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

joe frady · Jun 15, 2012

Re: Article: "NME says sorry to Morrissey for the misunderstanding over 2007 article"

Worm said:
Jonze isn't telling the whole story. Obviously, answering a question about a 2007 interview on Twitter probably wouldn't inspire him to write a short history book. Nevertheless, it's fair to call his Twitter responses disingenuous.

As Jonze wrote in the Guardian in November, 2007, he had written a much stronger piece condemning Morrissey's views:

"I wrote a piece saying that Morrissey - although liberal in many of his views - was using the language of the BNP and Enoch Powell when it came to immigration. In the piece I mentioned that his comments likening the UK to that of "going to Zagreb and hearing nothing but Irish accents" were offensive as they compared British ethnic minorities to tourists. I also said he was being overly nostalgic for a Britain built partly on empire and imperialism and that someone as well travelled as Morrissey had no excuses for such comments.

The piece was very critical and NME decided to tone it down, something I didn't agree with. They showed me several rewritten versions, some of which were very soft on Morrissey, one that was quite critical. None had any of my points or arguments in them and none of them were written in my voice. Furthermore, I hadn't even seen the finished version before it went to print (I still haven't seen it, as I'm currently writing this from the surreal surroundings of a beach internet cafe in Thailand). For these reasons, the byline was removed."

In other words, Jonze's answers are basically correct, except what he's not saying is that he wanted the NME article to go further in denouncing Morrissey's comments. He was pushed aside and couldn't say what he wanted to say then. You can see how 'apologetic' he really is. Clearly neither he nor the NME regard their own actions as problematic. If anything, they probably believe they let Morrissey off lightly.

Now, Jonze didn't call Morrissey a racist. Not exactly. "Is Morrissey, the son of immigrants who's written anti-racist songs, actually a "racist"? It's a murky area that should be being debated now". But this is, as I said, disingenuous. As a writer you are sending a very clear message if you state, "No, we're pretty sure X isn't a racist. X just happens to talk exactly like proven racists".

He's right in the sense that the story blew up and became a non-conversation about a very important subject. That's a shame. But he and the NME are just as much to blame, and ultimately their editorial decisions were made to sell papers, not to shed light on a very difficult matter. I feel like Jonze has made several decent arguments but the whole attitude from his side is so smarmy and spineless I can't take it seriously. Ultimately he and the NME got what they wanted, which was to smear Morrissey's reputation. They knew an accusation of racism, fuzzed up with enough superficial qualifications, would be enough to get their message across. And it worked.

And yet...the exchanges with Merck earlier that November, as detailed here ~ http://true-to-you.net/morrissey_news_071127_01 ~ seem to paint a slightly skewed version, with McNicholas saying they were going for "a much stronger piece" than previously discussed, with Jonze washing his hands of that version.

I don't mean to regurgitate all this guff, cos you can debate the details of it endlessly, and I honestly could not care less, I have front row Usher Hall circle seats and am laughing like a loon on the moon. But I did think it was rather cheeky of the NME spokesperson to say, in a supplementary press statement to 'Music Week' that was presumably not vetted by both legal teams, that "NME is pleased that it has buried the hatchet with Morrissey". Burying the evidence of a hatchet job then, obviously.

Worm · Jun 15, 2012

Re: Article: "NME says sorry to Morrissey for the misunderstanding over 2007 article"

joe frady said:
And yet...the exchanges with Merck earlier that November, as detailed here ~ http://true-to-you.net/morrissey_news_071127_01 ~ seem to paint a slightly skewed version, with McNicholas saying they were going for "a much stronger piece" than previously discussed, with Jonze washing his hands of that version.

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.

Anaesthesine · Jun 15, 2012

Re: Article: "NME says sorry to Morrissey for the misunderstanding over 2007 article"

How sordid and depressing it all is. Fans understand the nuances, but to the general public it goes something like this (actually overheard): "Morrissey, isn't he that racist guy?"

I admire Morrissey's allegiance to brutal (half)truths, and he's the undisputed master of ambiguity, but in this instance it seems that he couldn't help himself, he just had to touch, and this is the result. I suspect that he was attempting to draw out the interviewer but as usual it looks ugly and just plain wrong in print.

As Oscar Wilde wrote in his letter to James McNeill Whistler: "Be warned in time, James, and remain, as I do, incomprehensible: to be great is to be misunderstood." I suspect that Morrissey has taken this very much to heart, and it's not serving him well at the moment. I'm not sure what the answer is: Morrissey is not very good at reconciliation and a heartfelt, sympathetic interview is probably out of the question. As referenced above, I don't think we'll be hearing his version of "Ebony and Ivory" anytime soon.

Morrissey's greatest defense is the record of his deeds; he's inspired so many so deeply and so positively. The petty, ugly nature of the racist inspires pettiness and ugliness, and Morrissey is something else entirely, and his music is testament to that fact.

Anonymous · Jun 15, 2012

Re: Article: "NME says sorry to Morrissey for the misunderstanding over 2007 article"

I blame this entirely on the then editor Conor McNicholas. Changing internet era or not, he completely destroyed that magazine (or made it even worse) and turned it into a cross between Smash Hits and Heat - you should see how desperate the site is for hits by constantly taking snippets out of context to make stories. I wouldn't be surprised if it folds soon.

