Do you think Morrissey-solo has a negative bias?

Do you think Morrissey-solo has a negative bias


  • Total voters
    23
I am talking specifically about the many times that Uncleskinny has posted a news item on the front page and added a little snide comment along with the link. "thin gruel" for example or "seems reasonable" when its a truly horrible review but there are countless other examples. I think Uncleskinny must actually think we are interested in his opinion.... Can I suggest that the posters personal comments should not be shown when the article is posted on the main page. Just give us the news don't tell us how we should feel about it.

You can't make your own mind up about how you feel about something?

Any examples of this you can link to, btw, since David is going to ask for specific links?
 
boss gives me another half day off because I have to move tomorrow and this is what I do with it?

What Morrissey wants is a site exactly how he describes this one...a site where the opinion of everyone is controlled by one individual...only he wants to be the one controlling things.
related to this I wonder, is he even aware of this?
I doubt it :straightface:
because if he was, I don't think he would really want that :sick:
and if he did suddenly get what he wanted I'd like to think he'd figure it out that often its best not to have TOTAL CONTROL :crazy:
 
Re: boss gives me another half day off because I have to move tomorrow and this is what I do with it

related to this I wonder, is he even aware of this?
I doubt it :straightface:
because if he was, I don't think he would really want that :sick:
and if he did suddenly get what he wanted I'd like to think he'd figure it out that often its best not to have TOTAL CONTROL :crazy:



oh my god, you can't be robby!! :D :D



p.s. :D
 
He doesn't like that a place exists that allows him, his band, and personal life to be freely discussed, speculated, judged, questioned, mocked or vilified to the extent of the individual user's will to do so. He doesn't believe anyone has the right to do any of these things regarding the world of Morrissey or to present him in anything other than a desirable light. Of course, he himself has no problem doing the same to others...as a matter of fact, he's spent his entire career doing the same to others. What Morrissey wants is a site exactly how he describes this one...a site where the opinion of everyone is controlled by one individual...only he wants to be the one controlling things.

but you criticize him for "doing the same to others". The behavior you describe is why you don't like Morrissey "as a man" so then why are you using that same behavior to justify your behavior or the behavior of the site? If you think the behavior is wrong (in anyone) just don't do it or don't try and justify it.
 
Also davidt if you were genuinely interested in feedback and how fans really felt about your site you'd put this poll on the front page so that it gets maximum exposure instead of hiding it in a corner of the site that no one ever visits.
 
but you criticize him for "doing the same to others" its why you don't like him "as a man" so then why are you using that behavior to justify your behavior or the behavior of the site? If you think the behavior is wrong (in anyone) just don't do it or try and justify it.

I never said the behavior is wrong and I certainly have never tried or felt the need to justify anything I say on this site. The blatant hypocrisy is what is wrong to me and far more of a turn off than any statement meant to grab headlines that Morrissey could ever come up with. Claiming Kate Middleton is culpable for a suicide to the national press and then turning around and whining when an article on a website questions whether the tour crew was paid or not after a member of the crew (who wished not to be publicly named) brought up the "rumor" (as it was labeled) in the first place? He comes off seeming like a goddamn petulant child.
 
I have been an on-off anonymous reader for a few years now and have never thought there seemed to be a negative bias in that site, however up until he launched his last album, which was received favourably here, there was an overwhelming amount of negative posts about Morrissey. And it was often gratuitous - like here http://www.morrissey-solo.com/conte...on-to-meet-Morrissey-at-Glastonbury?#comments

The problem is not that there is a bias, but that a lot of the time when there is no censorship on the Net, people can show their nastier side and seem to think that the nastier, the funnier and cooler. There were times when I'd stop coming here because it'd leave me with an unpleasant after-taste (a bit like the feeling you can get after flicking though the Sun). I mean that even if Morrissey made the headlines for something positive, there would be a large amount of posts saying he is a publicity whore or other. The thing is that on the Net you don't have to be an asshole or do anything wrong to be vilified. E.g. the other day I was reading something about Eva Mendes and Ryan Gosling having a baby and was shocked by how mean and racist a lot of the comments were towards her. And I would notice here that Morrissey's defensers would often get ridiculed or run out of town. Bashing him is ok - it means you are cool, smart, have a brain of your own and think for yourself (some have a very high opinion of themselves here). On the other hand gushing means you are a witless, brainwhashed, sad bastard.
I have to admit that after the launch of WPINOYB there had been a shift and I enjoyed coming here again because it was more balanced and less predictable. But I guess that what it will be like in the near future will depend on the outcome of the body guard's story.
 
