Somewhat painful Bruce Johnston interview in a Dutch magazine

[Chocolate Shake Man]

They, the jounalists, are asking the questions. He should have asked the question if he really wanted to know, not print something that was said off the record. Most journalists today take the easy way out. It is sloppy, lazy, and sneaky work.

So the journalist should have asked whether or not Bruce thought he was a socialist dick on the off-chance (or, apparently, on-chance) that Bruce would say yes? The ethical thing for a journalist to do is to find some way of tricking the subject into saying something that they would otherwise not reveal unless they thought the journalist wasn't listening?

Taken to the extreme, if a journalist is having an interview with some kind of anti-government nut who after he thinks he's off the phone talks to an associate about blowing up some local Federal building, should the journalist just ignore it because it was "off the record"?

[drbeachboy]

This whole exercise is not about whether Bruce is right or wrong in his thinking, but rather was the jounalist being unethical or at the least, displaying lazy journalism in printing something that was not part of the original interview, because Bruce hurt his feelings and ego.

So I assume when the mic picked up President Obama talking to Russian President Dmitry Medvedev about "his next term" you stuck up for him because these comments were meant to conveyed in a private, not public manner. Or is this instance different because President Obama is a "liberal" and therefore you don't want to stick up for him?

You didn't mention it before, so how could I say anything  either way? To answer you though, that was wrong in my opinion, as well. What was said was meant to be said in confidence. The broadcasters should have honored that and not release it to the public. There is a real lack of integrity in  journalism today, I am sorry to say.

[Billgoodman]

If Bruce reads this forum, may I remind him that Bluebirds over the Mountain got to #9 and Tears in The Morning to #4 in Holland!
 

[drbeachboy]

They, the jounalists, are asking the questions. He should have asked the question if he really wanted to know, not print something that was said off the record. Most journalists today take the easy way out. It is sloppy, lazy, and sneaky work.

So the journalist should have asked whether or not Bruce thought he was a socialist dick on the off-chance (or, apparently, on-chance) that Bruce would say yes? The ethical thing for a journalist to do is to find some way of tricking the subject into saying something that they would otherwise not reveal unless they thought the journalist wasn't listening?

Taken to the extreme, if a journalist is having an interview with some kind of anti-government nut who after he thinks he's off the phone talks to an associate about blowing up some local Federal building, should the journalist just ignore it because it was "off the record"?

Exactly! The guy was pissed because Bruce called him names. As for your last paragraph, no, you don't broadcast it, but for the general good, you notify police or authorities who can do something to prevent it.

Just a little bit of difference there with blowing people up and calling someone a name. Can you see the difference there?

[Rocker]

If Bruce reads this forum, may I remind him that Bluebirds over the Mountain got to #9 and Tears in The Morning to #4 in Holland!
 

Cool. How high got Brian in Holland....? 

[Chocolate Shake Man]

Exactly! The guy was pissed because Bruce called him names. As for your last paragraph, no, you don't broadcast it, but for the general good, you notify police or authorities who can do something to prevent it.

So then doesn't this really become a question of what is "for the general good" rather than a question of journalistic integrity? Isn't that what really should be up for debate? It seems to me that if in one case a journalist is outright obliged to reveal the things he overheard, then simply the act of revealing overheard conversation obviously does not in and of itself constitute an ethical or moral breach.

Just a little bit of difference there with blowing people up and calling someone a name. Can you see the difference there?

Yes, why else do you think I prefaced the sentence with "Taken to the extreme"? Can you see that both the examples are "off the record", which is how I was comparing them?

[Billgoodman]

If Bruce reads this forum, may I remind him that Bluebirds over the Mountain got to #9 and Tears in The Morning to #4 in Holland!
 

Cool. How high got Brian in Holland....? 

I have no idea, probably very high. I do know that he must have had his most damaging drug experiences in the USA.

[Don Malcolm]

I don't think that it's news to anyone that the Beach Boys have always been at least 135 degrees away from the prevailing "politics" as espoused by the "rock'n'roll universe." Clearly that distance has drifted further as the polarization in the US has increased since the advent of Reagan (let's not forget who championed the boys at a point when it clearly helped them). I think it's safe to say that many of us here (clearly not all!) love the BBs in spite of their politics (or the signals that individuals in the band send out on occasion).

What's primarily at issue here is not politics, however. It's two-facedness. I don't know how to quantify that behavior, but it seems increasingly commonplace today--hardened in place, perhaps, by the escalation of social turmoil and the increasingly rapid changes that barrage all of us. Of the members of the group as presently constituted, Bruce is the one whose true personality seems most at odds with his image. And that's not something new, either: the reporter merely stumbled into a most unusual "moment of revelation."

