudently saving up the pennies, should things go wrong in court. Is this his longest string of dates ever?) Yet, now that the case has been looming large on the calendar and counsel have duly taken time to review the details of the case, prepare arguments and consider the ramifications, he's relented and accepted that he won't get to very publicly rub the NME's nose in it. He has failed to secure anything like an admission from them that they characterised him as a "racist", and he's had to pay out God only knows how much money in legal fees. And all for what? A couple of paragraphs buried on page 11 that, in essence, simply restate the NME's Morrissey-misinterepreted-us position which is what they've always maintained anyway.

Courts and those who adjudicate within them are unpredictable even when you've got what seems to be a watertight case. It's understandable then that both Morrissey and the NME would want to avoid a grand confrontation and the accompanying possibility of humiliation and financial ruin. Since, however, it was Morrissey who went out of his way to kick up a fuss about this article, it really makes you wonder who was really trying to avoid facing whom in court. To me, if nobody else, it looks like the NME called Morrissey's bluff and, at the last moment, Morrissey bottled it.

[apologyrubbish]

Quite possibly the worst apology ever and I don't believe that a legal eagle wrote that.

[bored]

Morrissey got what he wanted: A written apology in the actual newspaper rather than just on the website.

Tens of people will see this.

[Anonymous]

Morrissey got what he wanted

Nah, he just took what he was given.

[CrystalGeezer]

Morrissey got what he wanted: A written apology in the actual newspaper rather than just on the website.

Tens of people will see this.

This.

[smiler]

Possibly. Legal costs are extortionate and neither the NME nor Morrissey would've wanted to shell out all that money unless they had a better-than-good chance of victory. Both sides will have had the benefit of experienced legal opinion and been told that it was far from being an open-and-shut case. On the basis of the actual statement from NME, it certainly looks as though they, their counsel (and Morrissey's lawyers too) felt that the defamation claim was going to be, at best, difficult to prove.

Look at what Morrissey has been forced to accept from the NME. Yes, the words, "sorry," and "apologise" appear in the title and text of the statement, but when you question what it is the NME are saying they're sorry for, you find that it isn't for calling him, or implying that he is, a racist (or even the lesser charge of being xenophobic, which is probably a better characterisation of the article's possible intent). They haven't admitted that they'd tried to besmirch his reputation and, in fact, they've conceded no ground at all to Morrissey, as far as I can see. All that the statement says is that they're sorry he misunderstood the jist of the article. That, I think it's reasonable to presume, would've been the cornerstone of their argument in the courtroom, anyway, had it got there.

In a statement he made after having been granted leave to let the case to proceed to court, Morrissey said the following:

"In 2007 the NME viciously attacked me and labelled me a racist and a hypocrite. Last week they sought to avoid facing me in court to settle the matter once and for all [...]. "I am delighted that the NME's attempt to stifle my claim was unsuccessful and that as a result I will be able to use the very public forum of the high court in London to clear my name, loud and clear for all to hear."

Yeah, there's bound to have been a bit of posturing behind that statement to assure the NME that he was serious in his intent, but Morrissey very clearly wanted his day in court. He wouldn't have taken the unusual step of reviving a four-year-old claim and incurred significant legal costs if he didn't want blood. (The never-ending world tour that he's been doing also suggests that he's been prudently saving up the pennies, should things go wrong in court. Is this his longest string of dates ever?) Yet, now that the case has been looming large on the calendar and counsel have duly taken time to review the details of the case, prepare arguments and consider the ramifications, he's relented and accepted that he won't get to very publicly rub the NME's nose in it. He has failed to secure anything like an admission from them that they characterised him as a "racist", and he's had to pay out God only knows how much money in legal fees. And all for what? A couple of paragraphs buried on page 11 that, in essence, simply restate the NME's Morrissey-misinterepreted-us position which is what they've always maintained anyway.

