About time nme has behaved disgracefully
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.
Quite possibly the worst apology ever and I don't believe that a legal eagle wrote that.
Morrissey got what he wanted: A written apology in the actual newspaper rather than just on the website.
Tens of people will see this.
...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.....).
Last edited by Media Whore; June 13, 2012 at 09:58 PM. Reason: one sentence too many.
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?
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.
Apology tracking -
Etcetera Etcetera Etcetera Etcetera Etcetera Etcetera...'and soon, everyone knew...'
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.
Last edited by Vauxhall95; June 14, 2012 at 01:54 AM. Reason: I can dream...
Wow. Just hearing that from you makes me feel better about it all.
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.