That said, it must be awfully hard for any of the group members to continue devoting so much of their time to an "endless summer" of publicity and all that goes with it. They don't call it "the frenzy of renown" for nothing. I think we have to excuse Bruce for having those feelings, but it's the nature of his remarks about the way he interacted with the reporter that are so astonishing. If it had happened to one of us, even with our past knowledge of Bruce's tendencies in that direction, I suspect it would have been a jaw-dropping moment.

I honestly don't know what I'd have done if I were the journalist...but I understand the temptation to reveal something that astonishing, as it's rare to have such two-facedness on display in such a pure and unconcentrated form.

Bruce is kind of like one of those old country club ladies who play-act at being pillars of the community but turn around and say nasty things behind other people's backs. It probably stems from some basic insecurity that's developed over the years, a deep sense that he's not really worthy of being where he is. Having come and gone and come back to the band may have heightened this push-pull for him and made it increasingly difficult for him to self-regulate this type of behavior. He's had analogous moments on the Mike & Bruce tours, but the rigors of this reunion are several orders of magnitude greater in intensity.

Let's just hope that no one asks Mike about this incident...he'd probably go on record saying that "something like this would NEVER happen in America"!!!  

[drbeachboy]

Exactly! The guy was pissed because Bruce called him names. As for your last paragraph, no, you don't broadcast it, but for the general good, you notify police or authorities who can do something to prevent it.

So then doesn't this really become a question of what is "for the general good" rather than a question of journalistic integrity? Isn't that what really should be up for debate?

Just a little bit of difference there with blowing people up and calling someone a name. Can you see the difference there?

Yes, why else do you think I prefaced the sentence with "Taken to the extreme"? Can you see that both the examples are "off the record", which is how I was comparing them?

No, you  tell me if printing Bruce's comments were for the general good? How many lives were saved in Holland yersterday by the jounalist printing the non-interview comments? Again, it comes down to integrity and common sense. The fact that you and I constantly argue this stuff reminds me that I sometimes lack good common sense, especially in this forum.

[Chocolate Shake Man]

No, you  tell me if printing Bruce's comments were for the general good? How many lives were saved in Holland yersterday by the jounalist printing the non-interview comments?

Seems to me that it's fairly arrogant for me to presume what is "for the general good" except to say that you don't need to save lives to do something for the general good. Raising awareness and presenting information that would otherwise be hidden is typically "for the general good."

Again, it comes down to integrity and common sense.

It certainly does not "come down to integrity" which I believe I have already explained.

[SMiLE Brian]

Oh, and Bruce reads this forum.  

I see a pistol whipping in my future....

[pixletwin]

Maybe... just maybe... Bruce is a bigger dick than Mike. 

They both may have trouble competing with yerown self for that

[SMiLE Brian]

Maybe... just maybe... Bruce is a bigger dick than Mike. 

They both may have trouble competing with yerown self for that

Genius

[Autotune]

Bruce said what he did off the record, when he thought the phone was down. He's done it before, he'll do it again, as we all will. To my mind, the dick is the journalist who wrote about it.

Quoting something that was said off the record is, of course, not very nice. But neither is calling someone "a dick" and "indoctrinated". So I'd say they're even.

We all talk about others when we think we're not being heard.
I think the journalist should have told Bruce that he had the conversation on record, or written down, and that he would publish; or at least give him the chance to speak openly about those issues as part of the interview. You can be a dick without violating any code and that's what this journalist just did.

[drbeachboy]

No, you  tell me if printing Bruce's comments were for the general good? How many lives were saved in Holland yersterday by the jounalist printing the non-interview comments?

Seems to me that it's fairly arrogant for me to presume what is "for the general good" except to say that you don't need to save lives to do something for the general good. Raising awareness and presenting information that would otherwise be hidden is typically "for the general good."

Again, it comes down to integrity and common sense.

It certainly does not "come down to integrity" which I believe I have already explained.

I will agree to disagree. We always do.

[Mr. Cohen]

I think the journalist should have told Bruce that he had the conversation on record, or written down, and that he would publish; or at least give him the chance to speak openly about those issues as part of the interview. You can be a dick without violating any code and that's what this journalist just did.

Actually, I majored in journalism, and the journalist in question didn't violate any codes. You don't ask a person for permission to publish what they said unless you feel you absolutely have to. In this case, it's unlikely that the journalist will ever talk to Bruce again, and the information doesn't really compromise Bruce's safety or job or anything like that, so it's fair play.