VH broke it down, yeah some headlines are written by forum members and I may not have edited it. Many times I had only a few minutes to publish the articles and felt the headlines were good enough. The examples are more editorial differences and I'd say a little nitpicky. Be honest and ask if these headlines (with the 2 examples written by users that posted them) really equate to what Morrissey describes as "maximum and inexhaustive publicity to anything said in the negative about me".

The trolls that bash the site when it happens to be in the headlines add to the negativity themselves. What positive have they really contributed? Nothing.

I can find more later, but negative third party articles are quoted verbatim while positive third party articles are sometimes summarized clinically. Many people don't even click the article and read it, they scan for info just reading the headlines and move on. If there's a pattern of not quoting positive third party articles verbatim with the consistency that negative articles are quoted, there's a slight case that Morrissey's assessment of "control" is sort of plausible. Mind you I'm not convinced yet, but I'm not not convinced, borrowing from David's conclusion regarding Steyn. :D
 
Last edited:
meanwhile in Gaza.

Not as negative as True-to-you....its shocking!!!!

I've just read that Morrissey said Elaine Stritch was demented (genius) and that David tseng is only mildly irritating. There are also all these titles on there, which aren't very 'positive' like: "World Peace Is None Of Your Business", "Kick The Bride Down The Aisle" & "Earth Is The Loneliest Planet". In the archives...apparently, "the world won't listen. " and "life is a pigsty"!


To combat all this negativity on the interwebs, lets post pictures and gifs of cats.

cat-fat-dancing-cat-gif.gif
 
I never said the behavior is wrong and I certainly have never tried or felt the need to justify anything I say on this site. The blatant hypocrisy is what is wrong to me and far more of a turn off than any statement meant to grab headlines that Morrissey could ever come up with. Claiming Kate Middleton is culpable for a suicide to the national press and then turning around and whining when an article on a website questions whether the tour crew was paid or not after a member of the crew (who wished not to be publicly named) brought up the "rumor" (as it was labeled) in the first place? He comes off seeming like a goddamn petulant child.

What is astonishing is the protection Kate Middleton receives from this website. You all seem to have really bought into the fairy tale Princess. I've said this before but, doesn't it seem likely that the royal family were angry when that leaked happened? Do you think they really said "never mind we all make mistakes" Do you think they are capable of acting ruthlessly and secretly and exerting power and influence? That lady would still be alive if Kate wasn't involved. No one else had the guts to point that out, it was left to Morrissey.

The problem with your point "I never said that (Morrissey's) behavior is wrong" is that you did and you do, over and over again at every opportunity.

What you appear to be claiming is that the only reason you no longer like Morrisey the man is his apparent hypocrisy directed at this site. None of the other statement or action concern you. Is that correct?

Yet you give yourself away straight away claiming his statements are "meant to grab headlines" suggesting you think they are contrived and not heartfelt. You can't even keep track of your own hypocrisy.
 
Last edited:
What is astonishing is the protection Kate Middleton receives from this website. You all seem to have really bought into the fairy tale Princess. I've said this before but, doesn't it seem likely that the royal family were angry when that leaked happened? Do you think they really said "never mind we all make mistakes" Do you think they are capable of acting ruthlessly and secretly and exerting power and influence? That lady would still be alive if Kate wasn't involved. No one else had the guts to point that out, it was left to Morrissey.

By that logic, I could claim Margaret Dale would still be alive if it wasn't for Morrissey...

The problem with your point "I never said that (Morrissey's) behavior is wrong" is that you did and you do, over and over again at every opportunity.

Can you provide some specific examples, please?

