Huxley said:

But the sane ones here thank you.

+ 1

MHann said:

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.

This: "Inevitably with two people taking longhand notes (one of whom is doing an interview in his second language) there will be differences." Is an excuse to explain one of the printed interviews did not represent the correct views given. This is my point.

[Edited 6/30/11 4:27am]

This proves the Guardian just wrote what Prince said, there was no recording and the newspaper does not have a responsibility to fliter Prince's best comments and ignore the bad ones, the responsibility lies in Prince's hands to watch what he says to the interviewers especially with no recording/writing equipment.

But that said the otherside of it, the journalist only heard it vocally, and it's exactly that only vocally...We know that people hear different things listening to the same conversation. So Dorian could of heard what she wanted to hear, missed out bits and sensationalised some of it.

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.

What about Prince reducing women under fundamentalist dictatorships to so much small change for a screwed up vision on political "order"?

[Edited 6/30/11 4:38am]

catpark said:

This proves the Guardian just wrote what Prince said, there was no recording and the newspaper does not have a responsibility to fliter Prince's best comments and ignore the bad ones, the responsibility lies in Prince's hands to watch what he says to the interviewers especially with no recording/writing equipment.

But that said the otherside of it, the journalist only heard it vocally, and it's exactly that only vocally...We know that people hear different things listening to the same conversation. So Dorian could of heard what she wanted to hear, missed out bits and sensationalised some of it.

But I think, to be fair, that if we are to ctitique The Guardian, how ever mildly, it would be unbalanced not to consider this:

Le Parisien has been known to be sensational, inaccurate and populistic. They've largely rebuild their image, but the stain remains for many.

In Franch the subject of Burqas are highly controversial, leading to the question:

Did the French edition leave something *out* of the article, because of editorial pressure to not venture into a controversial subject in an article about a pop singer?

To me it seems more likely, that Le Parisien left things on the cutting room floor, by choice, to shape the article to be about what's interesting: Music. Only the part about Burqas, which adresses French isssues and law directly, where quoted; while The Guardian ran with the full thing. It's just like movie editing: Just because it's not in the film, doesn't mean it wasn't shot.

It's weird to read this thread and see especially "thisisit" unfold what seems to be ideas of a press that is so corrupt and money greedy, that is: whenever it's conviniently in sync with already established opinionss, but at the same time choose another newspaper, Le Parisien, to be "True", because that fits better with the idea of the idol. Why does Le Parisien get a pass? Why is THAT not also corrupt and unethical?

Anyway. I'm through with this thing. He said it, he needs to be challenged on his stone age opinion. No amount of good music can excuse fascist opinions. If Mozart had been a racist, he would still have been an arsehole.

Prince is still in his tin can somewhere, outthere.

And the world keeps spinning, far far underneath him.

[Edited 6/30/11 5:03am]

How annoying all this has become.

Attacks on Prince, attacks on each other,

attacks and then some more attacks.....

Oh will this ever stop.

All this fighting, because of a "Sensational" seeking article in The Guardian....

I am mainly into Prince because of the MUSIC, and mainly the music on Warner: 1978 to 1995,

I have never been into Prince because I thought his views were cool, on the world and people.

He is weird alright, but after all this is nothing new.

I wish this fighting would stop now, all those nasty comments.....

Peace "☮"........

and be (a little) "wild".......................

[Edited 6/30/11 5:13am]

MHann said:

wow. All this blaming cause Prince can be a wanker. We all know it, but look to blame EVERY other thing than him. If he wants people to quote him properly then they should get to record him. HE can make a recording to and PROVE it if he feels like he was wronged. Or he can simply stop talking to press and concentrate on music... but then he loses the spotlight. You can't have it both ways. Especially when it is clear in EITHER case that he is kinda ignorant around some subjects and he should read up a bit more before talking about them. The splitting hairs between papers is just another form of fan self deception. The common thread is a guy who isn't always going to say what you want and has a habit of saying dopey stuff. Live with it or don't.

See what a big mess this has turned into? That's why I said on the other thread that Prince (and other celebrities) need to stop and *THINK* about what they say before they say it! It's a shame that Prince is in the news right now for something that has absolutely nothing to do with his music.His absurd comments are being reported everywhere.

SoulAlive said:

See what a big mess this has turned into? That's why I said on the other thread that Prince (and other celebrities) need to stop and *THINK* about what they say before they say it! It's a shame that Prince is in the news right now for something that has absolutely nothing to do with his music.His absurd comments are being reported everywhere.

