Morrissey: "I'm not a racist"

Morrissey has issued a statement denying everything:

On Friday of last week I issued writs against the NME (New Musical Express) and its editor Conor McNicholas as I believe they have deliberately tried to characterise me as a racist in a recent interview I gave them in order to boost their dwindling circulation.

Although, of course, McNicholas stressed in the paper that they didn't think he was "a racist", but then this is an argument where close attention to detail should be important, but just isn't happening.

Take, for example, the constant conflating on all sides of "a racist person" - someone whose political beliefs have an element built on the supposed superiority of some races, and "something being racist" - a thought or an action which has been dictated by an awareness of racial difference rather than because the architect of that action is "a racist." Nobody much believes that Morrissey is a racist, but much of his thought on immigration is racist. It's very easy for Morrissey to stand up and say "I'm not a racist" - but that, really, isn't the point:

I abhor racism and oppression or cruelty of any kind and will not let this pass without being absolutely clear and emphatic with regard to what my position is.

Racism is beyond common sense and I believe it has no place in our society.

Which is clear, and unequivocal, and heartfelt.

Mozzer suggests he's being stitched up because he turned down the chance to headline an NME gig:

To anyone who has shown or felt any interest in my music in recent times, you know my feelings on the subject and I am writing this to apologize unreservedly for granting an interview to the NME. I had no reason whatsoever to assume that they could be anything other than devious, truculent and unreliable. In the event, they have proven to be all three.

The NME have, in the past, offered me their "Godlike Genius Award" and I had politely refused. With the Tim Jonze interview, the Award was offered once again, this time with the added request that I headline their forthcoming awards concert at the O2 Arena, and once again I declined it. This is nothing personal against the NME, although the distressing article would suggest the editor took it as such.

That's quite a bold claim: that Conor McNicholas has been motivated purely by malice.

Although quite how McNicholas' malice would lead Morrissey to start talking about immigration isn't clear.

My own view is that award ceremonies in pop music are dreadful to witness and are simply a way of the industry warning the artist "see how much you need us" - and, yes, the "new" NME is very much integrated into the industry, whereas, deep in the magazine's empirical history, the New Musical Express was a propelling force that answered to no one. It led the way by the quality of its writers - Paul Morley, Julie Burchill, Paul du Noyer, Charles Shaar Murray, Nick Kent, Ian Penman, Miles - who would write more words than the articles demanded, and whose views saved some of us, and who pulled us all away from the electrifying boredom of everything and anything that represented the industry. As a consequence the chanting believers of the NME could not bear to miss a single issue; the torrential fluency of its writers left almost no space between words, and the NME became a culture in itself, whereas Melody Maker or Sounds just didn't. Into the 90s, the NME's discernment and polish became faded nobility, and there it died - but better dead than worn away. The wit imitated by the 90s understudies of Morley and Burchill assumed nastiness to be greatness, and were thus rewarded. But nastiness isn't wit and no writers from the 90s NME survive. Even with sarcasm, irony and innuendo there is an art, of sorts. Now deep in the bosom of time, it is the greatness of the NME's history on which the "new" NME assumes its relevance.

We're not entirely sure why Morrissey is so keen to share the history of the NME, and I'm not sure its entirely accurate. Unless Morrissey is surprised that a magazine no longer features writers from fifteen or so years ago, he seems to be claiming that the people who wrote for the NME in the 90s have vanished from the face of the culture: Andrew Collins, Stuart Maconie, Danny Kelly? Gavin Martin was in the Mirror talking about Cerys Matthews only yesterday. Paolo Hewitt is still knocking out two or three Paul Weller books every year.

It is on the backs of writers such as Morley, Burchill, Kent and Shaar Murray that the "new" NME hitches its mule-cart, assuming equal relevance. But the stalled views of the "new" NME sag, and readers have been driven away by a magazine with no insides. The narrow cast of repeated subjects sets off the agony, a mesmerizing mess of very brief and dispassionate articles unable to make thought evolve; a marooned editor who holds the divine right to censor any views that clash with his own.

Is it really the case that Burchill and Kent are so important to the current NME? Sure, the magazine trades on the name and brand which those writers helped to build up - but look at the NME, with its Frank Gallows cool lists: do you really think it is selling itself to an audience who revere Charles Shaar Murray, Morrissey?

