Words Dept.: entry

Turns out Tim Jonze, the NME journalist who interviewed Morrissey, didn’t ask for his byline to be taken off the piece because it was an anti-Morrissey stitch-up by the NME – but because NME wanted to tone it down!

Writing on Comment is Free last night, he says:

…it’s been something of a PR coup for Morrissey’s people that they’ve managed to divert attention from their artist’s ill-informed comments by focusing all the attention on the byline debate.

That may well be true but who’s fault is that? And it’s hardly been a PR disaster for the NME, has it, what with the debate on Question Time and that?

He goes on to add:

In the piece I mentioned that his [Morrissey's] 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.

No offence, Tim, but in this particular situation no-one really gives a flying toss about your opinions on the matter and the reasons for why you consider Morrissey’s views to be “offensive”. Let the interviewee’s words speak for themselves – we don’t need your A-level sociology essay thrown into the mix.

To be clear, I hate the Daily Mail and the BNP, and words like “influx” and “flooded” have no place in a rational debate on immigration. Morrissey is out of touch, contrary, nostalgic and grumpy (much as he has always been, it should be noted) with little real understanding of the issue of immigration in the UK. But, as I said before, he’s entitled to express his opinion without having to justify himself to a second rate pop music mag desperate for the publicity boost this has turned out to be.

-