^ Hey I have just made a thread about "Backlash" and the song "Hello":

Prince - and the "backlash"... then (1985) & now (2011)

pepper7 said:

PurpleLove7 said:

I'm the same way when it comes to N.E.W.S. 'period'.

I believe perhaps 40% what they (the media sez / writes) say. I look for multiple sources for that proof (in the so said N.E.W.S. reports).

Blimey you do that with every piece of news, in every newspaper and peridodical?? Blimey, you must have a lot of time on your hands..

LoL ... Only N.E.W.S. I care about ... You so silly pepper7

PurpleLove7 said:

pepper7 said:

Blimey you do that with every piece of news, in every newspaper and peridodical?? Blimey, you must have a lot of time on your hands..

LoL ... Only N.E.W.S. I care about ... You so silly pepper7

Gosh, still must take a hell of a lot of time...

erik319 said:

catpark said:

Glad you have the album and I hope you like it, there working on a new album now.

Anyway I will tell the guys when I'm next hanging out with them(I was out drinking with them only few weeks back) that they have a few Prince fans too as fans.

Also I will tell them keep a wide birth from Prince fans coz all they do is take the piss out of people, but I think they and everyone else can see that for themselves.

if you don't take the piss round here you'd quickly go insane. Nothing said was personally insulting, just silly talk to help diffuse an already out of proportion situation. Don't be so precious. You sound sane, we need more of your kind here

Btw, my favourite Jaxx song is 'U can't stop me'. Best Prince protege song (n)ever produced

U Cant Stop Me is a great song. Very well produced.

Once again confusion regins! Is this the land of confusion?

CallMeCarrie said:

erik319 said:

catpark said: if you don't take the piss round here you'd quickly go insane. Nothing said was personally insulting, just silly talk to help diffuse an already out of proportion situation. Don't be so precious. You sound sane, we need more of your kind here Btw, my favourite Jaxx song is 'U can't stop me'. Best Prince protege song (n)ever produced

That's right!

I like the sane orgers and the crazies equally!

And we'd love you just the same if your name was owlpark and you had a cat for avatar!

ok whatever. The more you post to me the more condescending you become.

Please dont reply or type my name in things or/and in internet conversations no more. Thanks.

DaphneLovesPR1NCE said:

langebleu said:

From what you have written, you demonsrate little to no understanding of the range of different contributors to the UK media or where the Guardian sits within the UK media.

LOL The UK media and their journalists, whatever their range, is KNOWN for "twisting words, misquoting, or flat our lying!" That's no secret! It can sometimes make for entertaining reading, but I rarely take is serious unless I hear it somewhere else. And now that I have heard the statement from another POV, I hold to my opinion that the Guardian journalist had malicious intent. That's a journalists for you!

Sadly, you've only continued to demonstrate your ignorance on the subject.

sweething said:

Really, why is this news...I mean, really?

Because it's all Prince's fault for NEVER allowing journalists to cassette tape record any of his interviews over the years. If Prince feels that he was "misquoted", then he needs to take some responsibility in knowing how to prevent that problem.

And IMDHO, I don't believe for a second that Prince was misquoted per se as much as I'm convince that he has truly lost his damn mind in recent years.

muleFunk said:

The Guardian is a legit paper.

One of the best in the anglophone world. But you know, even the best papers in the world have editorials and interview mishaps, the Guardian included. If Prince really wants to say he was misquoted in every interview that goes this way he needs to remember to do what M.I.A did with the NYT journalist and secretly record himself so he can force the paper to retract their version of things if he really needs to.

Hmmm. An excellent newspaper versus someone with a history of making stupid statements in interviews.

'...chemtrails...'

Who to believe?

prince needs to sit down with christopher hitchens for a nice long chat...

i would pay more to see that than any show prince could put on anymore.

thedance said:

@ Spinlight.

The Guardian made a sensation out of it - and so did the danish tabloid ekstrabladet.dk - that's all I am saying...

http://ekstrabladet.dk/mu...576346.ece

But it's too late (like someone wrote on page 1 in this thread).

The damage towards Prince's image is done.