I haven't bought this rag since about 2002, but then I had grown out of it. However, in the 90s and up till about 2000 it was still readable and didn't patronise its readers, it also had great writers such as Keith Cameron (who got a tongue lashing from Siouxsie recently for confronting her about her old Nazi imagery) and David Stubbs. Prior to that it was even better with Stuart Maconie, Steven Wells et al.

There was less emphasis on music history (always in the mag but in subtler way) - why can't they let people discover bands through subtle mentions in reviews? I got into The Smiths through their constant namechecks in articles - especially Gene which is how I got into them.

peptastic · Jun 15, 2012

Re: Article: "NME says sorry to Morrissey for the misunderstanding over 2007 article"

Worm said:
Jonze isn't telling the whole story. Obviously, answering a question about a 2007 interview on Twitter probably wouldn't inspire him to write a short history book. Nevertheless, it's fair to call his Twitter responses disingenuous.

As Jonze wrote in the Guardian in November, 2007, he had written a much stronger piece condemning Morrissey's views:

"I wrote a piece saying that Morrissey - although liberal in many of his views - was using the language of the BNP and Enoch Powell when it came to immigration. In the piece I mentioned that his comments likening the UK to that of "going to Zagreb and hearing nothing but Irish accents" were offensive as they compared British ethnic minorities to tourists. I also said he was being overly nostalgic for a Britain built partly on empire and imperialism and that someone as well travelled as Morrissey had no excuses for such comments.

The piece was very critical and NME decided to tone it down, something I didn't agree with. They showed me several rewritten versions, some of which were very soft on Morrissey, one that was quite critical. None had any of my points or arguments in them and none of them were written in my voice. Furthermore, I hadn't even seen the finished version before it went to print (I still haven't seen it, as I'm currently writing this from the surreal surroundings of a beach internet cafe in Thailand). For these reasons, the byline was removed."

In other words, Jonze's answers are basically correct, except what he's not saying is that he wanted the NME article to go further in denouncing Morrissey's comments. He was pushed aside and couldn't say what he wanted to say then. You can see how 'apologetic' he really is. Clearly neither he nor the NME regard their own actions as problematic. If anything, they probably believe they let Morrissey off lightly.

Now, Jonze didn't call Morrissey a racist. Not exactly. "Is Morrissey, the son of immigrants who's written anti-racist songs, actually a "racist"? It's a murky area that should be being debated now". But this is, as I said, disingenuous. As a writer you are sending a very clear message if you state, "No, we're pretty sure X isn't a racist. X just happens to talk exactly like proven racists".

He's right in the sense that the story blew up and became a non-conversation about a very important subject. That's a shame. But he and the NME are just as much to blame, and ultimately their editorial decisions were made to sell papers, not to shed light on a very difficult matter. I feel like Jonze has made several decent arguments but the whole attitude from his side is so smarmy and spineless I can't take it seriously. Ultimately he and the NME got what they wanted, which was to smear Morrissey's reputation. They knew an accusation of racism, fuzzed up with enough superficial qualifications, would be enough to get their message across. And it worked.

Thanks for sharing this.
I can't understand why N.M.E and Moz settled with an apology if they aren't really apologising.
Is it then because they originally wanted to do worse? This clears things up a bit but not why Moz isn't taking it to court. I guess journos have legal leeway to interpret comments to a degree?

Now I don't agree with anti-immigration at all but how would that make Moz a racist? His Chinese views were one thing but I never got that xenophobia equals racism thing. People love to compare all vegetarians to Hitler [when he wasn't one] so I suppose I should not be surprised with the Racist wears purple so all those who wear purple are racists N.M.E is going for.

I'll admit the headlines about Moz and the Falklands had me worried since the skinhead in This is England was ranting about the Falkland wars because I thought "Here we go again" but...
as it's been said before Moz isn't intolerant. He doesn't suffer fools very well but that's different.

If someone from the UK hates someone for being an American it does make them a jerk but not a racist. I read people shitting on my state of Florida all the time. It's Americans doing it. It's entirely possible dear N.M.E for people to have varying degrees of immigration policies. Read people think they should cut the state of Florida off into the sea. :confused:

People can be jerks.

goinghome · Jun 15, 2012

Re: Article: "NME says sorry to Morrissey for the misunderstanding over 2007 article"

Anonymous said:
I think what s/he wanted to say was, "some black people have held opinions that seem racist, just like Morrissey's. Therefore, Morrissey's opinions cannot be racist because black people cannot be racist." S/he dressed up this nonsense in a multi-paragraph post, quoting the words of somebody famous and an unnecessarily wordy preamble.

The world is trembling under assault from artful ink squiggles that have no inherent virtue or validity.

"Consistent reasoning which orders one to by-pass a fact when a concept comes into conflict with reality must eventually lead to costly errors." - Czeslaw Milosz

Both Malcolm X and Morrissey were trying to truthfully name what was going down in reality to cause persistant bad blood between folks.