Courts and those who adjudicate within them are unpredictable even when you've got what seems to be a watertight case. It's understandable then that both Morrissey and the NME would want to avoid a grand confrontation and the accompanying possibility of humiliation and financial ruin. Since, however, it was Morrissey who went out of his way to kick up a fuss about this article, it really makes you wonder who was really trying to avoid facing whom in court. To me, if nobody else, it looks like the NME called Morrissey's bluff and, at the last moment, Morrissey bottled it.

I think what you are missing here is the impact on perception. All the reports of this (outside of this website) are headed "NME says sorry to Morrissey". Followed by content which suggests the NME have climbed down to avoid court and Morrissey has accepted that apology (which is all he ever wanted). basically the message being "Do you remeber when the NME made a fuss about Morrissey being a racist well, they've been made to say sorry and admit that he isn't racist afer all". I agree it wasn't a clear cut case had it reached court and there was it appears a prolonged negotiation but bearing in mind the outcome its clear who "won" that negotiation. I am guessing the NME made a number of offers and when Morrissey got (an apology in the magazine) what he wanted he accepted. Had Morrissey held out longer perhaps he would have got a fuller apology (which by the way would have been reported in exactly the same way) but I assume the NME were never going to offer a full and absolute apology as part of the negotiation because it would effectly be an admission of guilt (a full confession) and would have meant them losing the court case should he have refused the offer and then used it as evidence against them. The apology was worded very carefully, they are not about to admit guilt (and leave themselves open to costs and damages) but they have admitted that they lost the argument.

[dave.jay1@ntlworld.com]

...Still, It's good to see the NME can now " Get back to what it does best" nowadays...by including a Free Poster of The Stone Roses ( ..A photo taken about 1990, of a band who split up @ 1998), and also featuring a Front page splash about Franz Ferdinand re-forming.....).

[Media Whore]

Possibly. Legal costs are extortionate and neither the NME nor Morrissey would've wanted to shell out all that money unless they had a better-than-good chance of victory. Both sides will have had the benefit of experienced legal opinion and been told that it was far from being an open-and-shut case. On the basis of the actual statement from NME, it certainly looks as though they, their counsel (and Morrissey's lawyers too) felt that the defamation claim was going to be, at best, difficult to prove.

In the UK though, defamation cases are different to almost every other criminal or civil case; the plaintiff doesn't have to prove they were defamed but rather the defendants (normally journalist and publisher) have to prove that no defamation took place. Unlike most other cases, the onus is not on the plaintiff but instead on the defendant(s). It is guilty until proven innocent.

[Anonymous]

If they didn't think he was racist, why did they take so long to apologise? The editing was done on porpose to cause commotion and sell more. It doesn't sound like a proper apology to me. They don't want to recognise their mistake "we apologise if he or anyone else misunderstood...". Yeah right! How so many of us can missunderstand something?

[Anonymous]

It's really hard for me to believe that Morrissey has accepted this statement from NME as an apology. It's a terrible apology, and it should be obvious to anyone that it is written in the vein of a I'm-sorry-if-you-took-offence-at-what-I-said type admission. Also, the original article does not accuse Morrissey directly of being a racist but rather implied it. Yet in the NME apology the word 'racist' pops up a couple of times. Is this desirable for Morrissey? I guess we can't really know the precise circumstances under which Morrissey has received and accepted this apology. But after all the time, bluster and fuss taken over this business, it's kinda disappointing to see the whole case end with a whimper and not a bang.

[goinghome]

Apology tracking -
http://www.ilxor.com/ILX/ThreadSelec...threadid=92615

http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2012...?newsfeed=true

http://www.blackbookmag.com/music/nm...racist-1.49554

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ukp...1339514927053A

http://www.slicingupeyeballs.com/201...ist-interview/

http://news.sky.com/home/showbiz-news/article/16246289

http://www.independent.ie/entertainm...e-3137566.html

http://www.inquisitr.com/253598/morr...st-accusation/

http://www.tonedeaf.com.au/news/inte...st.htm#Scene_1

http://www.gigwise.com/news/73663/NM...e-to-Morrissey

http://www.spinner.com/2012/06/12/mo...y-nme-apology/

http://www.metro.co.uk/music/901847-...cism-interview

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...n_1590395.html

http://www.gulf-times.com/site/topic...0&parent_id=22

Etcetera Etcetera Etcetera Etcetera Etcetera Etcetera...'and soon, everyone knew...'

