Somewhat painful Bruce Johnston interview in a Dutch magazine

[SIP.FLAC]

Bruce is a prick. So am I. Bruce is free to speak his mind, we're free to form our opinions about him based on what he says.

[Autotune]

Bruce is alright in my book. Stuff like this really does not bother me. I am entitled to my opinions and he is entitled to his.

Now there are journalists here and I wonder the ethical -and probably legal- ramifications of printing, unauthorized, somebody else's private conversation.

About Bruce badmouthing, I really would not pass judgement. I am capable of that and more in my life... and I have the benefit of not being a public persona and have the world scrutinize every minutia of my doings.

[drbeachboy]

I tend to lean toward the right, but only because I throw and swing from the left.

[JanBerryFarm]

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

They both may have trouble competing with yerown self for that

[Doo Dah]

I wonder if there are any iconic bands out there that are known for such wildly divergent (re: political) personalities. I'm sure there are, but none come to mind. Most are shades of grey.

This is part of the wild, wonderful, tug-o-war that is Beach Boys fandom. And yeah...Mike Love is astute enough to not say something that stupid. Even in an off-the-record conversation with a label wonk.

[Autotune]

Badmouthing is what most of us do here: backslashing others while having our asses covered by a monicker or near  anonymity.

[Doo Dah]

Badmouthing is what most of us do here: backslashing others while having our asses covered by a monicker or near  anonymity.

As far as the Smiley board, yeah I suppose. But I get into some pretty heated political conversations with friends (some since departed friends) on facebook, where the name et al is on display for all to see. It is what it is and if you drop discretion, be ready to face the music.

[oldsurferdude]

Bruth is a very boring person who is bored with life and has obviously been around Myke Luhv far too long.

[Wirestone]

Now there are journalists here and I wonder the ethical -and probably legal- ramifications of printing, unauthorized, somebody else's private conversation.

An interesting question. What matters in a case like this is not what the speaker (Bruce) intends; it's how the listener (reporter) got access to the conversation.

In other words, if the reporter somehow hacked Bruce's private phone line, or planted a bug on him, that would be not only unethical, but probably in violation of eavesdropping laws. However, what happened instead is that Bruce simply didn't hang up the phone correctly. You can make a direct comparison to cases in which politicians talk to each other in front of "hot" microphones, thinking they're actually turned off.

In each case -- Bruce and the politicians -- they're absolutely fair game.

If Bruce wanted his conversation to be truly private, he would make sure a phone was truly hung up. If someone on a street corner doesn't want you eavesdropping on them, they shouldn't be talking loudly out in public. And so on.

[Cam Mott]

I'm not a journalist but it seems dickish to me to include off the record stuff. Bruce is entitled to his opinions based on his experience and I'm entitled to agree or not agree.

[drbeachboy]

On the other hand, if the call was over, why didn't the interviewer hang up? Tells you how good this reporter is; his eavesdropping was the bigger story than his own Q&A.

[Zach95]

Well we should probably be reminded that the recent times he's been caught saying very controversial political comments was when he thought he was speaking in private.  The Obama/Socialist comment he made a few months back was caught on tape by someone recording the conversation unaware by Bruce and now this phone conversation as the OP describes, was accidentally heard after Bruce hung the phone up incorrectly.  Doesn't take Bruce off the hook, but it's no way him actively pursuing this type of attention.

Yeah, after I posted, I felt bad I did not point this out as well.  How many times have we said stuff in this kind of situation that we really would put differently if we knew we were being overheard?  Sometimes after you've been diplomatic with someone you disagree with, you just have to vent. Neither attitude might be the whole truth of how you feel about something.  As I said above, real life is complex.

A very logical and reasonable point. Bruce may or may not be two faced, perhaps it was just a way for him to get off his chest how he felt about that particular interview. It is what it is, you would only hope someone speaks to Bruce about being so careless and reckless regarding his media encounters.

[Doo Dah]

Oh God. All these revisionist theories on whether or not the reporter went too far.

Bruce is entitled to his opinion. And when we hear it, we're entitled to think 'my God...what an entitled t@at.'

No harm, no foul. Bruce is just Goin' Public.

[adamghost]

[edit.  Eh. I talk too much]

[Wirestone]

I'm not a journalist but it seems dickish to me to include off the record stuff. Bruce is entitled to his opinions based on his experience and I'm entitled to agree or not agree.

It's not off the record. "Off the record" has a specific meaning in journalism -- it is something a source and reporter agree to in advance. It is not something that applies retroactively (you can't take things off the record after you say them) and it does not apply to things that are said unwittingly in public (like the politicians and the hot mic I mentioned earlier).

Dickish, maybe. But if Bruce came across as insulting or cold, the fact that he then badmouths the reporter (and the reporter's country!) immediately after the interview is definitely newsworthy. It's not the reporter's job to do PR for the tour or make anyone look good.