Malcolm X was not a racist, he was a punk. Suicide it was, actually, who first advertised their music as punk in NYC, 1970. Situationists. They were often booed too, maybe even got buns thrown at them...

Thanks to Worm for the supplementaries.

Oh my god. it's Robby! · Jun 15, 2012

Re: Article: "NME says sorry to Morrissey for the misunderstanding over 2007 article"

yeah some great additions to this thread, thanks folks
now I am trying to remember what I thought when I first read the hatchet job in question
I mean after the fact that they obviously butchered Moz's word
I have always assumed that what he was trying to say was more a statement on "globalization"
the death of nationalities as such and the truly great ones like you know
being British, which did make the world a better place once...

ps: now perhaps I feel all this because I currently reside in a country trying to find their "national identity"
and I do not find anything racist about that, people want something to be proud of and that is not always a bad thing

Anonymous · Jun 15, 2012

The NME are just idiots. They were idiots then and they are idiots now.

Infact, I cannot imagine how so many writers and editors at a publication/periodical like the NME could actually get themselves into such a mess. It just shows what life was like inside the NME. It shows how little they care and it shows that they don't listen. It illustrates a complete lack of editorial control. They would have been given a total pasting in court, irrespective of what that idiot says on Twitter (see above.)

As I see it, they never even had a leg to stand on. Whether it was the writer's assistant, the publisher, or the writer himself "live" from an internet café in Singapore - where I am led to believe the original writer had gone to hide-away - the opportunity to try and make a name for himself in such a tardy and shabby style is totally disgusting. Infact, it showed a complete lack of understanding of Morrissey or Morrissey's music and his entire career - which is full of love for all mankind - except for Mike Joyce as we know.

Merck recorded it. Thank God. It's the only way with these people. They are scum. They try to inflict damage and it is a sad world that the NME would, did - and perhaps continue - to stoop so-low.

Thank God Morrissey can rise above such childish behaviour and attack them and show them up for what they are. Now, not everyone is in a position to do that.

From Kiev (USSR) with Love,
x

Anonymous · Jun 16, 2012

Re: Article: "NME says sorry to Morrissey for the misunderstanding over 2007 article"

So Morrissey had the entire interview recorded? Great. Let him have one of his minions transcribe the whole thing and publish it on True-to-you so we can all see the unedited version of what was said and give the public (whose opinion he apparently cares so much about) the chance to assess the extent to which he and his views were misrepresented or, indeed, whether they actually were.

All this crap about Morrissey being characteristically "ambiguous" is ridiculous. If somebody in the public eye chooses to weigh-in on the subject of immigration and chooses to express themselves in such a way that their words leave them open to a charge of either racism or xenophobia, and if people then take them to task for it, they're getting what they asked for. If it offends Steven's delicate, "artistic" sensibilities to speak bluntly against racism & xenophobia, then he probably shouldn't have aired his views at all. He isn't stupid and he knew the risk he was taking when he opened his mouth, particularly in view of his history on this subject. Unsurprisingly for Morrissey, though, he deliberately courted controversy, just as he did with his later "subspecies" comment. If he can't deal with the aftermath of these things without going crying to a lawyer, then he could just make himself more clearly understood in the first instance and elaborate on what his opinions actually are. If he chooses not to, that's his prerogative, of course, but if he wants to make stupid, inflammatory remarks in the media, then he has only himself to blame for the criticism he gets as a result. Why, exactly, should he be held to a standard that differs from the standards that apply to the rest of us mere mortals? If he will not or cannot justify his ludicrous opinions about nationality and engage in a debate like any normal person, then that's his problem, nobody else's, and he should probably just keep his mouth shut.

Anonymous · Jun 16, 2012

Re: Article: "NME says sorry to Morrissey for the misunderstanding over 2007 article"

Anonymous said:
The NME are just idiots. They were idiots then and they are idiots now.

Infact, I cannot imagine how so many writers and editors at a publication/periodical like the NME could actually get themselves into such a mess. It just shows what life was like inside the NME. It shows how little they care and it shows that they don't listen. It illustrates a complete lack of editorial control. They would have been given a total pasting in court, irrespective of what that idiot says on Twitter (see above.)

As I see it, they never even had a leg to stand on. Whether it was the writer's assistant, the publisher, or the writer himself "live" from an internet café in Singapore - where I am led to believe the original writer had gone to hide-away - the opportunity to try and make a name for himself in such a tardy and shabby style is totally disgusting. Infact, it showed a complete lack of understanding of Morrissey or Morrissey's music and his entire career - which is full of love for all mankind - except for Mike Joyce as we know.

You've got it wrong there!

The Moz fan lives in SG and the writer resides in the UK.

Anonymous · Jun 18, 2012

Re: Article: "NME says sorry to Morrissey for the misunderstanding over 2007 article"

Moz's words weren't the best idea given the history between the two and just echoed things he'd said in a 2004 interview which they happily ignored then, bar a mention in the letters page, but they certainly were not "racist" and the whole cover and editorial intro was just vile. On this occcassion he was right to complain, especially since they did it before.

But despite the whole ugly incident with that incompetent clueless editor, I think up until then in the early 2000s the NME deserve a bit of credit for generating a whole new fanbase - the likes of which include those who went on to become inspired by Moz and famous themselves such as Alex Turner.