[bored]

Nah, he just took what he was given.

The main point of my post was not about what he got but about how many people would actually see it.

[CrystalGeezer]

Apology tracking -
http://www.ilxor.com/ILX/ThreadSelec...threadid=92615

http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2012...?newsfeed=true

http://www.blackbookmag.com/music/nm...racist-1.49554

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ukp...1339514927053A

http://www.slicingupeyeballs.com/201...ist-interview/

http://news.sky.com/home/showbiz-news/article/16246289

http://www.independent.ie/entertainm...e-3137566.html

http://www.inquisitr.com/253598/morr...st-accusation/

http://www.tonedeaf.com.au/news/inte...st.htm#Scene_1

http://www.gigwise.com/news/73663/NM...e-to-Morrissey

http://www.spinner.com/2012/06/12/mo...y-nme-apology/

http://www.metro.co.uk/music/901847-...cism-interview

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...n_1590395.html

http://www.gulf-times.com/site/topic...0&parent_id=22

Etcetera Etcetera Etcetera Etcetera Etcetera Etcetera...'and soon, everyone knew...'

Dayuuuum, goinghome. You should tell your copy and paste buttons they can have the rest of the night off. Although considering they're Irish and its 5pm here they must be already fast asleep.

Thanks for the links.

[Vauxhall95]

Thanks for the links, but I think if you read the articles you'll see this settlement was a real disaster for Morrissey.

Case in point, The Guardian article. In it they write, "No damages have been paid to the singer and no lines have been retracted from the original article."

The article goes on to re-print the very quotes Morrissey found objectionable and taken out of context!

To make matters worse, they unearth the 1992 Finsbury Park episode in detail AND add post-2007 quotes to the mix: "In an interview with the Guardian in 2010, he reignited the racism row after referring to the Chinese as a "subspecies" because of their treatment of animals."

Explain to me me again how this was a win?

I understand neither side likely wanted to go to court because the outcome is often unpredictable. However, not demanding the retraction of certain offensive quotes Morrissey alleged he could prove were taken out of context or distorted because the interview was taped by Merck is really quite a staggering admission of how weak a case Morrissey's legal team thought he had.

If I were his council, I would have settled for nothing less than: "In 2007, the NME published an article about Morrissey entitled 'Bigmouth Strikes Again.' Shortly after its publication, Morrissey and his management contacted the NME about factual inconsistencies in the article, and the hurtful and damaging assertions which laid therein. While the NME strives to bring the most accurate and timely music news and information to our readership, after an exhaustive in house inquiry which lasted close to four years, it is now clear the policies and preventive measures then in place to prevent one rogue journalist with an agenda to circumvent the editorial system and thus have published such an article we're insufficient. In response, we have redoubled our vetting procedures and revamped the entire process by which submissions are reviewed.

The NME would like to issue our sincerest apologies to Morrissey and his associates. The NME accepts full responsibility in this matter. Accordingly, the article in question has been removed from our website. A written apology will be published in this week's upcoming issue.

Sincerely,

NME"

[CrystalGeezer]

Wow. Just hearing that from you makes me feel better about it all.

[Anonymous]

Thanks for the links, but I think if you read the articles you'll see this settlement was a real disaster for Morrissey.

Case in point, The Guardian article. In it they write, "No damages have been paid to the singer and no lines have been retracted from the original article."

The article goes on to re-print the very quotes Morrissey found objectionable and taken out of context!

To make matters worse, they unearth the 1992 Finsbury Park episode in detail AND add post-2007 quotes to the mix: "In an interview with the Guardian in 2010, he reignited the racism row after referring to the Chinese as a "subspecies" because of their treatment of animals."

Explain to me me again how this was a win?

I understand neither side likely wanted to go to court because the outcome is often unpredictable. However, not demanding the retraction of certain offensive quotes Morrissey alleged he could prove were taken out of context or distorted because the interview was taped by Merck is really quite a staggering admission of how weak a case Morrissey's legal team thought he had.