On the other hand, if the call was over, why didn't the interviewer hang up? Tells you how good this reporter is; his eavesdropping was the bigger story than his own Q&A.

Sounds to me like Bruce went off almost immediately after finishing the conversation. A reporter is doing a million things while interviewing someone -- sorting through questions, taking notes, thinking up follow-ups, attempting to build a rapport -- it's quite easy to imagine a scenario in which it takes the writer a few seconds before he hangs up.

For that matter, you can hardly call it eavesdropping if someone is still talking on the phone line you were interviewing him on.

[Mikie]

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

Why are you laughing??

[Jim V.]

So yeah, not that anybody cares, but I think Bruce is a jackass, mostly because of his ever-so-fake happy-go-lucky persona when he obviously is just a classic older white guy who's mad at President Obama because he might have to pay a few extra bucks in taxes. He likely has no f***ing clue what socialism is, judging by the fact that he thinks the President is. If the President is indeed a socialist, he's one of the worst ever, because this country is nowhere near socialism. He also has never had to worry about money, and apparently since he can afford to send his children to the "socialist" overseas countries, we all must be able to. The "born on third, thinking he hit a triple" thing sums up Bruce Johnston.

Socialism is bankrupting the EU and is about to bankrupt the USA. But that's a topic for the Sandbox. Let's keep this on topic as best we can.

Uh, what? I don't think so. The thing is, a lot of the European countries have been practicing extreme austerity has made their economies stall out. Please don't state your opinion as fact, and then expect us to move on. And if socialism is bankrupting us, what do you call for? Stopping Social Security and Medicare for the older people who don't work anymore? Get rid of more cops and teachers? Get rid of DMV employees, so the lines are even longer? Nobody gave a damn about spending and all this garbage until Barack Obama took over. Never heard of any teabaggers having tea parties until 2009, how convenient. They had no problem with the former President spending money out the wazoo.

The topic itself is confusing; it is BJ or politics?  I will just say that Europeans are always trying to get Americans to say something to acknowledge our role is creating social injustice, so BJ is right.  I always find that Europeans will inject some scorn and provoke self-criticism from us--it's certainly true in academia.  So BJ was trying to escape that trap, which I appreciate, maintaining the apolitical nature of spiritual music, though he may not have made a complex, Maharishi-inspired explanation of spirit and music, as Carl would have. So, let's not fight about politics or call BB names; I have tried simply to gloss the event by identifying the cultural paradigm it reveals.  Good for you Bruce to resist the silly Euro-trash-trap.

Ugh, this guy's fancily-worded BS continues to annoy the heck out of me. Especially when he think he's some kind of moral and intellectual superior and then throws in that arrogant last line as if it's the last word on the subject. Ugh, people bring out the worst in politics and vice versa.

Anyway, yeah I don't understand Bruce, his attitude or his politics but I enjoy his music and voice. I'm just too small a human-being to let the trivial things not bother me.

I agree with you, NuttinAtol. I also would add that "the professor" is probably not a real professor, as most "conservatives" aren't very fond of that thing called "college"? It's for snobs, you know? And anyways, I think this jingoistic "America is number one" thing is ruining America. If we would stop telling everybody how great we were, maybe then we could get back to the business of making ourselves number one.

[♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇]

THANK you, sweetjim.

[adamghost]

I think a lot of the reason liberal policies have gotten a bad rap is many of them have worked so well that we take them for granted, and only notice the flaws.  I'm thinking specifically about advances in civil rights, clean air and water, workplace safety (heck, the 8-hour workday and overtime), stuff like that.  We don't think of these things as "liberal" anymore, but just as the way things are -- even though back in day these changes were fought tooth and nail -- and it's hard to visualize them rolling back so you figure, hey, why not ditch this or that regulation, what harm will it do?  Not thinking about why those laws were enacted in the first place, or the very real effect they had.  The public tends to think of "liberalism" in terms of the much talked about downsides -- overregulation (does definitely happen), taxation, restrictions on liberty, etc.  Valid concerns, but it isn't the whole picture.

Anyhoo.

[Shady]

No harm, no foul. Bruce is just Goin' Public.

Oh god! Not again

[Jim V.]

I think a lot of the reason liberal policies have gotten a bad rap is many of them have worked so well that we take them for granted, and only notice the flaws.  I'm thinking specifically about advances in civil rights, clean air and water, workplace safety (heck, the 8-hour workday and overtime), stuff like that.  We don't think of these things as "liberal" anymore, but just as the way things are -- even though back in day these changes were fought tooth and nail -- and it's hard to visualize them rolling back so you figure, hey, why not ditch this or that regulation, what harm will it do?  Not thinking about why those laws were enacted in the first place, or the very real effect they had.  The public tends to think of "liberalism" in terms of the much talked about downsides -- overregulation (does definitely happen), taxation, restrictions on liberty, etc.  Valid concerns, but it isn't the whole picture.