Three words for this: PUBLIC RELATIONS DISASTER. Thanks to the Guardian folks for setting the record straight by the way.

Cravens said:

catpark said:

This proves the Guardian just wrote what Prince said, there was no recording and the newspaper does not have a responsibility to fliter Prince's best comments and ignore the bad ones, the responsibility lies in Prince's hands to watch what he says to the interviewers especially with no recording/writing equipment.

But that said the otherside of it, the journalist only heard it vocally, and it's exactly that only vocally...We know that people hear different things listening to the same conversation. So Dorian could of heard what she wanted to hear, missed out bits and sensationalised some of it.

But I think, to be fair, that if we are to ctitique The Guardian, how ever mildly, it would be unbalanced not to consider this:

Le Parisien has been known to be sensational, inaccurate and populistic. They've largely rebuild their image, but the stain remains for many.

In Franch the subject of Burqas are highly controversial, leading to the question:

Did the French edition leave something *out* of the article, because of editorial pressure to not venture into a controversial subject in an article about a pop singer?

To me it seems more likely, that Le Parisien left things on the cutting room floor, by choice, to shape the article to be about what's interesting: Music. Only the part about Burqas, which adresses French isssues and law directly, where quoted; while The Guardian ran with the full thing. It's just like movie editing: Just because it's not in the film, doesn't mean it wasn't shot.

It's weird to read this thread and see especially "thisisit" unfold what seems to be ideas of a press that is so corrupt and money greedy, that is: whenever it's conviniently in sync with already established opinionss, but at the same time choose another newspaper, Le Parisien, to be "True", because that fits better with the idea of the idol. Why does Le Parisien get a pass? Why is THAT not also corrupt and unethical?

Anyway. I'm through with this thing. He said it, he needs to be challenged on his stone age opinion. No amount of good music can excuse fascist opinions. If Mozart had been a racist, he would still have been an arsehole.

Prince is still in his tin can somewhere, outthere.

And the world keeps spinning, far far underneath him.

[Edited 6/30/11 5:03am]

Enough of the back and forth blame... both the Guardian (organ harvesting anyone?) & Le Parisien have been called out for sensationalism and factual errors. Its goes with the game.

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 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]

My only question is with this quote "Prince said: "It's fun being in Islamic countries, to know there's only one religion. There's order. You wear a burqa. There's no choice. People are happy with that." When asked about the fate of those unhappy with having no choice, he replied: "There are people who are unhappy with everything. There's a dark side to everything."

Does that quote as its written make sense to you? You leave out the portion about returning to Morocco, so already the statement appears without context... But knowing that thats where the statement comes from it becomes completely contradictory because there is ZERO obligation to wear the hijab in countries like Morocco, and MOST women don't wear it. So, is this a case where Prince is simply talking off the top of his head and makes an infactual claim or is this quote real? Because it doesn't add up.

Thanks

lezama said:

So, is this a case where Prince is simply talking off the top of his head

Simply out of his bottom

I know you all think that there's a conspiracy to destroy Prince, but the Guardian is one of the top newspapers in the world with a very good history. They have no reason to lie about Prince, not like he is some world leader or something.

Take a breath. He's human.

If it were not shockingly clear, there are people in this thread defending Prince no matter what any source says (the horse's mouth or not) and the less attention you give these freaks the better.

I appreciate The Guardian's members defending their stances and their integrity. I wish I could read more about the backstage aspect of the interview. However, not at the expense of the publication's professionalism. Therefore, its my opinion that no more energy should be spent trying to use logic and reason with someone who is going to defend their idol behind a sinister grin all the while espousing how troubled the other person is. It's a cyclic argument and while it might have trollish sounds and is possibly quite trollish, being a troll implies some sort of higher thought processes at work. Unfortunately, this is not the case and the people here defending Prince are simply delusional. Rather than analyze or critique his words, explore WHY he would say such a thing, or any other "discussion" related event, they choose to attempt to tear down the publication in retaliatory and insulting ways.

PS. There is no point in which the term 'rape' is acceptable to use in your euphemisms. If you are unclear about the nature of rape or you somehow are numb to the violence of rape, then maybe you should spend some time in a support group dealing with rape. If you aren't a complete asshole, you'll change your tune.

lezama said:

Enough of the back and forth blame... both the Guardian (organ harvesting anyone?) & Le Parisien have been called out for sensationalism and factual errors. Its goes with the game.

yes, and while it behooves some to accept this, it is definitely the case.

for those who are unfamiliar with the many uses of the word 'rape', here is a dictionary:

http://www.bennetyee.org/...thod=exact

sensationalism is a form of rape.

expecting prince to take responsibility for what he supposedly said while at the same time allowing Michael Hann to pass the buck is merely another instance where people remain biased against prince.

if anyone here would like to discuss this in a manner which does not involve disrespect and insult, i'd be more than happy to participate.

