You may be aware that Morrissey, former lead singer and lyricist of The Smiths, social commentator and seller of newspapers has been dropped into a rather public debate on the topics of Englishness, immigration and cultural identity.
Well, it wasn't actually a debate, was it? To this writer and singular brain, it seemed like a headline with a number of eyebrow raising comments attached. A news story with an interview tacked on.
Of course, Morrissey has been here before; sometime around 1992 where it all came to a head with a Union Jack flag and a Madness support slot. So you would have thought he might have been a tad cautious about even muttering the word 'immigration', let alone passing comment upon it. Perhaps though, he doesn't care. I've been told by many that when you get to a certain age, a certain point in life, you stop worrying about who's going to judge you because it doesn't matter anymore. What he must have been aware of though, was that his statements would be debated. Or not. For there doesn't seem to be much debate about anything, anymore. More a series of screaming headlines found daily on your newspaper or website of choice, condemning people for actions, thoughts or words that dare to be different or out of step with the common consensus. Which is worrying because, aside from the rather obvious point that the common consensus isn't necessarily right, it means that we as a nation (let's concentrate on the United Kingdom here) are going down the pan.
In what's rather like a 24-hour media judge, jury and executioner; statements deemed inflammatory are inflamed substantially more, outraged reactions are reported on, photos are posted, a statement is made in the Houses of Parliament and then, somewhere down the line, people might, just might sit down and discuss things. But probably not. It's not as much fun as waving your fist, jaw slackened with a line of spittle emerging from it. And that's a rather lot more easy too. I'm not convinced we can actually think about these things. When people intimate views that sit outside the ever-narrowing guidelines of what a media-governed society dictates, it appears that a 'flay em first, hang 'em high, discuss it at the funeral' policy is the required course of action.
And do I blame the media? Well, of course I do. But that's probably a little naïve and unfair. Okay - in ascending order, I blame the following:
The government for allowing the media to control the thoughts and opinions of a nation so thoroughly, sinisterly and downright dangerously.
You for reading your newspapers, your free-in-the-morning daily rags filled with their charmless, poisonous filth. Those you gobble up daily with unquestioning gusto. You as may as well insert the computer chip into the brain now. If someone gave you a free out-of-date carton of milk, would you drink it just because?
The media. But they can't be blamed; it's a growth industry, and, um, see the above. That’s if your average top three-selling newspaper will even discuss immigration and the removal of 'traditional British ways'. Unless they're lambasting Jade Goody for being a terrible racist, of course. While commenting that she's also fat and ugly. And her mum is a one-armed lesbian. This is very important.
We demand things very quickly now. Perhaps there isn't time any more for people to think, disseminate and discuss. Even now, this article is being written on the hoof following a day of chin stroking, message board perusing and magazine reading.
Did you see the story this week about the Oxford Union debate being disrupted by outraged activists? Holocaust denier and historian David Irving and Nick Griffin, leader of the BNP, were invited to the famous union to discuss their views. The irony being, that regardless of the reprehensibility of these people, those who strive to stop them airing their views in an organised debate had looks on their faces that were far more worrying.
Of course, a similar event emerged a short while ago when Martin Amis, a professor of English, aired views on Muslims and the Islamist society that were far more inflammatory, pointed and, I would suggest, ill-judged than anything you have read in a music newspaper today. But strangely enough, apart from a series of articles in a left-wing broadsheet, it made very few headlines. Maybe that's because the Editors of those high-circulation newspapers were worried that its readers might not have heard of Amis. He hasn't been seen rolling of Boujis nightclub at 2am, after all.
On another note; would it be heresy to suggest music might actually benefit from a few outspoken conservative figures capable of engaging the wet-blanket, down-with-famine liberal pop hegemony? That’s not a loaded question; I mean really would it? Search your soul; could you bring yourself to support the music of someone with known Conservative allegiances? Surely not all centre or even right-wing sensibilities are premised on prejudice and misinformation? Moreover, why are we still looking to Morrissey to speak out on such subjects? Does being a rock star entail subscribing to an increasingly narrow set of vaguely leftist principles, themselves based on a few tokenistic hot topics of the day?Just a thought.
