I found this story pretty interesting and since it's all about the media I thought it was relevant enough to stick on here.
Morrissey has just given an interview with the NME which said publication has now labelled "his most contentious interview in years".
We'll see.
Some people may remember, others (like me) may just have heard about it, but in 1992 the NME and Morrissey had a falling out after the former accused the latter of being racist. You see, Morrissey had appeared onstage at a Madness reunion gig in Finsbury Park, draped in a Union Jack flag at a time when far-right xenophobes the British National Party were on the rise. Around this time there were no such things as internet forums, so there was no real nationwide discussion amongst music fans about what had happened. All there was, was the NME, and it's glaring headlines. The front page read "Morrissey: Flying the flag or flirting with disaster?". The only opinions given on the subject were those of the NME writing staff and the readers who wrote to the magazine. It was all pretty one sided, and Morrissey and the NME ceased all relations for 13 years.
(The original, 1992 front cover)
Until 2005, when Morrissey was promoting his 7th solo album, 'You Are The Quarry'. Charge of the NME had changed hands, and the current editor was the young Conor McNicholas, who was keen to reconcile Moz and the publication. The interview went without a hitch, the NME went back to hanging on the singer's every word, and Morrissey got the publicity he wanted for his album.
It would seem, however, that McNicholas was not as different to his predecessors as he would have Moz, and us for that matter, believe. This week the NME have run another front page interview with Moz, leading (very predictably) with the headline "Bigmouth Strikes Again!" and it looks likely that the feud will be rekindled.
In the interview Moz complains that there is no longer a sense of British identity, that he has no problem with immigration as such, but that when you compare England with countries such as Germany or Holland, we have much less sense of identity.
Unlike in 1992, this time there are internet message boards for people to discuss the issue on, and (also unlike in 1992) this time the votes seem swayed in Moz's favour.
The problem is, the NME doesn't have the same sway in the music world now as it did 15 years ago, and recently it has become the subject of much ridicule for becoming too 'glossy'. Under McNicholas' reign it has changed from newspaper format to glossy print, become sponsored by hair products and included a 'tabloid' section, in which they report on the personal lives of the musicians featured. Because of this, the NME is now seen as something of a joke, and McNicholas a man who will do anything to generate publicity and make a name for himself.
Today, the day the newest issue was released and the day people first had a chance to read what it is that Moz actually said, some emails between McNicholas and Morrissey's manager Merck Mercuriadis have surfaced. In them McNicholas attempts to explain to Mercuriadis that the magazine decided to publish Moz's quotes so they could make a stand against what he said and, in his own words have "the NME's position made very clear".
McNicholas seems to believe that the NME is a publication responsible for taking a stand against artists whose comments could be seen perhaps as slightly inflammatory, rather than a music magazine responsible for reporting on music.
The general attitude towards the article is much more against McNicholas than against Morrissey, which couldn't possibly be what McNicholas had intended. The main view seems to be that this is just a shameless attempt on the NME's part to generate publicity for a magazine which seems to have become irrelevant in todays world of internet forums and music based websites.
Taking this stance is also an unwise decision for the magazine itself. An ongoing feud with Moz may have got people talking seriously about the NME for the first time in years, but they don't seem to have thought through the damage this could cause them. Statistically, sales of the NME rise by 30-40% when Morrissey is on the cover, something that is unlikely to ever happen again.
Even the journalist who conducted this particular interview requested his name be removed from the article as he did not agree with the direction the article was being taken in.
Could it be that in this age of widely available technology a one sided accusation like that against Moz in 1992 just won't cut it anymore? I believe it's simply the case that people have much more access to means of expressing themselves now, and that they see this not only as some desperate attempt by the publication of trying to get people interested in buying the magazine once again, but a rather cynical attempt by one man to make a name for himself as an editor who is not afraid to tackle serious issues (despite having 'dumbed down' the magazine in the eyes of many).
He also seems to have forgotten that Morrissey likes suing people.
(Click HERE to read the emails sent to Morrisseys manager by Tim Jonze, who conducted the interview, and Conor McNicholas. There's also a lovely letter sent to the NME from Moz's lawyers. I told you he likes suing people.)