Spinlight said:

If it were not shockingly clear, there are people in this thread defending Prince no matter what any source says (the horse's mouth or not) and the less attention you give these freaks the better.

I appreciate The Guardian's members defending their stances and their integrity. I wish I could read more about the backstage aspect of the interview. However, not at the expense of the publication's professionalism. Therefore, its my opinion that no more energy should be spent trying to use logic and reason with someone who is going to defend their idol behind a sinister grin all the while espousing how troubled the other person is. It's a cyclic argument and while it might have trollish sounds and is possibly quite trollish, being a troll implies some sort of higher thought processes at work. Unfortunately, this is not the case and the people here defending Prince are simply delusional. Rather than analyze or critique his words, explore WHY he would say such a thing, or any other "discussion" related event, they choose to attempt to tear down the publication in retaliatory and insulting ways.

PS. There is no point in which the term 'rape' is acceptable to use in your euphemisms. If you are unclear about the nature of rape or you somehow are numb to the violence of rape, then maybe you should spend some time in a support group dealing with rape. If you aren't a complete asshole, you'll change your tune.

if you're including my raping guinea pigs quote then you're pushing political correctness too far. thisisit's usage i will agree was disgusting as it was a direct comparison to a totally unrelated theme and was ignorant and incendiary. the context i used the word was ridiculous and deliberately facetious so as to divest it of any meaning. i can assure you i'm not an arsehole my friend.

langebleu said:

lezama said:

So, is this a case where Prince is simply talking off the top of his head

Simply out of his bottom

Hey, I wouldn't doubt it. I know people that when they're nervous they say all sorts of things that dont make sense or that they wouldnt say if they sat and thought about it for a while... but I work in law so I have a bad habit of being hypermeticulous in the analyzing of small details and logical and factural errors. Its my little OCD.

thisisit said:

sensationalism is a form of rape.

Much more accurate and relevant to the discussion though, is the somewhat ironic fact that such a manipulative and misleading use of the word rape is a form of sensationalism.

Do the profession a much-needed favour and don't ever consider a career in journalism.

Chiquetet said:

thisisit said:

sensationalism is a form of rape.

Much more accurate and relevant to the discussion though, is the somewhat ironic fact that such a manipulative and misleading use of the word rape is a form of sensationalism.

Do the profession a much-needed favour and don't ever consider a career in journalism.

sensationalism is a form of rape. check the dictionary. the word rape is a legitimate description of sensationalism.

do yourself a favor and dont ever consider a career presuming to rape the logic out of this discussion.

the editor openly admitted to sensationalizing the piece.

feel free to get back to me when you, and others here, fully understand the meaning of the word rape, and not just what you selectively choose it to mean.

anybody still reading the comments thread over there? woweee! fucking nutcases.

thisisit said:

sensationalism is a form of rape. check the dictionary. the word rape is a legitimate description of sensationalism.

do yourself a favor and dont ever consider a career presuming to rape the logic out of this discussion.

the editor openly admitted to sensationalizing the piece.

feel free to get back to me when you, and others here, fully understand the meaning of the word rape, and not just what you selectively choose it to mean.

Sigh. Thanks for the valuable reminder about something I too often forget around here.

errant said:

anybody still reading the comments thread over there? woweee! fucking nutcases.

I haven't, but there's enough nutcases in this thread to tell you most of them are probably the same ones.

Obviously it's come under the radar of the Guardian staff as they have posted both here and Dr.Funkenberry - which IMO, they really didn't have to - Prince could be caught on camera having sex with a baby and then blowing it's brains out and these loons would still say he was innocent.

Shoot the messenger indeed!

Chiquetet said:

Sigh. Thanks for the valuable reminder about something I too often forget around here.

and what would that be? manners and respect? you and Michael Hann have something in common then.

Apparently he doesnt like sensationalism when the tables are turned.

It's interesting how people react when the same thing is done to them.

Prince's 'interview' ?: people have no boundaries. think they can do and say whatever they like

including disrespecting a man who has achieved more in his life than any editor, or anyone on these boards.

MHann said:

thisisit said:

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.

It's funny how when Michael Hann gives a counteract argument, like here, it seems to go 'unnoticed' ... Wonder what that's all about.....