If I were his council, I would have settled for nothing less than: "In 2007, the NME published an article about Morrissey entitled 'Bigmouth Strikes Again.' Shortly after its publication, Morrissey and his management contacted the NME about factual inconsistencies in the article, and the hurtful and damaging assertions which laid therein. While the NME strives to bring the most accurate and timely music news and information to our readership, after an exhaustive in house inquiry which lasted close to four years, it is now clear the policies and preventive measures then in place to prevent one rogue journalist with an agenda to circumvent the editorial system and thus have published such an article we're insufficient. In response, we have redoubled our vetting procedures and revamped the entire process by which submissions are reviewed.

The NME would like to issue our sincerest apologies to Morrissey and his associates. The NME accepts full responsibility in this matter. Accordingly, the article in question has been removed from our website. A written apology will be published in this week's upcoming issue.

Sincerely,

NME"

This is great. But I would like to add that the author and interviewer, Tim Jonze (the 'rogue journalist'), subsequently had his article framed, or was preceded by, some additional editorial comment. If I remember correctly, the interview ('Interview by')was credited to 'Tim Jonze' while the words ('Words by') were credited to 'NME'. So editorial policy was responsible to a significant extent with regards the presentation of the interview material. And, in fact, it is unlikely that Tim Jonze was responsible for the decision to run two seperate quotes from two different interviews on the front cover of the issue in question.

[Anonymous]

Yes, they couldn't pin it on a 'rogue journalist'. It went all the way to the top. Jonze (the journalist) was very clear about this. So blaming a rogue journalist was never an option.

[Worm]

Thanks for the links, but I think if you read the articles you'll see this settlement was a real disaster for Morrissey.

Case in point, The Guardian article. In it they write, "No damages have been paid to the singer and no lines have been retracted from the original article."

The article goes on to re-print the very quotes Morrissey found objectionable and taken out of context!

To make matters worse, they unearth the 1992 Finsbury Park episode in detail AND add post-2007 quotes to the mix: "In an interview with the Guardian in 2010, he reignited the racism row after referring to the Chinese as a "subspecies" because of their treatment of animals."

Explain to me me again how this was a win?

I understand neither side likely wanted to go to court because the outcome is often unpredictable. However, not demanding the retraction of certain offensive quotes Morrissey alleged he could prove were taken out of context or distorted because the interview was taped by Merck is really quite a staggering admission of how weak a case Morrissey's legal team thought he had.

If I were his council, I would have settled for nothing less than: "In 2007, the NME published an article about Morrissey entitled 'Bigmouth Strikes Again.' Shortly after its publication, Morrissey and his management contacted the NME about factual inconsistencies in the article, and the hurtful and damaging assertions which laid therein. While the NME strives to bring the most accurate and timely music news and information to our readership, after an exhaustive in house inquiry which lasted close to four years, it is now clear the policies and preventive measures then in place to prevent one rogue journalist with an agenda to circumvent the editorial system and thus have published such an article we're insufficient. In response, we have redoubled our vetting procedures and revamped the entire process by which submissions are reviewed.

The NME would like to issue our sincerest apologies to Morrissey and his associates. The NME accepts full responsibility in this matter. Accordingly, the article in question has been removed from our website. A written apology will be published in this week's upcoming issue.

Sincerely,

NME"

There was no victory possible. The tag "racist" is incredibly easy to earn and impossible to throw off. Maybe Morrissey should have stuck to his case and drained the NME for as much money as possible, as compensation for damages, but they were irreparable damages nonetheless. There was no correctly-worded apology equal to the task of scrubbing Morrissey clean. The correct way to restore his reputation would have been to continue doing interviews in which he elaborated on and softened his earlier comments and reassured readers with new, positive statements demonstrating he's not a racist. Instead he chose to be combative. I believe he did so out of stubbornness, not because he's hiding anything, but one way or another the rehabilitation of his image rested in his own hands, not in the courts or in the NME's editorial room. It would have been cheaper and far better for him had he taken his "case" to the pages of rival magazines.