Gareth Dobson has not requested for his name to be removed from this article.
THE NME ARTICLE
Having read the NME article now, i really don't know what all the fuss is about. It wasn't a stitch-up cos Mozzer gave his thoughts on immigration unprompted. However, all he seemed to be saying was that Britain is a very different place than it was 30 years ago. Not better or worse, just....different
Having read the article
I disagree. I think he's been stitched up good and proper.
Yes, he initially gave his views unprompted, but then they harried him constantly for something controversial. It never came, yet the article has still painted Moz in a negative light.
As you say, all he really said is that Britain has changed. If anything, on immigration, he was saying that there's too many people coming in for Britain to handle, which is, again, largely true.
It's
Boujis. God, don't you READ The London Lite! Heh.
Her mum IS a one armed lesbian. It's in the public interest to know this of course. I think the Oxford thing would have worked out better if it had been David Irving vs oh I don't know, someone who disagrees with free speech or someone less right-wing. It smacked of publicity (for Oxford that is) and it worked. However, those students shot themselves in the, er, feet with their behaviour. Amis is a twat. Anyway, I think we have a pretty free and easy press over here. Yes, we may be drones for reading the free papers on the tube but you can access pretty much any view you want, be it Mail or Guardian or Socialist Worker. Seems to me that there's not much but debate going on right now.
there is a special circle of hell
reserved for people who enjoy reading those shite free papers, especially the ones you get in london, though i remember the metro being occasionally horrific in the yorkshire editions, though it's been a while.
so yeah, thelondonpaper, london lite? DEATH AND DESTRUCTION TO ALL OF YOU
Nice article
Yes nice article. I agree with many of the sentimenbts expressed. It is only through open debate that we can move things forward and really understand the issues involved, and gain empathy for how other people may think.
I think we all have to blame our own selves a little bit - we can't just balme the media, government etc. It's up to us to argue, to stand up for our beliefs, but be prepared to challenge them as well, and also the beliefs of others.
Informed debate
" (I blame) The government for allowing the media to control the thoughts and opinions of a nation so thoroughly, sinisterly and downright dangerously."
Kudos for an ok article that at its essence has the right idea, but what does this statement really mean? I mean it's so sweeping and unintelligent it's absolutely meaningless.
Excellent piece
100% agree. There is no debate, there is only soundbites and reactions, and no one gives a fuck about the detail, just about whether to be furious or defensive. Internet forums have brought this out of people, as now you can get a reaction to your strongest views immediately, so no one ever gives middling reactions to anything, and then it snowballs.
Everybody now has an equal voice, equal confidence and equal volume. This is of course a good thing on most levels, but does also mean that the ill informed can now cast views and argue with those who have done their research which is a pretty pointless argument.
And I fucking hate the NME for this as they knew what they were doing and its such a lazy piece of shit, because what this article actually tells us is that the NME is still a laugable joke edited by a kid who got ignored at school due to being utterly pathetic.
And what did this all teach me? That Morrissey remains the most refreshing postar we have, and the NME is for children.
Ox Un
We have to get certain viewpoints in the public domain. Dangerous propaganda when undetected has time to ferment and develop. I shouldn't wish Islamaphobia be confined underground whispering, which it appears it is not.
The Oxford Union were right to invite these individuals to their soirée. We have to get these viewpoints out in the open; it makes it much easier to disseminates them, especially when, which I fear, certain section of the demographic find them appealing.
The BNP
claimed that speaking at the Oxford Union would give them an oppurtunity to broadcast their message in a democratic forum. Why are we helping them to do this? I believe in free speech, in the sense that i don't think we should be arresting everyone who holds contentious views, but neither should we be inviting racist thugs to come and converse as if what they have to say has any value. It does not. The Union's argument that they would take them on in debate and win was naive and immature - to people who support the BNP it has only helped to legitimise them, and it's made the Union look like a bunch of fucking tossers who don't understand the kind of far-reaching genuine affects people like Nick Griffin have - facism isnt a fucking game.
to the question posed in the headline:
yes, we have. and it happened some time around the eighties, when Dictator Thatcher and her flunkies did all they could to propagate a "them and us" atmosphere that in fact did all it could to reduce any debate, lest it act to undermine their regime.