Bruce should know how phones work and be more careful. What if the reporter had put on Bruce on speaker phone because he needed to jot down notes while Bruce was talking, and he simply hadn't been able to press the button to hang up in time to miss Bruce's comments? Or what if he had assumed Bruce had hung up instead? Bruce should be aware of such possibilities.

[Doo Dah]

I hope that European journalists jump on this whenever they have the opportunity to speak with Silver Spoon Johnston. Don't let him off the hook. Don't let him spin it. Make him face up to his own personal bias. Get him. 

[ontor pertawst]

Hardly breaking news. Man Known To Be Dick At Times Acts Like Dick. He's having a bad enough year with this whole Mitt Romney thing, plus it must be exhausting to waddle from 4 star hotel to 4 star hotel in that socialist hellhole! Maybe he'll be fine after a nap hopefully unburdened by nightmares of estate taxes and death panels.



Bruce "Historical" Johnston: America's Cranky Conservative Uncle.

[Disney Boy (1985)]

Well, he's right about Europe. I know that's a bitter pill for some, but hey.

So just to recap, The Real Beach Boy, we're not allowed to post 'nonsense' topics and threads on this board, but we are allowed to xenophobic... Good to know thanks!

(As a socialist European myself, can i just point out that at least we don't still execute people over here, nor do we have small-minded and dangerous gun laws...)

Can you repeat that in English, please?

Should you be moderating a message board if you can't read English?

[hypehat]

I can't believe people are debating whether this is decent journalism. It would be horrifying journalism if he didn't mention it! The man is not The Beach Boys' press agent, after all. Why is this up for debate?

[drbeachboy]

I can't believe people are debating whether this is decent journalism. It would be horrifying journalism if he didn't mention it! The man is not The Beach Boys' press agent, after all. Why is this up for debate?

Also notice too, that some in here who do write, did not agree with the tactics that this journalist practiced. To me, there is a fine line whether he did the correct thing in publishing the remarks or not. When it comes right down to it, the person had a personal choice to make; print it or let it pass. I think he was pissed and took retribution.

[dcowboys107]

All the discussion is all well and good but no one here really challenges the underlying tenets of government: the initiation of force. Is it really ethical to force someone to ¨but into¨social security at a point of a gun? Is it safe to assume that no one would want clean water and air if the government wasn´t there? 

Can someone explain how we can trust an institution with a monopoly of violence to satisfy our wants when such institution has killed more people, not counting war, than anything else? How can we ¨give¨them a monopoly on providing clean air and water? Think of how much pollution governments create. Think of all the waste created during the housing bubbles on both of sides of the Atlantic. The untold trees savaged, and vast strectches of land clear cut to satisfy a speculative bubble. 

Not to mention the nuclear waste dumping, the wars, all the emissions from military and government vehicles. How much they spend flying around taunting you with ¨free¨goodies only to force someone else to pay and use inflation to backstop the rest.  While many intentions seem good natured, I can´t justify violence to achieve an end however good intentioned it may be.

[Cam Mott]

I just can't get to where this is journalism. The interviewer sought him out. The interview was over. The journalist knows it is not part of the interview or even intended to heard by the journalist. Bruce was off the record, he was not dialoging with or responding to the interviewer and it was not the interview. Bruce is a private citizen and not an elected official. Does celebrity really make him fair game? Just because it is said and overheard doesn't mean it is journalism and should be reported.

[ontor pertawst]

Journalism would be even more of just straight copying of press releases if that were the case!  

If this were a French deet-doot techno act sh*tting on America and mocking the journalist for asking a polite question, that sort of arrogance would certainly be part of the story!

Off-the-record has a very specific meaning in journalism, it's if Bruce, say -- were talking to the journalist to give him context about something but didn't want that context published. "off the record, so and so was so and so," things like that. It doesn't mean an overheard comment due to forgetting how to operate a phone properly.

This journalist is under no obligation to make them look good to preserve his sources or something since it's obvious Bruce thinks he's an asshole and it's pointless currying favor by slanting the story. He doesn't need to provide "the official story" in exchange for the rights to use photos or somesuch.  He is under no obligation to smooth things over PR-wise for our favorite band. He's got us talking about it, he did his job!

Lesson for Capitol: don't just eavesdrop on the interview, be in the f***in' room and interrupt with a nervous laugh. "Ha ha ha that's very funny Bruce, um we're running short on time..." Or just issue a press release: "Just to reiterate... he's always like this. Sincerely, Capitol Records."

[Disney Boy (1985)]

What sort of a lame journalist hears their interviewee making controversial comments and then doesn't include it in the subsequent story? Of course he should've reported it. If you don't want it reported, don't say it - and that's that.