[Edited 7/1/11 2:21am]

thisisit said:

yes, and while it behooves some to accept this, it is definitely the case.

for those who are unfamiliar with the many uses of the word 'rape', here is a dictionary:

http://www.bennetyee.org/...thod=exact

sensationalism is a form of rape.

expecting prince to take responsibility for what he supposedly said while at the same time allowing Michael Hann to pass the buck is merely another instance where people remain biased against prince.

if anyone here would like to discuss this in a manner which does not involve disrespect and insult, i'd be more than happy to participate.

Oh for fucks sake.

Not ONE entry has "sensationalism" in it. Not O-N-E.

You obviously need to learn how to read a dictionary, because while it's cool to make links to dictionaries, maybe read what you link to, okay?

But I think Spinlight is right. In the future I'll just post:

thisisit said:

if anyone here would like to discuss this in a manner which does not involve disrespect and insult, i'd be more than happy to participate.

But when people DO participate in a discussion with you in a respectful manner, and put forward counteracting arguments, you just ignore them!!!!!

So what's the point?? You hear what you want to hear.

errant said:

anybody still reading the comments thread over there? woweee! fucking nutcases.

Prince Extremists. We live in a scary, scary world.

thisisit said:

lezama said:

Enough of the back and forth blame... both the Guardian (organ harvesting anyone?) & Le Parisien have been called out for sensationalism and factual errors. Its goes with the game.

yes, and while it behooves some to accept this, it is definitely the case.

for those who are unfamiliar with the many uses of the word 'rape', here is a dictionary:

http://www.bennetyee.org/...thod=exact

sensationalism is a form of rape.

expecting prince to take responsibility for what he supposedly said while at the same time allowing Michael Hann to pass the buck is merely another instance where people remain biased against prince.

if anyone here would like to discuss this in a manner which does not involve disrespect and insult, i'd be more than happy to participate.

Nobody has even remotely agreed with your use of the word, so that should be an indication of how seriously your attempts at justifying the use of the word should be taken. I don't see anything in that link that would make it acceptable for you to use that word in this case.

The fact that you've used this expression improperly to make a case against Hahn is what's most unacceptable about your behaviour.

The noun "rape" refers primarily to a forced act of intercourse (or in some other cases other forms of forced sexual stimulation). This is what the word means to most people and its use is bound to provoke very strong reactions. You are clearly trying to exploit that aspect by using the word outside of its proper context. While the word itself is used metaphorically sometimes in poems, song lyrics or political propaganda those are secondary meanings for the word and cannot be used for argumentation in a similar way. You are responsible for the results of your exaggeration yourself and should be criticized for it. Just because you've intended something to be taken "metaphorically" doesn't allow you to escape that responsibility.

For that matter, your use of the word and successive efforts at trying to justify its use do not indicate that you've intended to use it only metaphorically. In the above quote you make the claim that "sensationalism is a form of rape", which is not how metaphorical expressions can be used. For example, if the word "rain" is used metaphorically in a poem to refer to a period of sadness the writer is undergoing it doesn't follow that sadness is "a form of" of rain or that rain is "a form of" sadness. This type of a "[x] is one type of a [y]" where [x] refers to something directly and [y] refers to something indirectly via a metaphor is clearly an argumentative fallacy. I hope you are able to see that and won't try to back up your use of the word with any more bullshit.

Now, I don't entirely disagree that the way the piece is written and what they've used as the headlines wouldn't have aspects of sensationalism as well. If what Prince is quoted to say is what he really said then he probably deserves that though. Sometimes he just doesn't seem to be able to express himself without being controversial. I personally believe it's just something that he has done so long that he cannot entirely get rid of it either. He also seems to be really into the thought of "surrendering yourself to God's wll", which I believe is what he was getting at with the burkha comment. It's still a stupid and a naive thing to say, but he seems to have gotten his kicks out of that type of thoughts at least since Lovesexy.

Sorry for the long reply, but when people spread confusion around it should be attempted to be tackled somehow.

It's very easy to translate something wrong, changing the whole meaning of the quote.

For example, if I say "I slept on the floor" vs. "I slept on the ground". Each phrase conjurs an entirely different image.

This is exactly what intrigued Prince in the 90s with the whole Stauros thing . . . technically that does mean stake or pole, but in the context of Christ is means cross. He jumped on that as 100% FACT. Whatever your beliefs on divinity or the resurrection, I highly doubt someone fabricated the "cross" idea, especially when prisoners were routinely crucified long before Christ.

Again, it's one of those translation breakdowns.