Tim Jonze on the NME apology

I confronted Tim Jonze on Twitter. Answers were all rather predictable.



I did continue to probe him (later in the day) but his answers proved to be more of the same, unfortunately.

 

[Anonymous]

Agreed. You'd be in a tight spot. But one of the options you missed is a direct conversation with Morrissey about race, immigration, and so forth. Not a confrontation, a conversation. I keep reading about "giving Morrissey a chance to answer for his comments", as if he were in the dock. But an interview is supposed to be a conversation. Why not have a simple, civil discussion, face to face, right there and then, to draw out the various points of Morrissey's thinking on the subject? Could Jonze not have thought of some good follow-up questions?

The answers ended the conversation right where the conversation ought to have started. I promise you, as a writer, Jonze probably hated to hear Morrissey's comments. But as someone whose job it is to sell product, he was probably thrilled. He had every incentive to walk away with Morrissey's quotes, left raw and unqualified. There was little incentive to keep talking, .

All this is fine. I am glad someone with your ability to make the case is taking the position you are. We would all like to support Morrissey and hate "journalists who lie" (can the man who wrote that be looked upon as an unwitting vicitm?) and just because that is the postion loyal fans want to take, and if it's also the actual case that is wonderful. But this next part... objection, speculation. If he'd kept Morrissey talking you know perfectly well the odds of him clearing it all up with an explanation is absolutely zero and he might have threatened to bomb someone or thing or wished someone would die. I'd have let him talk! haha

because Jonze knew that if he engaged Morrissey in a conversation for another thirty or forty minutes, solely discussing immigration and racism, Morrissey would probably make some perfectly sane, reasonable, and decidedly anti-racist remarks. Remember, Jonze's basic position is that Morrissey isn't racist but does stray into very dangerous territory with his remarks, which he (Jonze) assumes are either out of touch or simply irresponsible, rather than malicious. If Jonze believed that, he could have steered the conversation to reflect the complications inherent in Morrissey's views. He didn't. And while I'm sorry to be cynical, the reason why is pretty obvious. "Morrissey's views on race-- like mine, like yours, like everyone's-- are complicated and hard to summarize fairly" just isn't a story that sells papers.

Well it was certainly edited as a hatchet piece and while we can talk about Jonze's motives, and I tend to agree with you that they were to get a hot story above all else. I can still see it both ways. It's interesting to look at the role of the journalist. As in photography where you might think that anyone can click the shutter and we all get the same result with no input from the actual photographer, the truth is that there are countless decisions made that affect the way the final product comes across as a whole. During the conversation, from all possible potential outcomes, the journalist has a huge role in shaping not only his questions but the way the answers of the subject are presented. Clearly they presented Morrissey's words in the most sensational way. But still. The case as I see it would have been much more clear if they had chopped up his answers, or even changed the questions, but I think it was more about taking the words out of context. Well, there are words that don't really work that well in any context, and Morrissey seems to have a handy notebook full of them. He may stay up nights jotting them down when he can't sleep. It's kind of what he does. People just get really fidgety when you talk about immigration. "It's a touchy subject, M, could you please not mention it?"

Remember at the time he was accused of doing it on purpose to sell Swords! It never ends for poor old Morrissey.

 

[Worm]

But this next part... objection, speculation. If he'd kept Morrissey talking you know perfectly well the odds of him clearing it all up with an explanation is absolutely zero and he might have threatened to bomb someone or thing or wished someone would die. I'd have let him talk! haha

Yes, it's speculation. And I have no doubt Morrissey would have said a few other things which would have outraged people. But if he were allowed to expand on his opinions I believe he would say plenty of mitigating things to dispel the charge of "racist" quite easily. Perhaps, with thirty minutes to expound on the topic, his views would still be problematic. I concede that point. At the very least the additional Q & A would lift the conversation out of a kindergarten-level exchange into a much more adult, realistic, and ultimately very useful conversation. In other words, exactly the sort of intelligent dialogue about race the NME keeps claiming to want-- and which they've stymied at every turn.

Well it was certainly edited as a hatchet piece and while we can talk about Jonze's motives, and I tend to agree with you that they were to get a hot story above all else. I can still see it both ways. It's interesting to look at the role of the journalist. As in photography where you might think that anyone can click the shutter and we all get the same result with no input from the actual photographer, the truth is that there are countless decisions made that affect the way the final product comes across as a whole. During the conversation, from all possible potential outcomes, the journalist has a huge role in shaping not only his questions but the way the answers of the subject are presented. Clearly they presented Morrissey's words in the most sensational way. But still. The case as I see it would have been much more clear if they had chopped up his answers, or even changed the questions, but I think it was more about taking the words out of context. Well, there are words that don't really work that well in any context, and Morrissey seems to have a handy notebook full of them. He may stay up nights jotting them down when he can't sleep. It's kind of what he does. People just get really fidgety when you talk about immigration. "It's a touchy subject, M, could you please not mention it?"

Remember at the time he was accused of doing it on purpose to sell Swords! It never ends for poor old Morrissey.

The comparison to photography is a good one. Every photographer is an editor. Every photographer chooses what to include and what not to include in her shot. A photographer can stretch and distort the truth in numerous ways. The same is true of a journalist interviewing a subject. It's all about framing. The trouble with photography, just like "unedited Q &A" exchanges, is that they give the impression of absolute fidelity to reality, and often that isn't the case. Which gets back to what I was saying above. Even a simple transcript wouldn't necessarily help Morrissey.

 

[Thesmithsmorrissey]

I wipe my arse with issues of the Guardian daily