What you appear to be claiming is that the only reason you no longer like Morrisey the man is his apparent hypocrisy directed at this site. None of the other statement or action concern you. Is that correct?

Incorrect. It extends beyond the site with every whine about a critic, every single or album that doesn't chart at #1, every show he cancels for illegitimate reasons, every time he shrugs off his responsibility for failures to a manager, record label, support act, media, etc.

Yet you give yourself away straight away claiming his statements are "meant to grab headlines" suggesting you think they are contrived and not heartfelt. You can't even keep track of your own hypocrisy.

How is it hypocritical to claim his statements are meant to grab headlines? Where did I say I thought they were contrived and not heartfelt? He purposely chooses to be grandiose in his statements for attention.

He could simply say "eating meat is morally wrong to me and something I refuse to partake in."
Instead, he says "eating meat is no different than pedophila."

Why does he do this? Probably to distract from the fact he's simply been repackaging the same schtick for the last 30 years...
 
What is astonishing is the protection Kate Middleton receives from this website. You all seem to have really bought into the fairy tale Princess. I've said this before but, doesn't it seem likely that the royal family were angry when that leaked happened? Do you think they really said "never mind we all make mistakes" Do you think they are capable of acting ruthlessly and secretly and exerting power and influence? That lady would still be alive if Kate wasn't involved. No one else had the guts to point that out, it was left to Morrissey.

The problem with your point "I never said that (Morrissey's) behavior is wrong" is that you did and you do, over and over again at every opportunity.

What you appear to be claiming is that the only reason you no longer like Morrisey the man is his apparent hypocrisy directed at this site. None of the other statement or action concern you. Is that correct?

Yet you give yourself away straight away claiming his statements are "meant to grab headlines" suggesting you think they are contrived and not heartfelt. You can't even keep track of your own hypocrisy.



Quite a few people did think the nurse must have been facing discipline or other, as it is very odd and hard to comprehend how a 50 year old mother of two would kill herself over a simple mistake. Most were suspicous of the NHS but Morrissey being Morrissey he was very suspicious of the royal family and couldn't help himself.
 
Not sure I buy it, but it's an interesting idea. Nothing really to back it up though that I've seen yet.

Here's an example of what I'd expect to see if there was bias against Morrissey:

-"World Peace..." enters at #2 in UK album chart
- change to "World Peace..." fails to reach #1 in UK album chart

-"World Peace..." enters at #8 in German album charts
- change to "World Peace..." barely enters top 10 in German album charts

-For all the reviews we would have put the lowest scores first and maybe even in the article titles.

-World Exclusive: Morrissey Talks to PETA About His New Animal Anthem
- change to Morrissey continues to ram views on animal rights down our throats with sham "interview" with PETA

-NME Morrissey issue out now (July 16, 2014)
- change to Victims of Morrissey lawsuit feature him on cover for some reason

-"Introducing Morrissey" DVD pre order / cover on Recordstore.co.uk (Sep. 8, 2014 release date)
- change to Morrissey allowing fans to buy one of his live concerts in new format with no additional features

-Lego "World Peace..." cover
- change to Cover of latest Morrissey record vastly improved with addition of more hair to Lego figure, image stamping remains

-"World Peace..." UK bundle set delayed
- change to "World Peace..." UK bundles that fail to include signed copy of Autobiography delayed

This is fun. I might go on.

Please do. Very creative. You should be an editor for a tabloid mag. :p
 
I am talking specifically about the many times that Uncleskinny has posted a news item on the front page and added a little snide comment along with the link. "thin gruel" for example or "seems reasonable" when its a truly horrible review but there are countless other examples. I think Uncleskinny must actually think we are interested in his opinion.... Can I suggest that the posters personal comments should not be shown when the article is posted on the main page. Just give us the news don't tell us how we should feel about it.
So what? It's America, Not North Korea and if Uncle Skinny wants to make a comment who are you to say he shouldn't be allowed too.
I think David essentially does what Drudge does. There are negative stories posted about Obama everyday on Drudge but Obama doesn't make his employees wear eff Drudge Report tshirts or any of the other nonsense that David is subjected too.
 
Back
Top Bottom