And maybe...just maybe...the reporter brought her own agenda to the interview?

Having worked as a reporter, I'd like to tell you how I think this might have gone down. We all know Prince doesn't allow tape recorders...and sometimes doesn't even allow note taking. Which means the reporter has to rely on his/her own memory of what was said. (Which is why there should never be direct quotes in the article that follows, as there were in this one. Or the reporter should call the source back and say, "I heard this - is that your recollection, too?")

If you don't have notes or a tape, you sit in an interview and - every time something "quote-worthy" is said, you think to yourself frantically, "Oh, geez...I have to remember that line...that's really good." So you replay it a couple times in your mind - and miss a potential qualifier that follows right on its heels. This is in addition to, as always, thinking about the next question...or a follow-up question. There's no way a reporter can be "in the moment" or really listening in the interview, because he or she is too busy trying to remember what exactly was said and weighing each statement as a possible lede for the story.

I have my doubts about all of this - a reporter possibly having her own agenda, that Prince might not even have said what's attributed to him, or that he may have qualified what he said and it sailed right over the head of the journalist. Frankly, the most inflammatory quote in the piece doesn't even sound like Prince. He has an elegant (if cryptic) way of speaking. He's not blunt - as that quote is.

TheEnglishGent said:

Ok in the bible didn't God appoint certain men to rule over his people?

TheEnglishGent said:

Ok in the bible didn't God appoint certain men to rule over his people?

Genesia said:

Thanks for the insight. I think you may VERY well be right. That isn't to say that I don't feel that Prince isn't responsible for creating this mess. He should allow tape recordings for accuracy. If he doesn't want to get mis-quoted or mis-interpreted, he really should allow what he says to be recorded. Of course, this way he had deniability in case he DOES say something stupid, but he should know that the court of public opinion will always find you guilty until proven innocent anyway.

Anxiety said:

Amen. He does these interviews, where he goes on and on about his religious views, all the while using "Princespeak", and doesn't allow tape recorders or pen & paper....then he trips when the story "mis-quotes" him? He seems to want to "educate" the journalists on his spiritual worldview, but he just winds up getting himself all twisted up. I'd really like to be able to know what was actually said, and the context of the quote about gay marriage.
Knowing Prince, he probably didn't mean it to be homophobic, but it probably came across that way to anyone who hasn't been reading all the man's nutty interviews over the years. Prince seems to always come close to integrating his religious views with his public persona, only to blow it. He reconciles with Wendy & Lisa, does the Ellen show, and in general just seems to be cool with gay friends and fans, then turns around and says something stupid that probably isn't 100% reflective of his actual views. His desire to seem somewhat cryptic also seems to lend itself to him being mis-quoted, or at the very least mis-interpreted.

He needs to stick to discussing music. When he talks about artists who influence him, what gear he uses, etc., we see the REAL Prince. His spiritual view actually comes across much more clearly in those articles, because he is talking about the one area that he knows best...and the one thing that he uses to express himself best.

Just more proof that the poor guy lives in a fantasy land and is entirely divorced from fellow human beings.

Truly sad.

JediMaster said:

And maybe...just maybe...the reporter brought her own agenda to the interview?

Having worked as a reporter, I'd like to tell you how I think this might have gone down. We all know Prince doesn't allow tape recorders...and sometimes doesn't even allow note taking. Which means the reporter has to rely on his/her own memory of what was said. (Which is why there should never be direct quotes in the article that follows, as there were in this one. Or the reporter should call the source back and say, "I heard this - is that your recollection, too?")

If you don't have notes or a tape, you sit in an interview and - every time something "quote-worthy" is said, you think to yourself frantically, "Oh, geez...I have to remember that line...that's really good." So you replay it a couple times in your mind - and miss a potential qualifier that follows right on its heels. This is in addition to, as always, thinking about the next question...or a follow-up question. There's no way a reporter can be "in the moment" or really listening in the interview, because he or she is too busy trying to remember what exactly was said and weighing each statement as a possible lede for the story.

