Morrissey's / management mistake in this whole sorry saga...

[Jukebox Jury]

I find it difficult to believe that - baring in mind previous experiences - Morrissey or his management did not demand to see a copy of the full manuscript of what was to be published in advance (for approval) or they would refuse the interview.
Had this been requested the whole episode would not have developed.

Jukebox Jury

 

[Worm]

I find it difficult to believe that - baring in mind previous experiences - Morrissey or his management did not demand to see a copy of the full manuscript of what was to be published in advance (for approval) or they would refuse the interview.
Had this been requested the whole episode would not have developed.

Jukebox Jury

Judging by the info on True To You, it appears Merck and Conor were in close contact "for a couple of weeks" and had an "understanding", so perhaps Morrissey and Merck thought that was good enough. Conor himself said he was a big Morrissey fan so he must have seemed a friend. And it sounds like Merck tried to get the text but Conor didn't respond for three days.

It was an ambush.

 

[Danny_]

How can they see the article before the interview has taken place?

 

[Jukebox Jury]

Judging by the info on True To You, it appears Merck and Conor were in close contact "for a couple of weeks" and had an "understanding", so perhaps Morrissey and Merck thought that was good enough. Conor himself said he was a big Morrissey fan so he must have seemed a friend. And it sounds like Merck tried to get the text but Conor didn't respond for three days.

It was an ambush.

Agree.
it's just I have done a few interviews over the years with people within the football industry for fanzines and three in particular only agreed to the interview as long as they saw the final piece before it was published. We then had to sign a form saying we would not change the article in any way after it was OK'd. Of course, it can be said where is the freedom of thought / expresion etc and I'd go along with that, but it was either that or no interview at all. I just thought Morrissey or his management would have been on the ball here over this interview.

Jukebox Jury

 

[Danny_]

I'd suggest it was because you were running a small fanzine so the footballers had the clout to make such demands.

I don't think interviewees for major publications have that sort of clout, unless they are major Hollywood film stars. I've never heard of it happening anyway.

 

[Worm]

Agree.
it's just I have done a few interviews over the years with people within the football industry for fanzines and three in particular only agreed to the interview as long as they saw the final piece before it was published. We then had to sign a form saying we would not change the article in any way after it was OK'd. Of course, it can be said where is the freedom of thought / expresion etc and I'd go along with that, but it was either that or no interview at all. I just thought Morrissey or his management would have been on the ball here over this interview.

Jukebox Jury

True enough. They should have been more cautious. But after, what, three or four years of NME editors tripping over themselves to fellate him I'm guessing he put an ounce of trust in their integrity. One ounce too many, it turns out.

 

[celibate]

Judging by the info on True To You, it appears Merck and Conor were in close contact "for a couple of weeks" and had an "understanding", so perhaps Morrissey and Merck thought that was good enough. Conor himself said he was a big Morrissey fan so he must have seemed a friend. And it sounds like Merck tried to get the text but Conor didn't respond for three days.

It was an ambush.

that's my thought also plus we now that Merck and Morrissey were in
the middle of siging a record deal, so afterall they trusted the NME,
cause the intervieuw and the contact with Conor went smoothly

plys the NME has a deadline, so I think that the aticle was printed while
Morrissey and Merck were in the middle of record deal talks and IMHO
they had to contact lawyers and stuff, to sign the deal, so they
had a lot on their mind, and being fooled by the NME was the last thing
they expected when everyting went well the 2 weeks before

so it's a matter of giving time to whats important the last days/ short week

 

[vivabob]

I find it hard to belive that it was not proof read before it came out , most artists apart from when it involves live reviews do this . i know this first hand, but the NME are not keen to change articals once they have been set up

I think all articals with the NME should be proof read as it is quite obvious what they have done in the past

 

[PregnantForTheLastTime]

I find it hard to belive that it was not proof read before it came out , most artists apart from when it involves live reviews do this . i know this first hand, but the NME are not keen to change articals once they have been set up

I think all articals with the NME should be proof read as it is quite obvious what they have done in the past

I think this goes way beyond "proofreading." The article was written the way it was because the NME have an agenda. It was plainly intentional. They think they're coming off as smart by making Morrissey look bad. They are wrong. They've made the Weekly World News look like Newsweek. Wait, no, the Weekly World News has a sense of humor and isn't out to make anyone look bad.

Seriously, the article is so awful, you can almost see the jagged scissor cuts and tape where they cut and pasted new questions into the interview. Does anyone remember those novelty records from the 60s where they'd ask questions as though they were interviewing someone, and then fill in answers by playing snippets of songs? This is like that, but mean spirited.