There is debate about these issues
obviously just not in the throwaway media you discuss.
Newsnight, Today programme, Radio 4 and 5, Broadsheet papers...to name but just a few. The debates and discussions are out there just not in the tabloids & 20min news programmes you mention and can you really blame them. They print shit, lots read it, why would they stop?
Also...
"Surely not all centre or even right-wing sensibilities are premised on prejudice and misinformation? "
name some...
hmmm
... who deleted the Kid A review on this site and why I wonder? As long as whatevers being said kowtows to the party line, it's ok... but if it crosses the party line.. it's stifled. Same as everywhere else.
I get the impression
that although Morrissey bought these comments up without prompting, that NME have been looking for a reason to phase Morrissey out again. Stands to reason, he's not gonna speak for NME's target audience, he's 48 for fucks sake. The fact of the matter is the kids who buy it regularly don't give a toss about him because he's not 20, hasn't got a floppy fringe and he doesn't wear girl's jeans to make his cock look bigger. I reckon he finished 184th on the cool list behind Rick Witter and just in front of the singer from Gay Dad. Same old Morrissey, same old NME, I don't see the fuss.
you made me curious, censorship-centric
just in case anyone else missed it:-
http://web.archive.org/web/20061007152435/http://www.drownedinsound.com/release/view/2419
that didn't work?
paste www.drownedinsound.com/release/view/2419 at archive.org
I like the idea for this article
I don't think it's executed as well as it could be, but I like the idea of DiS using figures such as Morrissey to discuss 'wider' issues
I think the UK has a massive problem with the way our public figures in the entertainment industry are advised. Everybody is too frightened to say anything, for fear of a tabloid backlash or dropped album sales. There are no characters anymore - public figures are prepped and media trained within an inch of their lives
This Morrissey thing is just a lame attempt by the NME to try and reclaim some kind of 'position' and 'identity' that they lost long ago
But Morrissey's an immigrant
himself surely?
And as for outspoken pop conservatives there's Bryan Ferry and (until fairly recently) Johnny Ramone
It's a shame, y'know, Los Angeles just isn't the same anymore
...it's all these immigrants; Kelly Brooke, Morrissey, her from Eastenders. I heard Ian Hislop goes on holidays there, they've ruined everything.
BRING BACK GAYGUEVARA!
This article has a slightly false air of sanctimony
given that DiS consistently runs the kind of news stories this article decries. I'm not criticising that in and of itself, because I simply choose not to read those stories, but the fact is DiS runs many of the same stories as those "free-in-the-morning daily rags," but with a nice safe veneer of irony or condescension to avoid accusations of being low-brow.
As for Morrissey he's a detestable little cunt and regardless of my views on the NME he would have known exactly what he was getting himself in for by espousing those views.
A Few Things
The Oxford Union claimed that inviting Griffin and Irving was in order that their views be proved wrong in debate. Free speech is one thing, but are the members of the union so up their own arse that they think that you can argue a bit and all of a sudden, the guest speakers will hold their hands up, and say...Oh Gosh, Oxford Union, I'm so glad you showed me the error of my ways, I leave here a reformed person. For Irving to deny the holocaust in the face of masses of tangible evidence to the contrary shows that he's not a logical debating scientist type, but rather someone wishing to twist history to fit his own view of the world. Griffin is just glad for any opportunity he is given to paint the same fascism as terribly reasonable and the natural home of the average Joe. Belief is not founded on logical debate.
I seem to remember Morrissey being one of those who mourned the passing of england with a capital E. Haven't read the NME article. Unfortunately, in the days where England was this terribly well mannered place populated by Ladies and Gentlemen, our dear governments were invading, pillaging, destabilising and generally stomping the fuck out of the rest of the world. We made the Americans look like angels, and created most of the unstable war zones that exist in the world today. You want to get nostalgic, than make sure you remember EVERYTHING.
