Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

I found it a weird article and was a bit surprised that people’s reactions here were so positive. I thought maybe I had missed something.

It did contain some interesting commentary and it wasn’t necessarily negative but I thought for an interview there didn’t seem like much “interview”.  Especially now knowing how much time they spent together and how much access she had - it seems odd. Vanessa Grigoriadis is clearly no Norman Mailer.

On a side note - I looked at her twitter briefly yesterday. She quoted the BTS comment from the article in a tweet and was getting abused by BTS fans. 😬

Posted
22 minutes ago, Nick said:

Thought it was hysterical how she accused NYT of being with the founding fathers of patriarchy.:lol:

They're super PC and very progressive, so the staff must be WTF.

 

Well the New York Times is the mouth piece of the US government every time they feel like launching one of those bizarre wars "to save the world" and "export democracy" only to make it messier instead. Regardless of who's sitting in Congress or the WH. It's the "elite" publication

So in a sense that's patriarchy there and then

Posted

Madonna's reaction did seem very strong and out there and using the woke language did seem kinda silly to me.

At the same time, we don't know what happened, and Madonna has a right to her feelings like everybody else.

I mostly skimped thru the article, so I'll read it closely tonight to try to get a better feel about what Madonna's upset about.

Posted
40 minutes ago, Amelia said:

But is that what Madonna was told when being interviewed?  I think the fact that Madonna claimed they spent a few hours together and it was reduced to a piece more about the author than the person she was interviewing and when she did speak of Madonna, it was subtle shade on her aging, and other mundane things. 

Let's think about this, that was quite a lengthy article.  There was very little Madonna conversation/interview for such a lengthy article.  Yes, it was generally positive, but even so if the two were speaking for a few hours, certainly there had to been more interesting things to share than what was in this article.

And to even title the article "Madonna at 60" seems a bit shady to me especially knowing how Madonna specifically scolded the interviewer somewhat for focusing on age way too much.  For someone who spent that much time with Madonna and was schooled on not focusing so much on age, went out of her way to make that article all about Madonna's age. 

 

True

Especially the argument about the title choice. Seems a bit of a contradiction or not so subtle way to do exactly what's being chastised in the article itself

Add the fact that the writer was allowed to actually spend time with her and this is the end result and Madonna feeling disappointed

Posted
28 minutes ago, StrikeItUp said:

We’ll never really know what the terms were agreed upon in the article. And yes it did lack a more linear, consistent dialogue with Madonna. It’s just the social media optics never look good when she comes for the journalist with rather incendiary language, and she’s well aware of that.

There’s a fine balance of bucking the trend while using conventional wisdom to critique others. But then Madonna was never really known for subtly I suppose (shrugs). Madonna is the new Joni Mitchell. Cantankerous and ornery as ever. 😂

 

No she's not Joni Mitchell at all

Posted

Don't ever mess with a lioness, bad karma!

Upon re-reading the article, Madonna's reaction, and reading fans comments, as others have said it is likely that an agreement before publishing the piece was most probably broken. I am wondering if indeed there was an agreement whether it was properly signed off on paper, aka being legally binding in which case Madonna could and should sue the shit outta them.

One thing is for sure: Madame X is never predictable, never was, never will be, and that is one of the many reasons why some of us love her dearly.

Posted
4 minutes ago, pjcowley said:

Don't ever mess with a lioness, bad karma!

Upon re-reading the article, Madonna's reaction, and reading fans comments, as others have said it is likely that an agreement before publishing the piece was most probably broken. I am wondering if indeed there was an agreement whether it was properly signed off on paper, aka being legally binding in which case Madonna could and should sue the shit outta them.

 

Terrible idea.  It would bring more attention to the article that  Madonna obviously hates, and many people would just say that Madonna is being over-sensitive.

Posted

M's reaction has reached the news in Greece since the journalist is Greek American

Posted

To be fair to the writer, the journalist themselves often don't choose the headline for the final piece. It's usually the editor or sub-editor - so she probably didn't choose 'Madonna at 60' for the title.

I mostly enjoyed the article and wouldn't have seen a huge problem with it if Madonna hadn't reacted today. I thought it was much better than the Vogue article, which made her sound aloof and quite unfriendly. 