I'm sure that compared to the 1999 gigs when he was persona non grata with post-Britpop and NME and it was all the usual suspects and older fans attending gigs, but there was a big shift in 2002 in the record label-less wilderness years gigs with much younger people there. I think that can be partly attributed to NME making up with him and The Smiths being crowned their most influential artist in 50 years of the paper - i.e. most references and coverage - beating The Beatles. This must have got some younger fans interested as in those Strokes days (also heavily Smiths indebted) you hardly saw him mentioned.

Then there was the aforementioned re-crowning in 2004, where they called him the Mozfather and New Morrissey Express - its de facto nickname of the 80s. But as his hero says, you have to destroy the one you love - and they did it TWICE! At least the first time it had good writers that were rather more persuasive and didn't just do it for the sake of tabloid sensationalism.

Worm · Jun 18, 2012

Re: Article: "NME says sorry to Morrissey for the misunderstanding over 2007 article"

Anonymous said:
So Morrissey had the entire interview recorded? Great. Let him have one of his minions transcribe the whole thing and publish it on True-to-you so we can all see the unedited version of what was said and give the public (whose opinion he apparently cares so much about) the chance to assess the extent to which he and his views were misrepresented or, indeed, whether they actually were.

All this crap about Morrissey being characteristically "ambiguous" is ridiculous. If somebody in the public eye chooses to weigh-in on the subject of immigration and chooses to express themselves in such a way that their words leave them open to a charge of either racism or xenophobia, and if people then take them to task for it, they're getting what they asked for. If it offends Steven's delicate, "artistic" sensibilities to speak bluntly against racism & xenophobia, then he probably shouldn't have aired his views at all. He isn't stupid and he knew the risk he was taking when he opened his mouth, particularly in view of his history on this subject. Unsurprisingly for Morrissey, though, he deliberately courted controversy, just as he did with his later "subspecies" comment. If he can't deal with the aftermath of these things without going crying to a lawyer, then he could just make himself more clearly understood in the first instance and elaborate on what his opinions actually are. If he chooses not to, that's his prerogative, of course, but if he wants to make stupid, inflammatory remarks in the media, then he has only himself to blame for the criticism he gets as a result. Why, exactly, should he be held to a standard that differs from the standards that apply to the rest of us mere mortals? If he will not or cannot justify his ludicrous opinions about nationality and engage in a debate like any normal person, then that's his problem, nobody else's, and he should probably just keep his mouth shut.

I disagree.

You think it's his responsibility to choose his words carefully. While that's true, it's also fair for him to expect that he's not speaking to a dolt who cannot discern shades of gray and who might wilfully coarsen and decontextualize his words to serve the cause of political correctness. I wish he'd chosen other words, but I'm also pretty sure Morrissey assumed he wasn't spoonfeeding copy to a five-year old.

The journalist's job is to tell the truth. In any interview, "the truth" means not only the words which pass between writer and subject but the scene-setting for the words. The writer must contextualize everything the interviewee says, both in the immediate sense (the actual conversation she's having with the subject) and in the bigger picture (the history of the subject).

Most interviews with Morrissey attempt to do just that. Going back to '83 and '84, even, most interviews with him account for the fact that his statements often cannot be taken at face value. This one didn't.

Jonze's position, from what I can gather from reading his various comments, is that he doesn't think Morrissey is an out-and-out racist. Rather, he is, in Jonze's view, a middle-aged man whose mind is steeped in a kind of nostalgia for an idealized version of England which borders on racism. A skilled writer committed to the truth could have written an article reflecting this more nuanced view of Morrissey. That wasn't what appeared in the NME in 2007.

Morrissey does speak ambiguously. His public persona is sophisticated, self-contradictory, and often difficult to interpret. Books have been written on the subject. This isn't news, and the fact that his defenders bring this up isn't a cop-out. In relation to any other subject, viewed under any other light, we would all accept his ambiguity without a second thought. Just because the subject is racism doesn't mean we should change how we interpret his statements.

Worm · Jun 18, 2012

Re: Article: "NME says sorry to Morrissey for the misunderstanding over 2007 article"

peptastic said:
Thanks for sharing this.
I can't understand why N.M.E and Moz settled with an apology if they aren't really apologising.
Is it then because they originally wanted to do worse? This clears things up a bit but not why Moz isn't taking it to court. I guess journos have legal leeway to interpret comments to a degree?

Now I don't agree with anti-immigration at all but how would that make Moz a racist? His Chinese views were one thing but I never got that xenophobia equals racism thing. People love to compare all vegetarians to Hitler [when he wasn't one] so I suppose I should not be surprised with the Racist wears purple so all those who wear purple are racists N.M.E is going for.

I'll admit the headlines about Moz and the Falklands had me worried since the skinhead in This is England was ranting about the Falkland wars because I thought "Here we go again" but...
as it's been said before Moz isn't intolerant. He doesn't suffer fools very well but that's different.

If someone from the UK hates someone for being an American it does make them a jerk but not a racist. I read people shitting on my state of Florida all the time. It's Americans doing it. It's entirely possible dear N.M.E for people to have varying degrees of immigration policies. Read people think they should cut the state of Florida off into the sea.
People can be jerks.