Interesting article
I think that the question in the title tells you something when you say 'we'. Now everyone has an opinion and access to other opinions, as the article says. So, have 'we' closed our minds to debate? I'd say probably not, just the voices of those who prefer to act in a kind of pitchfork-wielding mob kind of way have a voice and are out buying newspapers like nothing, and therefore dictating elements of the media. There are forums for debate - NME definitely isn't one of them for me. But the minute you open up a debate, there is always a weight of people screaming obscenities from one end of the spectrum. They will lap up what Morrissey says, it fuels an image of him that people love to hate.
I think debate is still happening, but as you say, the price of that is the voice being given to those who refuse to have an open mind. Like the Ox Uni 'debate'. I reckon its a bit like certain forums to the Fivelive debates they have on footy, where you occasionally have some fan phoning in with outrageous biased views, who just ends up shouting.
Good article
I think nothing illustrates your point more than the amount of people on here prepared to pontificate on Morrissey's views when it's obvious they haven't bothered to read the article concerned.
The reason
I am personally so annoyed is that one expects better from people as 'revered' (but not by me)like Morrisey.. I'm all for debate - but not at the expense of geeing up the millions who read the fucking Daily Mail.
Remove head from arse please
Doesn't this paragraph strike anyone else as side-splittingly hypocritical?
"You for reading your newspapers, your free-in-the-morning daily rags filled with their charmless, poisonous filth. Those you gobble up daily with unquestioning gusto. You as may as well insert the computer chip into the brain now. If someone gave you a free out-of-date carton of milk, would you drink it just because?"
Or in other words:
"I blame you! YOU! You little drainpipe jeaned f**knuckle! You log onto piss poor emporer's new clothes show websites every c*cking day and listen unquestioningly to failed musicians and sycophantic wannabes bleat self importantly about the latest shower of g*ts! Then whadda you do? You go out and buy the album! What are you? A f**king robot? Well listen to me instead! ME I SAY!"
Thankyou DiS, you are an oasis of pomposity.
What are you talking about?
Really? Sounds like you have insecurity issues.
This article says obvious things but in a well drafted and thought provoking way. And it's likely that the only reason the NME altered the Morrissey piece is because they know the readers will slurp the faux controversy up like swill.
84joe
I admire your willingness to jump straight into name calling on a thread entitled "have we lost our stomach for intelligent debate?".
Those thtooopid NME readers would never have come up with such an ironic opening salvo. 10 points to you.
There are a number of important points in this
but the Jade Goody one is one that's rankled with me for ages. Didn't a certain page 3 model make equally inflammatory comments, but on the grounds of being attractive has been allowed to retain her career? She's been on the covers of papers plenty of times since, parading her body rather than stating her views.
The person who thought Gareth was being pompous for blaming us, the media consumers, missed the point I'm afraid. Nobody would be printing such pointless reactionary nonsense if nobody was reading it. Just think! HEAT would go out of business tomorrow... and on a tangent, newspapers could have intelligent debates about drugs, politics and... yep, even immigration. We can but live in hope.
Pointless reactionary nonsense?
Do DiS rent this glass house or is there a mortgage?
I'm not getting what you're saying here
I was talking about the press in general. Take the drug example I gave. In order to deal with drugs in a mature fashion, there would need to be a genuine debate on whether things should be legalised, whether we should actually acknowledge there's an issue and that people are doing them anyway and so on. But if anyone in the government tried to be mature about it, they know the papers would jump on it with misleading headlines - and you've seen what effect tabloid hysteria can have on the fortunes of political parties.
From what I could see, this is what Gareth's general point was. Any attempt at reasoned debate gets lost because the press are always quick to scream "scandal!" - and it's this that the public pick up upon. It happens with so many things - remember that Brass Eye special a few years back? That was borne out of this. And anyway, Gareth is Gareth, not DiS. Make the distinction. I don't agree with everything some of their writers come out with, but he's only speaking for himself.
Damian, hi.
You seem to be under the misapprehension that I'm disagreeing with the crux of your argument. I'm not. I quite agree that if no-one bought HEAT it would go out of business, I get it, it's a no-brainer. The tabloid press are interested in sensationalism over substance and shriek hysterically at their audience, we know, we get it. It lowers the "standard of public debate", check, fine.
What has annoyed me is this hypocritical statement:
"You for reading your newspapers, your free-in-the-morning daily rags filled with their charmless, poisonous filth. Those you gobble up daily with unquestioning gusto. You as may as well insert the computer chip into the brain now. If someone gave you a free out-of-date carton of milk, would you drink it just because?"