Prince can maybe say something, trying to to tell what he actually meant, but it will change nothing.

Noone will take his answer for real...... all are viewing him like a nutcase, right...

Frankly, Prince could no doubt care less. Press is Press...Good, Bad, or Indifferent. Moving Forward.

HatrinaHaterwitz said:

By now, shouldn't he ALSO KNOW...how to protect himself from that?

not necessarily. he may also have been around long enough and weathered enough of these kinds of storms to realise that none of them actually matter.

some people enjoy it when others think they're crazy, and all this attention gets generated. they might be concerned for a moment or two, then they laugh and move on.

apart from that it's not really his fault if the paper gets it wrong or misinterprets.

thats like saying its a woman's fault if she gets raped cuz she was wearing a mini-skirt.

if a publication had any true journalistic integrity they'd refuse to do interviews with people who wont allow a recording.

Cravens said:

formallypickles said:

this is the first time i just dont give a damn about this kinda stuff

"org sticky"

Prince says women should dye their ass red to be more intouch with nature like the red bottom baboons"

Me:...OH well who cares

Interview with Prince in Genre magazine, dating March 3rd, 2012:

Dr.Funkenberry post, dating March 4^th, 2012:

To clear up confusion, here’s the same interview from an unbiased source, The Republican Saviour:

So Prince, what do you do between recording, now that you've said you'll never tour again?

I like to stay home. I like to stay away from China and talk to fellow Christians. There’s so much comfort in the Bible, it’s amazing, you know.

That sounds nice, Prince.

Yeah you know. I just love everybody. I think the gays are cool, you know. I really condone every man’s right to get funky in the chunky with other men. And women! The should be free to choose what ever they like. Ain’t nobody’s gonna tell anyone what to wear. I believe in democracy!

So you are a real believer in democracy, eh?

Digital things are digital. I’m music, so I’m not gonna release them digits. God is analogue. I like birds. They go tweet.

[/satire]

[Edited 6/29/11 4:17am]

Hahahahahah..O my goodness. This satire was so strong and hilarious, I nearly woke up everyone sleeping here with my laughter! This is genius, and I really appreciate you bringing for satire for the sake of an laugh..Thank you! And the award goes to:..... YOU. haha

I don't know what's worse, the press or some of the 'fans' typing here..?

[Edited 6/30/11 3:04am]

Hi,

I'm Michael Hann, the editor of the Guardian's Film&Music section – been waiting five days since registering to be able to post.

The main point – about the perils of translating and retranslating – was made on Dr Funkenberry's board. The second part of my post there looks a bit odd at the top of this thread, and I see some people upthread are querying it. It was, specifically, a response to someone on the other board who suggested the Guardian had deliberately taken the agenda of another board, presumably this one.No insult to the members of this board was intended when I said the Guardian's editorial line is not taken from messageboards. For the record, I am not suggesting Le Parisien's interview is necessarily inaccurate; I suspect most of the differences will have come from the translation back into English.

Some general points:

1/ Did the Guardian make a sensation of the interview? Well, yes: but only because Prince said sensational things. Had he not ventured, of his own free will, on to controversial subjects, then there would have been no sensation.

2/ Is the Guardian prone to lying and manipulation? No. Well, I would say that, wouldn't I? But the Guardian is not a paper that makes things up. We have an editorial code of conduct which you can view on our website, and we correct errors promptly because of the existence of our readers' editor, an ombudsman for our journalism.

3/ Did the Guardian take the "craziest" things for the interview? I gave Dorian no instruction on what to write, confident that a writer of his trustworthiness and diligence would deliver the best possible piece. I had agreed to a list of subjects that Prince would and would not talk about beforehand, but Prince's management – astonishingly – did not send anyone in to babysit Prince during the interview (which, sadly, is standard practice in big star interviews) to make sure he kept to the point. He did not keep to the point. That is the responsibility of Prince and his management: it is not for an interviewer to tell him he's not meant to talk about something. We didn't take the craziest things, we took the most interesting things. That's what newspapers do and always have done and always will. Everything Prince said to us was on the record.

I am happy to answer any points to which I can give an answer.