His views are complicated. It's that simple.

People always, always seem to overlook all of his positive statements, whether we're talking about race per se or just the notion of people being fair and just to other people. Does this sound like the racist Conor McNicholas would have us believe he is?

Jakarta and Singapore. Why have we been kept apart for so long?
we were numbed by the joy that Jakarta had given us
I fell in love anew with Japan. It hit me like a lightning thrust, and I woke each day eager for the love of it all; a civility unlike anywhere else on earth
Nothing I had previously experienced prepared me for the love shown to me by the people of Chile, Peru, Brazil, Colombia and Argentina.
[In Mexico] the audiences were the most loving (and loud) that I have ever experienced
[Mexico] was a dream tour, we all felt that we were resolutely home

Racists don't travel the world and fall in love with the people and the places they visit.

They might travel the world and fall in love with people of all colors of skin and yet find something sad about the changes going on in their own country. Morrissey might actually be objecting to neoliberal globalization, which is rather a respectable position on the far (read: authentic) left-wing. Back in the 80s he called it the "Americanisation" of England, so clearly he understands that England is changing because certain people are making money by erasing local traits in the effort to "open" the country to exploitation by giant transnational corporations. This is going on everywhere. Of course, with the left wing, you have to be so careful with what you say. You can hate capitalism. You can't love England. Morrissey wasn't given a copy of the rule book, I guess.

Happy Maudlin · Jun 19, 2012

Re: Article: "NME says sorry to Morrissey for the misunderstanding over 2007 article"

Worm said:
His views are complicated. It's that simple.

Pretty much.

Worm said:
People always, always seem to overlook all of his positive statements, whether we're talking about race per se or just the notion of people being fair and just to other people. Does this sound like the racist Conor McNicholas would have us believe he is? Racists don't travel the world and fall in love with the people and the places they visit.

*sigh* People are too comfortable with absolutes, false dichotomies and the inevitable viewing of things in black-and-white. The same said people don't know how to identify complexities and most don't care to research the origin of a point of view or the history behind where it came from. In the case of Morrissey, there's not much inconsistency with his constructed internal values and how he presents himself. Morrissey's views have been relatively consistent, it is the method that has changed, he is more visceral and blunt than before. If Morrissey is more or less consistent with his personal logic, and declared racism to be an abomination then, he is most likely to believe the same now. He was controversial even when he was just presenting a radical (albeit benign) alternative to younger generations. Morrissey attracted un-needed speculation about his sexuality, his choice of dress, the "depressing" nature of his lyrics, what he eats, and basically any other inane topic that will detract from the overall message.

Worm said:
They might travel the world and fall in love with people of all colors of skin and yet find something sad about the changes going on in their own country. Morrissey might actually be objecting to neoliberal globalization, which is rather a respectable position on the far (read: authentic) left-wing. Back in the 80s he called it the "Americanisation" of England, so clearly he understands that England is changing because certain people are making money by erasing local traits in the effort to "open" the country to exploitation by giant transnational corporations. This is going on everywhere. Of course, with the left wing, you have to be so careful with what you say. You can hate capitalism. You can't love England. Morrissey wasn't given a copy of the rule book, I guess.

Morrissey basically eradicated the need of a rule book and apparently that frightens people, which probably justifies their irrational need to at every turn, suggest or hint at Morrissey being aligned with destructive, and image-damaging beliefs like racism.

Anonymous · Jun 19, 2012

Re: Article: "NME says sorry to Morrissey for the misunderstanding over 2007 article"

Worm said:
I disagree.

You think it's his responsibility to choose his words carefully. While that's true, it's also fair for him to expect that he's not speaking to a dolt who cannot discern shades of gray and who might wilfully coarsen and decontextualize his words to serve the cause of political correctness. I wish he'd chosen other words, but I'm also pretty sure Morrissey assumed he wasn't spoonfeeding copy to a five-year old.

The journalist's job is to tell the truth. In any interview, "the truth" means not only the words which pass between writer and subject but the scene-setting for the words. The writer must contextualize everything the interviewee says, both in the immediate sense (the actual conversation she's having with the subject) and in the bigger picture (the history of the subject).

Most interviews with Morrissey attempt to do just that. Going back to '83 and '84, even, most interviews with him account for the fact that his statements often cannot be taken at face value. This one didn't.

Jonze's position, from what I can gather from reading his various comments, is that he doesn't think Morrissey is an out-and-out racist. Rather, he is, in Jonze's view, a middle-aged man whose mind is steeped in a kind of nostalgia for an idealized version of England which borders on racism. A skilled writer committed to the truth could have written an article reflecting this more nuanced view of Morrissey. That wasn't what appeared in the NME in 2007.

Morrissey does speak ambiguously. His public persona is sophisticated, self-contradictory, and often difficult to interpret. Books have been written on the subject. This isn't news, and the fact that his defenders bring this up isn't a cop-out. In relation to any other subject, viewed under any other light, we would all accept his ambiguity without a second thought. Just because the subject is racism doesn't mean we should change how we interpret his statements.