Anyhoo.

Great point. Look at Social Security and Medicare. Hardcore teabagger conservatives saying "keep your government hands off of my Medicare and Social Security" not realizing that they are liberal/socialist programs. And about the regulation, right on. It's cool apparently to hate unions these days, but I'm sure if they knew the truth, they'd thank those horrible unions for helping to implement the five-day workweek, child labor laws, etc.

[Cam Mott]

I'm not a journalist but it seems dickish to me to include off the record stuff. Bruce is entitled to his opinions based on his experience and I'm entitled to agree or not agree.

It's not off the record. "Off the record" has a specific meaning in journalism -- it is something a source and reporter agree to in advance. It is not something that applies retroactively (you can't take things off the record after you say them) and it does not apply to things that are said unwittingly in public (like the politicians and the hot mic I mentioned earlier).

Dickish, maybe. But if Bruce came across as insulting or cold, the fact that he then badmouths the reporter (and the reporter's country!) immediately after the interview is definitely newsworthy. It's not the reporter's job to do PR for the tour or make anyone look good.

On the other hand, if the call was over, why didn't the interviewer hang up? Tells you how good this reporter is; his eavesdropping was the bigger story than his own Q&A.

Sounds to me like Bruce went off almost immediately after finishing the conversation. A reporter is doing a million things while interviewing someone -- sorting through questions, taking notes, thinking up follow-ups, attempting to build a rapport -- it's quite easy to imagine a scenario in which it takes the writer a few seconds before he hangs up.

For that matter, you can hardly call it eavesdropping if someone is still talking on the phone line you were interviewing him on.

Right. Webster's: "given or made in confidence and not for publication". It was off the record and the reporter was dickish and apparently unethical and at the very least unprofessional [if they claim to be professional]. Bruce opining on something he thought the reporter was doing but not to the reporter, in private apparently he thought. Bruce could be wrong about it, doesn't matter.

[Wirestone]

Cam: Please don't argue with me about this.

As you admitted earlier, you don't know what you're talking about, and the more you post, the more evident it becomes. Bruce's comments were most certainly not given in confidence. They were freely said out loud into a telephone receiver. There was no deal made that anything Bruce said wasn't for publication, either.

So by your own definition, nothing Bruce said was off the record.

If a presidential candidate says into a microphone that he thinks is turned off (but that isn't) that he thinks a reporter is a "major league asshole," should that be considered off the record? It's almost exactly like the case of Bruce and this reporter here. The would-be president certainly thought the microphone was off.

http://www.salon.com/2000/09/04/cuss_word/

And yet, most major news outlets thought this was a story. And it's because such a comment is not in any way, shape or form "off the record."  Given that Bruce is a public figure and saying things directly applicable to the reporter, his country, and his readership, it would have been unethical of the reporter to suppress that information.

You see, Cam, that's the way journalism works. We do not keep secrets to spare people's feelings or to do public relations. We do not care what famous people think about us, either, because we do not work for them. We work for readers and for communities. And that sometimes involves publishing things that people would really rather we didn't.

[Pinder's Gone To Kokomo And Back Again]

Do people really think that if we did away with food stamps, welfare, social security, pensions, government employees, unions, unemployment insurance we'd REALLY suddenly be paying less taxes? Perhaps Bruce would, but I don't even think so. Bruce is rich but he's still just a proletariat musician.  We'd all just be paying more so that a very select few would keep more of their money. Taxes are, for the most part, pitiful attempts at paying back the SEVERE debts we owe elsewhere in the world.

To paraphrase George Carlin "OSD, they're coming for your social security, and ya know what? They're gonna get it!"

[Cam Mott]

Cam: Please don't argue with me about this.

As you admitted earlier, you don't know what you're talking about, and the more you post, the more evident it becomes. Bruce's comments were most certainly not given in confidence. They were freely said out loud into a telephone receiver. There was no deal made that anything Bruce said wasn't for publication, either.

So by your own definition, nothing Bruce said was off the record.

If a presidential candidate says into a microphone that he thinks is turned off (but that isn't) that he thinks a reporter is a "major league asshole," should that be considered off the record? It's almost exactly like the case of Bruce and this reporter here. The would-be president certainly thought the microphone was off.

http://www.salon.com/2000/09/04/cuss_word/

And yet, most major news outlets thought this was a story. And it's because such a comment is not in any way, shape or form "off the record."  Given that Bruce is a public figure and saying things directly applicable to the reporter, his country, and his readership, it would have been unethical of the reporter to suppress that information.

You see, Cam, that's the way journalism works. We do not keep secrets to spare people's feelings or to do public relations. We do not care what famous people think about us, either, because we do not work for them. We work for readers and for communities. And that sometimes involves publishing things that people would really rather we didn't.

Well I apologise because I do argue with you and will continue.