The editorial treatment given to my present interview with the "new" NME is the latest variation on an old theme, but like a pre-dawn rampage, the effects of the interview have been meticulously considered with obvious intentions. It is true that the magazine is ailing badly in the market place, but Conor doesn't understand how the relentless stream of "cheers mate, got pissed last night, ha ha" interviews that clutter every single issue of the "new" NME are simply not interesting to those of us who have no trouble standing upright. Strangely enough, my own name is the only one featured in the "new" NME that links their present with the NME's distant past, therefore a Morrissey interview is an ideal opportunity with which to play the editorial naughtiness game.

Really, Morrissey? You're the only 'old' NME name who gets covered in the current paper? What about Ian Brown? What about Jarvis? What about Shaun Ryder? The eye-wateringly awful 'get the Sex Pistols to number one' campaign of a couple of months back?

This, regrettably, is what has taken place with this most recent interview, which, it need hardly be said, bears no relation in print to the fleshly conversation that took place.

'Fleshy conversation' and 'editorial naughtiness' - it's like he's morphed into an ITV impressionist doing Stephen Fry.

I do not mean to be rude to Tim Jonze, but when I first caught sight of him I assumed that someone had brought their child along to the interview. The runny nose told the whole story.

Jonze is lucky he doesn't mean to be rude. God alone knows what he'd have got then.

Conor had assured that Tim was their best writer. Talking behind his hands in an endless fidget, Tim accepted every answer I gave him with a schoolgirl giggle, and repeatedly asked me if I was shocked at how little he actually knew about music. I told him that, yes, I was shocked. It was difficult for me to believe that the best writer from the "new" NME had never heard of the song 'Drive-in Saturday'; I explained that it was by David Bowie, and Tim replied "Oh, I don't know anything about David Bowie." I wondered how it could be so - how the quality of music journalism in England could have fallen so low that the prime "new" NME writer knew nothing of David Bowie, an artist to whom most relevant British artists are indebted, and one who single-handedly changed British culture - musically and otherwise.

It is, indeed, depressing and surprising to hear Jonze didn't know the song - although we suspect that claims to not know "anything" about Bowie might have been hyperbolic.

Tim's line of questioning advanced with: "What about politics, then ... the state of the world?" - which, I was forced to assume, was a well-thought-out question. It was from here that the issue of immigration - but not racism - arose.

Fascinatingly, while taking quite some time to detail the David Bowie conversation, Morrissey skates over who first brought up the topic of immigration. Did Jonze lead him down the street, or did Mozzer happily volunteer the observations?

He doesn't say, instead deciding to highlight Jonze's poor grasp of London geography:

Me: If you walk down Knightsbridge you'll be hard-pressed to hear anyone speaking English.

Tim: I don't think that's true. You're beginning to sound like my parents.

Me: Well, when did you last walk down Knightsbridge?

Tim: Ummm....
Knightsbridge ....is that where Harrods is?

So, Tim was prepared to attack and argue the point without even being clear about where Knightsbridge actually is! The "new" NME strikes again. Oh dear, I thought, not again.

This is a splendid piece of misdirection. Again, it's embarrassing for Jonze to apparently not be aware where Knightsbridge is, but it's hardly important - the NME story wasn't built on the question of Morrissey suggesting that a particular London postcode had been lost; that Jonze isn't familiar with the area isn't the actual point.

I chose to mention Knightsbridge because it had always struck me as one of the most stiffly British spots in London.

Morrissey, presumably, isn't that familiar with the area either, then: given the presence of the Egyptian-owned Harrods, a number of tourist attractions and a slew of foreign embassies, surely Knightsbridge is anything but?

Morrissey then details the extent of what he says was a stitch-up:

When my comments are printed in the "new" NME they are butchered, re-designed, re-ordered, chopped, snipped and split in order to make me seem racist and unreasonable. Tim had told me about his friend who did not like the 1988 song Bengali In Platforms because the friend had thought the song attacked him on a personal level. I explained to Tim that the song was not about his friend. In print, the "new" NME do not explain this, but attempt to multiply the horror of Tim's friend by attributing "these people" and "those people" quotes to me - terms I would never use, but are useful to the "new" NME in their Morrissey-is-racist campaign because these terms are only used by people who are cold and indifferent and Thatcherite. 