Yes, Morrissey speaks ambiguously on many subjects. There's no disagreement between us about that. It is, though, a chosen ambiguity that he doesn't apply in all matters. In fact, we know him to be a man who has very clear, very strident opinions and he's been at pains for years to communicate to the public precisely what those opinions are. Meat-eating? Barbaric. Royalty? Unjust and dictatorial. Fellow pop singers? Talentless. Falkland Islands? Argentinian. George W. Bush and Tony Blair? War criminals. Barack Obama? A set of teeth. And so on... On all of these matters and many others, we know exactly where he stands and we don't need to ask twice (in fact, we didn't need to ask at all since his opinions were all spelt out for us, unsolicited).

Did Jonze (or whoever was responsible for the article) "wilfully coarsen and decontextualize his words to serve the cause of political correctness"? I don't know. If that's your claim though, give us a link to the unedited, unexpurgated transcript so that we can check for ourselves. Whether or not his comments were decontextualised remains unclear, but Jonze later maintained that Morrissey "wasn't even asked about immigration in the first place." While you say that "the journalist's job is to tell the truth", that doesn't mean that s/he must put the best possible spin on what the interviewee says. If the remarks about immigrants that were attributed to Morrissey are true (and I don't remember him denying any of them), then the most important thing is that those remarks are put into the public domain. And y'know what? If Morrissey's reputation and career were to become a casualty of "the cause of political correctness", seemingly because he cannot be arsed to articulate his views on immigration clearly, then I think I can live with it. I'm relieved to see that British culture has evolved to a point where, if somebody makes an apparently racist/xenophobic comment, they're likely to be criticised or challenged. If Morrissey or anybody else has difficulty accepting that British society has developed in that way, I really don't care.

There are very good reasons why we shouldn't accept ambiguity and ambivalence on the subject of racism. Opinions often have consequences, especially when they're voiced by a public figure who has hordes of adoring fans who cannot accept that he is capable of doing, or being, wrong (I'm not referring to your good self, incidentally). The England whose loss Morrissey laments - the England of the 1950s, '60's and '70s - was, despite its undoubted merits, an inhospitable environment for ethnic minorities and foreigners. Brought here out of necessity in the years following the second world war, as a cheap economic resource, they were conceived by many as a threat to "indigenous" culture and treated with the kind of contempt and resentment and violence that arises out of that kind of atmosphere. Morrissey knows this perfectly well, yet he still chose to adopt the rhetoric of the extreme right. He may expect that the person interviewing him isn't a "dolt", but if he believes that the readership of the NME isn't wide enough to include at least some people who are likely to be seduced by the rhetoric of racism, then that makes him stupid, not Jonze. It's worth pointing out that an undercurrent of racism and xenophobia persists in the UK. During the year 2010/'11, for example, there were more than 31,000 racially motivated crimes in England and Wales alone, 75% of which were perpetrated by people falling into the category, "white British". That violence grows out of the kind of old-fashioned attitudes that Morrissey perpetuates and shares with many other people.

It isn't just the adoption of right-wing rhetoric that casts Morrissey in a poor light, either. What's just as bothersome is his exaggeration of immigrants' influence on prevailing dominant culture; his unfounded belief that they are an insidious, corrupting influence. This is another hallmark of right-wing groups like the BNP and the NF before them. His belief that, "the higher the influx [of foreigners] into England the more the British identity disappears," deserves ridicule. Despite what he refers to as the UK's "immigration explosion", by 2009, less than 6.6% of people living in Britain were foreign citizens (which is, ironically enough, only slightly more than the proportion of foreigners living in Sweden [5.9%], and a lot less than the proportion of foreigners who live in Germany [8.8%], both of which he held up as examples of nations whose respective cultures were unaffected by immigration).

If Morrissey wants to engage in debate about immigration, then that is his absolute right. Talking inflammatory nonsense from his privileged position and then scuttling off to hide behind lawyers' letters when he gets criticism, though, is pretty pathetic.

Anaesthesine · Jun 19, 2012

Re: Article: "NME says sorry to Morrissey for the misunderstanding over 2007 article"

Anonymous said:
Yes, Morrissey speaks ambiguously on many subjects. There's no disagreement between us about that. It is, though, a chosen ambiguity that he doesn't apply in all matters. In fact, we know him to be a man who has very clear, very strident opinions and he's been at pains for years to communicate to the public precisely what those opinions are. Meat-eating? Barbaric. Royalty? Unjust and dictatorial. Fellow pop singers? Talentless. Falkland Islands? Argentinian. George W. Bush and Tony Blair? War criminals. Barack Obama? A set of teeth. And so on... On all of these matters and many others, we know exactly where he stands and we don't need to ask twice (in fact, we didn't need to ask at all since his opinions were all spelt out for us, unsolicited).