[Edited 6/30/11 3:16am]

thisisit said:

HatrinaHaterwitz said:

By now, shouldn't he ALSO KNOW...how to protect himself from that?

not necessarily. he may also have been around long enough and weathered enough of these kinds of storms to realise that none of them actually matter.

some people enjoy it when others think they're crazy, and all this attention gets generated. they might be concerned for a moment or two, then they laugh and move on.

apart from that it's not really his fault if the paper gets it wrong or misinterprets.

thats like saying its a woman's fault if she gets raped cuz she was wearing a mini-skirt.

if a publication had any true journalistic integrity they'd refuse to do interviews with people who wont allow a recording.

you take the word sycophant to new levels! prince could say he enjoys raping guinea pigs and you'd still defend his right to live his life how he wants.

MHann said:

Hi,

I'm Michael Hann, the editor of the Guardian's Film&Music section – been waiting five days since registering to be able to post.

The main point – about the perils of translating and retranslating – was made on Dr Funkenberry's board. The second part of my post there looks a bit odd at the top of this thread, and I see some people upthread are querying it. It was, specifically, a response to someone on the other board who suggested the Guardian had deliberately taken the agenda of another board, presumably this one.No insult to the members of this board was intended when I said the Guardian's editorial line is not taken from messageboards. For the record, I am not suggesting Le Parisien's interview is necessarily inaccurate; I suspect most of the differences will have come from the translation back into English.

Some general points:

1/ Did the Guardian make a sensation of the interview? Well, yes: but only because Prince said sensational things. Had he not ventured, of his own free will, on to controversial subjects, then there would have been no sensation.

2/ Is the Guardian prone to lying and manipulation? No. Well, I would say that, wouldn't I? But the Guardian is not a paper that makes things up. We have an editorial code of conduct which you can view on our website, and we correct errors promptly because of the existence of our readers' editor, an ombudsman for our journalism.

3/ Did the Guardian take the "craziest" things for the interview? I gave Dorian no instruction on what to write, confident that a writer of his trustworthiness and diligence would deliver the best possible piece. I had agreed to a list of subjects that Prince would and would not talk about beforehand, but Prince's management – astonishingly – did not send anyone in to babysit Prince during the interview (which, sadly, is standard practice in big star interviews) to make sure he kept to the point. He did not keep to the point. That is the responsibility of Prince and his management: it is not for an interviewer to tell him he's not meant to talk about something. We didn't take the craziest things, we took the most interesting things. That's what newspapers do and always have done and always people. Everything Prince said to us was on the record.

I am happy to answer any points to which I can give an answer.

your transparency is much appreciated, thanks!

Thanks for your repsonse Michael.

MHann said:

1/ Did the Guardian make a sensation of the interview? Well, yes: but only because Prince said sensational things. Had he not ventured, of his own free will, on to controversial subjects, then there would have been no sensation.

Hello,

"The Guardian" could have chosen any number of headlines to run with, including the content of your preview.

You may well be aware that we live in a society that teaches "Don't get raped" instead of "Don't rape".

Do you subscribe to that view?

Because that is precisely what you are suggesting by blaming Prince for your sensationalistic choices.

That you would treat a man of that caliber with so little care as to milk the most sensitive comment he supposedly made utterly baffles me.

With due respect Michael, thank you for allowing me to take your silliest comment and sensationalize it.

thisisit said:

MHann said:

1/ Did the Guardian make a sensation of the interview? Well, yes: but only because Prince said sensational things. Had he not ventured, of his own free will, on to controversial subjects, then there would have been no sensation.

Hello,

"The Guardian" could have chosen any number of headlines to run with, including the content of your preview.

You may well be aware that we live in a society that teaches "Don't get raped" instead of "Don't rape".

Do you subscribe to that view?

Because that is precisely what you are suggesting by blaming Prince for your sensationalistic choices.

That you would treat a man of that caliber with so little care as to milk the most sensitive comment he supposedly made utterly baffles me.

With due respect Michael, thank you for allowing me to take your silliest comment and sensationalize it.