To put a comment like that on a website like this is biting the hand that feeds you. What if everyone stopped listening to all the half arsed reviews and trend jumping sensationalism on here? Perhaps it would cease to exist for all the reasons you've outlined above. What a dreadful blow that would be eh Damian?
What if everyone
read the reviews but still formed their own opinion afterwards, like anyone with any semblance of intelligence would do?
The statement you take issue with only looks hypocritical when you remove it from its context. Gareth also blames the media and the government, within lines of your most hated part.
84 joe
"read the reviews but still formed their own opinion afterwards, like anyone with any semblance of intelligence would do?"
Oh I see, bad journalism is fine on DiS because anyone with a semblence of intelligence will form their own opinion afterwards. Why won't you extend that same courtesy to the tabloids then? What's the problem with the reporting of Morrissey in that case?
Because
overenthusiastic ramblings from excitable journalists on here are going to result in, at worst, you or I spending £8 and regretting it. The tabloids and their respective political agendas are far more harmful and in my opinion, far more cynical. There's a big difference between 'bad journalism' as in journalism you don't like/disagree with and 'bad journalism' as in purposefully harmful, rabble rousing nonsense.
Besides, since when has anyone on DiS (or Pitchfork or Stylus for that matter) ever interviewed someone with the intent to sneakily damage their career? Furthermore, music sites such as this aren't thrust into the hands of bored commuters every day, people actually access this site through choice. So it's hardly blanket indoctrination, is it? I know the NME isn't free but this is a point about the media in general, I think.
Now let's go and do something more constructive with out time, rather than sniffing out hypocrisy and scoffing at it. Or scoffing at people who sniff it out. I don't know why I even posted at all.
our time
OUR
hey joe
I read it as "our" the first time round actually :)
Nobody reads a free paper unless they want to, it's hardly A Clockwork Orange. People look at a free paper when they're bored, ditto this site. You're right that a national newspaper has the capacity to do more damage than an indie website, but stories on indie websites also get picked up and taken on by the papers from time to time. If DiS had conducted that exact same interview, same questions and same answers, I very much doubt that they'd be so up in arms about the "sensational" responses his answers might have provoked.
It's like the Lib Dems saying "campaign finance rules don't apply to us in the same way they do to Labour cos we have no hope of winning the election".
Standards are standards, no matter how much water you draw. That's why the article is hypocritical.
But yes let's stop wasting our time with this one.
^word^
.
I don't disagree with you
I just agree with the general point, irrespective of where it's written. I'm certainly not saying I've never read an item on DiS and thought "is this news?"
liberal pop hegemony
"On another note; would it be heresy to suggest music might actually benefit from a few outspoken conservative figures capable of engaging the wet-blanket, down-with-famine liberal pop hegemony?"
the most amusing thing about music in britain today is how many people are in front of enormous stages as impromptu morally branded music festivals, listening to protest songs on their IPODS and saying they will save the environment and end poverty.
fucking idiots.
if you want to end poverty and save the environment the first thing that needs to go is mass consumption of shit like Ipods and huge pointless music concerts with people who own 50 houses like Madonna asking people to jump up and down.
,,,
I'm opposed to the level of immigration there is in this country completly. I wouldn't consider myself racist, ignorant, or prejudiced but believe that I should at least be allowed to say this without being branded thus. We have a number of problems in this country, one of which is increasing amounts of overcrowding. I have no doubt Morrisseys article was pissed about with by the NME to sensationalise things, but I hate even more that Morrissey (or anyone else) is not allowed to express rational, considered doubts about our country's policy on immigration.
I'm working on a report for the Government
which talks about the aging culture and workforce in Wales.
Statistics are difficult and can be manipulated consequently it can be very hard to work out what is actually happening but I do think we need immigration particularly of young people in vocational sectors.
Historicaly Britain has been very tollerant towards the plight of other nations and very savvy in exploiting for example- doctors in Africa/India often to the detriment of these nations. Pick any one 'British' thing and it's a good bet it's not 'British' in the sense that it originated from the UK- Fish and Chips, Triumph motor cycles, religion- the list goes on. The only thing we've got I think, is the pantomine and I'm not sure about that either.