Did Jonze (or whoever was responsible for the article) "wilfully coarsen and decontextualize his words to serve the cause of political correctness"? I don't know. If that's your claim though, give us a link to the unedited, unexpurgated transcript so that we can check for ourselves. Whether or not his comments were decontextualised remains unclear, but Jonze later maintained that Morrissey "wasn't even asked about immigration in the first place." While you say that "the journalist's job is to tell the truth", that doesn't mean that s/he must put the best possible spin on what the interviewee says. If the remarks about immigrants that were attributed to Morrissey are true (and I don't remember him denying any of them), then the most important thing is that those remarks are put into the public domain. And y'know what? If Morrissey's reputation and career were to become a casualty of "the cause of political correctness", seemingly because he cannot be arsed to articulate his views on immigration clearly, then I think I can live with it. I'm relieved to see that British culture has evolved to a point where, if somebody makes an apparently racist/xenophobic comment, they're likely to be criticised or challenged. If Morrissey or anybody else has difficulty accepting that British society has developed in that way, I really don't care.

There are very good reasons why we shouldn't accept ambiguity and ambivalence on the subject of racism. Opinions often have consequences, especially when they're voiced by a public figure who has hordes of adoring fans who cannot accept that he is capable of doing, or being, wrong (I'm not referring to your good self, incidentally). The England whose loss Morrissey laments - the England of the 1950s, '60's and '70s - was, despite its undoubted merits, an inhospitable environment for ethnic minorities and foreigners. Brought here out of necessity in the years following the second world war, as a cheap economic resource, they were conceived by many as a threat to "indigenous" culture and treated with the kind of contempt and resentment and violence that arises out of that kind of atmosphere. Morrissey knows this perfectly well, yet he still chose to adopt the rhetoric of the extreme right. He may expect that the person interviewing him isn't a "dolt", but if he believes that the readership of the NME isn't wide enough to include at least some people who are likely to be seduced by the rhetoric of racism, then that makes him stupid, not Jonze. It's worth pointing out that an undercurrent of racism and xenophobia persists in the UK. During the year 2010/'11, for example, there were more than 31,000 racially motivated crimes in England and Wales alone, 75% of which were perpetrated by people falling into the category, "white British". That violence grows out of the kind of old-fashioned attitudes that Morrissey perpetuates and shares with many other people.

It isn't just the adoption of right-wing rhetoric that casts Morrissey in a poor light, either. What's just as bothersome is his exaggeration of immigrants' influence on prevailing dominant culture; his unfounded belief that they are an insidious, corrupting influence. This is another hallmark of right-wing groups like the BNP and the NF before them. His belief that, "the higher the influx [of foreigners] into England the more the British identity disappears," deserves ridicule. Despite what he refers to as the UK's "immigration explosion", by 2009, less than 6.6% of people living in Britain were foreign citizens (which is, ironically enough, only slightly more than the proportion of foreigners living in Sweden [5.9%], and a lot less than the proportion of foreigners who live in Germany [8.8%], both of which he held up as examples of nations whose respective cultures were unaffected by immigration).

If Morrissey wants to engage in debate about immigration, then that is his absolute right. Talking inflammatory nonsense from his privileged position and then scuttling off to hide behind lawyers' letters when he gets criticism, though, is pretty pathetic.

Thoughtful post. Morrissey is playing with fire.

To quote James Baldwin: "artists are here to disturb the peace." Morrissey has always done that magnificently in a pop context. This is what sets him apart from most other singers/songwriters out there - he's genuinely disturbing (in a very good way). He prides himself on taking a stand and not blinking, and his decades-long war on "nice" has been fairly successful.

He's got himself in a pickle with the racism issue though. He's vehemently anti-pc, but he's certainly not coming from the right. His more "ambiguous" cultural/racial lyrics: "National Front Disco," "Bengali in Platforms," etc, succeed by getting people to think a bit more deeply about the emotinal appeal of racism, about how casually such notions of the "other" pervade everyday thinking. Edgy and sophisticated stuff.

There's a lot less ambiguity in a printed interview, however. If a good journalist were to interview Morrissey on the subject with follow-up questions (as Worm so aptly put it, to have a conversation), what would emerge would probably be a fairly complex discussion of nostalgia, national identity, culture and romantic notions of Albion lost. Morrissey seems to be one of those misanthropes who is guided more by disappointment than fear or hate. I do not for a moment believe that he thinks that White is Right: as you observed, he's a man given to bold statements, and he's never said any such thing. No, his views on culture, race and national identity are probably far more subtle, conflicted and, as observed elsewhere, based more on emotional response than anything else.

I disagree with you on one thing though: you would not shed a tear for the shredding of Morrissey's career and reputation in the cause of upholding liberal values; not much love lost apparently. Personally, like most of his more ardent admirers, I think that his accomplishments are so great, his talent so huge, and his art so profound that he has earned the benefit of the doubt. Lesser celebrities have been sunk by equally thoughtless words and actions, but Morrissey's contributions to the national (and international) discourse have been overwhelmingly positive. He knocked down walls when it came to notions of tolerance and cultural acceptance, and that makes this whole notion of racism on his part such a fraught issue. I don't think we'll ever get much clarification on all this, but I hope that his standing as a singular artist survives the fray.