The headline accurately reflected what he said. It is perfectly legitimate. It did not twist his words in any way. And it was the most newsworthy line. I have no regrets at all about it. It is not our job to police what Prince says.

Your comparison of our accurately reporting his words to rape is, I'm afraid, offensive and wrong.

MHann said:

thisisit said:

Hello,

[insert standard thisisit mumbo-jumbo]

The headline accurately reflected what he said. It is perfectly legitimate. It did not twist his words in any way. And it was the most newsworthy line. I have no regrets at all about it. It is not our job to police what Prince says.

Your comparison of our accurately reporting his words to rape is, I'm afraid, offensive and wrong.

Prince should have known better. But I suspect he lives in too much of a fantasy land to do so...

MHann said:

The headline accurately reflected what he said. It is perfectly legitimate. It did not twist his words in any way. And it was the most newsworthy line. I have no regrets at all about it. It is not our job to police what Prince says.

Your comparison of our accurately reporting his words to rape is, I'm afraid, offensive and wrong.

Then we have something in common Michael, because that is precisely how many of us feel about you reducing a human being to a shock-worthy headline.

My reference to rape is precisely what is called for, because that is what sensationalism is, and yet you do not like it. In fact you think it is offensive and wrong.

Well I agree Michael, sensationalism can very quickly tip into all kinds of offensive and wrong, cant it.

Not really an excuse from the Guardian is it. Sorry we misrepresentated the story, our translation got it wrong and we could not write what was said down quick enough or correctly. Who's fault is that?

thisisit said:

MHann said:

The headline accurately reflected what he said. It is perfectly legitimate. It did not twist his words in any way. And it was the most newsworthy line. I have no regrets at all about it. It is not our job to police what Prince says.

Your comparison of our accurately reporting his words to rape is, I'm afraid, offensive and wrong.

Then we have something in common Michael, because that is precisely how many of us feel about you reducing a human being to a shock-worthy headline.

My reference to rape is precisely what is called for, because that is what sensationalism is, and yet you do not like it. In fact you think it is offensive and wrong.

Well I agree Michael, sensationalism can very quickly tip into all kinds of offensive and wrong, cant it.

You misunderstand: what you say is offensive to rape victims, who might very well feel their ordeal is substantially worse than that suffered by someone who sits in an expensive restaurant talking to journalists, then finds his words accurately reported.

No it's not. It more like putting "Prince said this and that" in the headline cuz that's what he did.

thisisit said:

You may well be aware that we live in a society that teaches "Don't get raped" instead of "Don't rape".

You need to stop that analogy. It's not just an awkwardly bad analogy, it's also showing a gross lack of perspective AND it's offensive to rape victims when you belittle their issue with SUCH a banal thing.

You're free to think that there's a conspiracy operating and Prince said: "Kittens tails and puppy dog breath" and the Guardian printed: "Prince says all must die!" .. but it is not excatly convincing anybody. It happened. Deal with it.

[Edited 6/30/11 3:48am]

MHann said:

You misunderstand: what you say is offensive to rape victims, who might very well feel their ordeal is substantially worse than that suffered by someone who sits in an expensive restaurant talking to journalists, then finds his words accurately reported.

It's a metaphor Michael. "To take advantage of someone for self-gain" (and that's putting it mildly.)

Maybe you think it ethical, and yet it is not.

Please sleep well tonight knowing you have something to think about.

GoldiesParade said:

Not really an excuse from the Guardian is it. Sorry we misrepresentated the story, our translation got it wrong and we could not write what was said down quick enough or correctly. Who's fault is that?

We didn't misrepresent the story; our interview was in English, so there was no translation. I'm not sure what your point is.

Thanks very much for your responses, Michael. I'm really pleased that you've taken the time to explain some of the background of this story to us here.

However, please don't feel you have to do any more. A lot of people on this board are simply FUCKING NUTS, who will never let it go. They won't accept even the slightest criticism - or what they, in their paranoia, see as a criticism - of Prince.

Believe me, thisisit is pretty normal by the standards of this board. Just wait until someone starts claiming that Prince called them, or came to them in a fucking spectral visit, or whatever.

But the sane ones here thank you.