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.
The wording these NME f***s assemble is always annoying. You feel their squirming discomfort in both the "apology" and follow-ups.
Nonetheless, most of the headlines include "NME apologize" or a variation thereof so no matter how twisted their knickers get -- that is how the news is seen and will be remembered.
Genuinely, genuinely gutted this didn't reach court.
Genuinely, genuinely gutted this didn't reach court.
the ultra-PC mob
Tim Jonze was never "the blame" but the way the NME presented it so they took his interview and wrapped it up with "Words by NME". Jonze is now head of Guardian music, part of the ultra-PC mob along with many other ex-NME'ers so his comments on Twitter are just sticking to the party line. Professionally, he's not in a position to risk his career and say otherwise. Whether he is a "c***" or not as some people here argue, the piece was taken out of his hands. The NME used Jonze for their own gain as much as they used Morrissey and it backfired on everybody.
The NME were to blame - specifically editor Conor M - for the crime of poor journalism and cheap sensationalism. They might have had a story of genuine worth to challenge Morrissey on his views but acted like over-excitable sixth form kangaroo courters and made a farce of the presentation, dragging up all the corny old Bengali In Platforms stuff (didn't they get the name/album wrong?) and being nudge, nudge, wink, wink. NME sales are notoriously poor these days, around 16,000 a week, so they were after all the extra sales they could get.
It is a shame it never went to court but Morrissey must have relented as up until recently he'd taken out an injunction which would have restricted press coverage of the trial (so as not to repeat the false allegations of racism). A statement on true to you clarifying his position would be greatly beneficial to all in understanding exactly why he chose to drop the case.
any writer who got those answers to those questions would be in a tight spot. You could ignore it and edit it out, confront him during the interview and make sure he has a chance to explain after hearing your perception of what he is saying (I don't really think that is the journalist's job; that is for his publicist.)
no, whether someone is racist or not is determined by their actions, not wordsPeople who aren't racist, you mean?