Peterb · Jun 19, 2012

Re: Article: "NME says sorry to Morrissey for the misunderstanding over 2007 article"

As much as I bow to the massive intelligence of Worm and his posts, I have to say I find the last 2 posts overwhelingly persauvise. I might add my opinion, that in spite of loving the man and his music, I get the impression that the real issue is that he is simply not too bright. All his political comments are a tad useless. His statements on the monarchy for example are completely misguided. The problem with the monarchy is the institution, not the personalities involved. Preaching hatred of those horsey newly weds is purile. I saw him on the One show around his 50th birthday and they were discussing unemployment. His only contribution was that the unemployed should stop stressing about work and become artists! Likewise his comments on race and immigration. I don't think they are vague or nuanced, they are stupid and unhelpful.
I wish he'd shut up on grown up subjects and get a f***ing record deal! After all, that is his job.

123xyz · Jun 19, 2012

Re: Article: "NME says sorry to Morrissey for the misunderstanding over 2007 article"

Peterb said:
As much as I bow to the massive intelligence of Worm and his posts, I have to say I find the last 2 posts overwhelingly persauvise. I might add my opinion, that in spite of loving the man and his music, I get the impression that the real issue is that he is simply not too bright. All his political comments are a tad useless. His statements on the monarchy for example are completely misguided. The problem with the monarchy is the institution, not the personalities involved. Preaching hatred of those horsey newly weds is purile. I saw him on the One show around his 50th birthday and they were discussing unemployment. His only contribution was that the unemployed should stop stressing about work and become artists! Likewise his comments on race and immigration. I don't think they are vague or nuanced, they are stupid and unhelpful.
I wish he'd shut up on grown up subjects and get a f***ing record deal! After all, that is his job.

Just on your remarks about his "One Show" appearance ( and, yes, of course I realise these are hardly the point) - both his remarks ( more fully, about how the more moneyed class may not be so very deserving of our sympathy) and the manner in which they were said i.e. the usual face-straining ambivalence as part of a deflating response to the over-earnestness of the presenters , I suppose , bring back to focus Worm's notion of context and the whole benefit-of-the-doubt bit.

But, yes, where is that god-damned record deal ?

Anaesthesine · Jun 19, 2012

Re: Article: "NME says sorry to Morrissey for the misunderstanding over 2007 article"

Peterb said:
As much as I bow to the massive intelligence of Worm and his posts, I have to say I find the last 2 posts overwhelingly persauvise. I might add my opinion, that in spite of loving the man and his music, I get the impression that the real issue is that he is simply not too bright. All his political comments are a tad useless. His statements on the monarchy for example are completely misguided. The problem with the monarchy is the institution, not the personalities involved. Preaching hatred of those horsey newly weds is purile. I saw him on the One show around his 50th birthday and they were discussing unemployment. His only contribution was that the unemployed should stop stressing about work and become artists! Likewise his comments on race and immigration. I don't think they are vague or nuanced, they are stupid and unhelpful.
I wish he'd shut up on grown up subjects and get a f***ing record deal! After all, that is his job.

I'm forced to agree with you on his anti-monarchy rants: neither nuanced nor particularly effective. His One Show appearance was indeed cringeworthy, but I put it down to a profound social awkwardness more than anything else. Does he really think that the unemployed should become artists? I doubt it. Morrissey was making a nonsensical, surrealist statement. If pressed, I'm sure he'd break form and admit that the situation is dire for reasons that are beyond people's control. But Morrissey isn't a politician, a journalist or a social commentator - people don't look to him for that. The man's a provocateur.

I have to disagree strongly with your contention that Morrissey is not too bright: a stupid man could never have had a career like Morrissey's - his lyrics, his persona and his more insightful interviews are the work of a profoundly clever mind. What Morrissey lacks is a certain sense of restraint and judgement: he's the honey badger of indie pop.

Peterb · Jun 19, 2012

Re: Article: "NME says sorry to Morrissey for the misunderstanding over 2007 article"

Anaesthesine said:
I'm forced to agree with you on his anti-monarchy rants: neither nuanced nor particularly effective. His One Show appearance was indeed cringeworthy, but I put it down to a profound social awkwardness more than anything else. Does he really think that the unemployed should become artists? I doubt it. Morrissey was making a nonsensical, surrealist statement. If pressed, I'm sure he'd break form and admit that the situation is dire for reasons that are beyond people's control. But Morrissey isn't a politician, a journalist or a social commentator - people don't look to him for that. The man's a provocateur.

I have to disagree strongly with your contention that Morrissey is not too bright: a stupid man could never have had a career like Morrissey's - his lyrics, his persona and his more insightful interviews are the work of a profoundly clever mind. What Morrissey lacks is a certain sense of restraint and judgement: he's the honey badger of indie pop.

Yes, Anaesthesine, you are completely right, the only people who call other people stupid are the ones that think that they themselves are not (and that is not me). I was a little rash.
The Honey Badger of indie pop? Yes, I like that.

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

Vile Refusenik

Taste the diffidence

Angel of Distemper

Anonymous

Guest

New Member

goinghome

Guest

spontaneously luminescent

Anonymous

Guest

Anonymous

Guest

Anonymous

Guest

Anonymous

Guest

Taste the diffidence

Taste the diffidence

Corinthian and Caricature

Anonymous

Guest

Angel of Distemper

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Angel of Distemper

Well-Known Member

Similar threads

Trending Threads