All of the people I spoke to Tim about in the interview who are heroes to me and who are Middle-Eastern or of other ethnic backgrounds were of no interest to either Tim or Conor. Clearly, Tim had been briefed and his agenda was to cook up a sensational story that would give life to the "new" NME as a must-read national if not global shock-horror story. Recalling how Tim asked me to sign some CD covers, I do not blame him entirely. If Conor can provoke bureaucratic outrage with this Morrissey interview, then he can whip up support for his righteous position as the morally-bound and armoured editor of his protected readership - even though, by re-modelling my interview into a multiple horror, Conor has accidentally exposed himself as deceitful, malicious, intolerant and Morrissey-ist - all the ist's and ism's that he claims to oppose. Uniquely deprived of wisdom, Conor would be repulsed by my vast collection of World Cinema films, by my adoration of James Baldwin, my love of Middle-Eastern tunings, Kazem al-Saher, Lior Ashkenazi, Maya Angelou, Toni Morrison, and he would be repulsed to recall a quote as printed in his magazine in or around August of this year wherein I said that my ambition was to play concerts in Iran.

Once again: owning a collection of world cinema DVDs doesn't mean your veiws on immigration aren't racist, and running over to the bookcase to show you can't be bad because you like Toni Morrison books isn't exactly engaging with the question, either.

And - since Morrissey claims to be so intolerant of people twisting and turning the truth - how come he just assumes that McNicholas would be "repulsed" by his world cinema films? And if so, why did Conor grant him space to mention them in the disputed piece?

What does a desire to play in Iran have to do with whether you believe people from other countries, other cultures have any place in the UK?

And, while we know that it was intended as a joke (a rare glimpse of a well-humoured man who has long since disappeared), is it really wise for Morrissey to suggest that he's a victim of Morrisseyist forces? To compare having an interview printed with a negative spin to being the victim of racism? At the very least, it suggests a lack of empathy and self-importance.

My heart sank as Tim Jonze let slip the tell-all editorial directive behind this interview: "It's Conor's view that Morrissey thinks black people are OK ...but he wouldn't want one living next door to him." It was then that I realized the full extent of the setup, and I felt like Bob Hoskins in the final frame of The Long Good Friday as he sits in the back of the wrong getaway car realizing the extent of the conspiratorial slime that now trapped him.

But then, like Bob Hoskins, you did get into the car of your own volition, Morrissey.

During the interview Tim asked if I would support the "Love Music Hate Racism" campaign that the NME had just written about and my immediate response was a yes as I had shown my support previously by going to one of their first benefit gigs a few years ago and had met some of their organizers as well as having signed their statement. Following the interview I asked my manager to get in touch with the NME and to pledge my further support to the campaign as I wanted there to be no ambiguity on where I stood on the subject. This was done in a clear and direct email to Conor McNicholas on the 5th of November, which went ignored and last week we found out that it had never even been presented to anyone at the campaign as that would obviously not have suited what we now know to be the NME's agenda. I am pleased to say that we have now had direct dialogue with "Love Music Hate Racism" and all of our UK tour advertising in 2008 will carry their logo and we will also be providing space in the venues for them to voice and spread their important message, which I endorse.

This, presumably, explains LMHR's sudden yanking of the web posting condemning Mozzer, then.

Who's to say what you should or shouldn't do? The IPC have appointed Conor as the editor of the "new" NME, and there he remains, ready to drag the IPC into expensive legal battles such as the one they now face with me due to Conor's personal need to misstate, misreport, misquote, misinterpret, falsify, and incite the bloodthirsty. Here is proof that the "new" NME will twist and pervert the views of any singer or musician who'd dare step into the interview ring. To such artists, I wish them well, but I would advise you to bring your lawyer along to the interview.

My own place, now and forevermore, shall not be with the "new" NME - and how wrong my face even looks on its
 cover. Of this, I am eternally grateful.

Impassioned stuff. What's missing, though, is any explanation of what he actually said. Yes, the interview may have been written to show you in a terrible light; yes, your interviewer might not have known about Bowie or Knightsbridge - he may even have had a runny nose.

But you don't deny your comments about how "the gates are flooded" or that "the British identity has disapperared" following an "influx". You don't seek to explain what you meant; to contextualise your words. Given an unfettered platform, you simply ignore the part of the interview which genuinely upset and disappointed people.

A masterpiece of misdirection. You have proved that you're not a racist - something you've not been accused of. You have done nothing to engage with the claims that your views on immigration and 'British identity' have racist undertones, though. The support for Love Music Hate Racism is welcome, but if you're going to start throwing firecrackers about immigration around, you should at least have the guts to continue the discussion when challenged.