In short we are a nation constantly and historicaly in flux Immigration is neither good or bad but it just a fact. There's a god book on this called bloody foreigners which challenges everythign we think about Britain-it should be a text book in schools.
This is a great debate though can we have more?
G2
Today's (possible rag) the Guardian has a good article on this on page 2.
Online - it's here :
http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/music/2007/11/why_this_british_asian_doesnt.html
I don't see a problem with immigration. Immigration never stopped Britain from exploring (or should that be invading) most of the world.
Merry Christmas.
Further to that
Morrissey insists on NME apology
Morrissey denies his comments were racist
Morrissey's lawyers have threatened legal action against the NME unless the magazine publishes an apology for an article about the former Smiths star.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/7118412.stm
What the f**k happened?!
Did a rock singer upset the establishment sensibility?
Moz
I bet all the Puerto Ricans and other Latinos in the USA would not Mozzer to be racist.
We've always had immigration
As do many countries. I think its the Integration thats the actual problem.
Morriseys views are held by lots of middle aged people. Large numbers of Asian people are very angry about our new influx. As usual there are no easy answers.
The NME article was basically an attempt to portray Morrisey as a racist. I've no idea if he is or not. But our current situation is a complicated one.They just turned it into an angry sixth form rant.
is being left wing such a crime in modern times
to provoke debate around such a deeply sinister issue as immigration and national identity is no lightly undertaken burden. I'm sure that, whether you loathe, love or are indiffernt to him, the editor of the NME is not that glib about such things. It is sad that more cerebral debate (which is not really likely or appropriate to appear in the pages of the NME) is debunked by appending childish playground vindictive comments. It is more praise than anything else when DIS posters allege that a single magazine editor has changed the face for british music and indie. If that were possible, and were he such the corporate man you allege, then would he not profit from it? Music is fucking amazing, but it incites such passion that it often creates more social division. The prejudices of the most indie are akin to racism - and as bad or worse than the chav culture they are reacting against. As a nation talented at complaint and cynicism we have the perfect culture to breed great art and music.
I agree the debate in the NME might be somewhat too short, and not fully examined, but if it was, then it'd be accused of being didactic. No win situation. Morrissey did say - unprompted - some very questionable things. I doubt he is as evil as the term "racism" conjurs images of, but he is clearly daft to do that in an interview about music.
Ask yourself what you would do if you were tim jonze interviewing him?
It's a really important debate to have - what of british culture, and how do we approach diversity? with fear, apprehension, open arms, limitless acceptance or violence?
Don't cut short your debate with personal jibes. True or false, you are demeaning a more important debate.
Are DIS'ers so conservative?
some of the views expressed here suggest that? I'm not a teenager anymore, but when I was dissatisfaction with the state of the nation was rife, perhaps as it is today, but the route out of it was never right wing wealth chasing nationalism.
Scary shit!
Good article
I agreed with most of what you said in the article.
I absolutely hate how manipulative the tabloid press in Britain is - their villification of subjects is sickening. Take, for example, the way they treat Heather Mills, I know she's not the best person in the world or whatever but you can hardly say the way she has been treated is fair.
I think that the Free Press is an important thing in a modern democracy and something that should be celebrated but when the free press uses their rights to publish the names and addresses of so-called pedophiles (as our wonderful press did a few years ago) I think it is crossing a line from which there isn't any way back.
Their only interest is to sell more papers and they don't give care about how they achieve this, hence the sensationalist bullshit they paint on their front pages.
Further to your point about tory rock stars, I don't think I could enjoy listening to their music if I knew of their right-wing views. This is the same way that I don’t generally tend to have friends who are right-wing, and if I do I take the opportunity to lambaste their ridiculous and selfish views at every opportunity. I realise that this makes me sound like a bit of a prat but I don’t care because it is something that I care about a lot. It would make me deeply uncomfortable to listen to their music, just as I’m uncomfortable with the status of Martin Amis or Ezra Pound.
This post is probably quite pretentious but I really don't care.
``I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it''
Is my view on this.