I have my doubts about all of this - a reporter possibly having her own agenda, that Prince might not even have said what's attributed to him, or that he may have qualified what he said and it sailed right over the head of the journalist. Frankly, the most inflammatory quote in the piece doesn't even sound like Prince. He has an elegant (if cryptic) way of speaking. He's not blunt - as that quote is.

I was a reporter for 12 years as well. And you never quote someone -- especially someone as high level and temperamental as Prince -- without making sure your quotes are correct.

All you have as a reporter is your credibility. Your credibility is your reputation and you have to be able to stand by everything you pen.

Plus, aside from quotes, you get the tone, context, and sense of what people are saying.


The New Yorker, though irreverent, is a credible magazine. They have great satire and I'm sure they were looking for ways to skewer Prince ...just waiting for him to say something stupid and controversial and because his intellect is so shallow he provided.

If Prince was misquoted there would be calls for a retraction.
Plus...the alleged Prince defense via Dr. F said there was no tape recorder. it didn't say anything about a pad and pen.
The New Yorker isn't some green start-up who doesn't know how to do interviews with celebs.

Whenever a star gets backlash they love to claim misquotes. The fact is, i've found over the years, people have no clue how their comments sound until they read them in print. Print is startling.
[Edited 11/19/08 10:12am]
[Edited 11/19/08 10:20am]

JediMaster said:

i really think this misquote thing is a big old snafu of some kind. prince was being cryptic and the reporter doesn't have a photogaphic memory, or didn't have a backup person to take notes.

i think prince really excels at interviews when the questions are submitted to him in written form and he is given a chance to respond in writing.

hopefully, he will issue a statement of some kind to clarify what he actually said. but, i don't hold my breath on that because he isn't big on clarification

What was the purpose of that interview? Was he promoting anything? Why is he speaking to the media?

XxAxX said:

i wonder if prince allows laptops at his interviews? having someone clacking away as he talks would certainly be helpful, and it would eliminate the need for a tape recorder.

funksterr said:

Without re-reading it, I think that he is promoting the book "21 nights" and I think he said in the interview that he is extremely proud of it.

XxAxX said:

i wonder if prince allows laptops at his interviews? having someone clacking away as he talks would certainly be helpful, and it would eliminate the need for a tape recorder.

funksterr said:

Without re-reading it, I think that he is promoting the book "21 nights" and I think he said in the interview that he is extremely proud of it.

Anxiety said:

Actually no it won't if the person misunderstands what he's saying in the first place. And you know Prince tends to give those odd stream of conciousness type answers that you actually have to listen to more than once to catch on to what he's trying to say.

I don't get it. Why was he interviewing?

I hate it when interviewers go in there and all they get is God talk. It's not Prince's beliefs that irratate me. He can believe in the flying spagetti monster for all I care. It's the fact that this is one of the most creative, insiring, musical geniuses in the history of pop music, and you never get to hear really juicey answers to his creative process.

Sure, ultimately, from his point of view, it all comes from God. But would it hurt for him to explain what he was thinking when he chose to use this or that instrument? When he chose to take this or that chorus out of a song? What possessed him to attack a guitar solo this or that way?

The only thing worthwhile about Prince anymore is his music. And THAT isn't even talked about at great length--nor are we getting any of the good stuff in circulation anymore.

I understand , as a publication, scoring a Prince interview is a big deal. But, would it hurt you pry a little bit into his music?

Imago said:

Reporters are lazy (in general) and have an unfortunate tendency to be awestruck (as evidenced in the most recent presidential campaign). If someone hands them something they perceive as juicy, they aren't going to dig any deeper than that. Especially if, as in the case of music, they aren't conversant to begin with.

Genesia said:

on the other hand, you never know what reporters are told beforehand that they are not allowed to ask or even mention in an interview.

If Prince was misquoted there would be calls for a retraction.
Plus...the alleged Prince defense via Dr. F said there was no tape recorder. it didn't say anything about a pad and pen.

Prince went from being radically black to now being a self hating black. The ex-slave now wants to be the white man's slave.

He was not misquoted and lied. He is a sad little man.

Why are we defending Prince here?

Why are we defending Prince here?