The decor stuff is the thing the casual reader wants to hear so there's always going to be an element of that to set the scene. At least Madonna has good taste and the references were flattering. 

I think the problem with it was that there wasn't enough from Madonna herself and Madonna gave the writer that kind of access for exactly that purpose.

The journalist also listened to the album and barely made any mention of it (if I remember correctly). 

There was also obviously too much focus on her age. The journalist tried to write about it through her own lens of aging as a fan but for Madonna it must be so boring and tiresome to read. The journalist said she felt too nervous to ask her about menopause - so why reference it in the piece? Would someone have asked Bowie if he could still get it up or wrote about that? Maybe her anger today was just the culmination of seeing EVERY interview, article and review this era lead with how old she is. 

Posted
4 minutes ago, slam3000 said:

Terrible idea.  It would bring more attention to the article that  Madonna obviously hates, and many people would just say that Madonna is being over-sensitive.

Zero fucks given to what "many people" would label Madonna as. Sick of this unhealthy obsession of paying attention to what people might say against Madonna. If there was a breach of an agreement, perhaps Madonna might have taken action already, and what we saw on her Instagram post maybe was just a tiny tip of the whole shit storm.

Posted (edited)

These assessments are all over the place. Madonna would not have been entitled to direct the nature of an editorial. The NY Times magazine supplement has never been a straight interview outlet. There is always room for journalistic license, otherwise it is propagandist and unethical. The NY Times isn’t there to serve Madonna’s promotional agenda. 

This doesn’t mean that we aren’t entitled to judge the work of the journalist whose focus seems to have been on rendering a slice of life personal essay on the experience of being given access to Madonna in 2019. 

Madonna’s issue with the piece is perhaps more difficult to define without her doing so more clearly herself, but her clapback rape comment is what personally seems to be the source of what was problematic and incendiary for her...because the condescending tone the journalist took in assessing how she handled Madonna with kid gloves lacks courage and conviction, qualities Madonna perhaps mistakenly felt were guaranteed from a NY Times journalist who happens to also be a woman and her societal peer. 

She can and most likely will take matters into her own hands by giving a straightforward lengthy interview to another traditionally respectable publication where by simply answering questions, she can neither be misquoted nor depicted outside of her own words and the way they are received by the reader. 

Edited by Herfaceremains
Guest Amelia aka Neutrocks
Posted
2 minutes ago, pjcowley said:

Zero fucks given to what "many people" would label Madonna as. Sick of this unhealthy obsession of paying attention to what people might say against Madonna. If there was a breach of an agreement, perhaps Madonna might have taken action already, and what we saw on her Instagram post maybe was just a tiny tip of the whole shit storm.

I agree with you, but at the end of the day, I'm not sure she cares to focus anymore time on it than she has already.  As many pointed out, it is a generally positive piece, and most people  (even some of her fans) will never understand why Madonna would get upset over it, not realizing there was so much more in depth to the interview that wasn't printed.  I'm sure Madonna is used to this sort of thing, but maybe it annoyed her a bit more this time because she seemed to trust this journalist and knew the two talked extensively about other things she was hoping that would go to print then what did.

 

Posted
8 minutes ago, pjcowley said:

Zero fucks given to what "many people" would label Madonna as. Sick of this unhealthy obsession of paying attention to what people might say against Madonna. If there was a breach of an agreement, perhaps Madonna might have taken action already, and what we saw on her Instagram post maybe was just a tiny tip of the whole shit storm.

You might not care, but Madonna obviously does. She said as much to the journalist when giving her thoughts on social media.

Posted

I thoroughly respect and support Madonna's reaction to the NYT article. She is a woman who now gives zero fucks about the screwed up media machine that seeks to diminish her or the fucked up idiotic society we now live in. She has earned her right to say 'fuck off' to all of it especially as a woman who has continually had the shit kicked out of her by the media, the critics and the general public ever since she started out. I am so proud of her for calling out this bullshit!

Posted
3 minutes ago, slam3000 said:

You might not care, but Madonna obviously does. She said as much to the journalist when giving her thoughts on social media.

You are missing the point, clearly. Let's agree to disagree.

Posted
1 hour ago, Nick said:

Thought it was hysterical how she accused NYT of being with the founding fathers of patriarchy.:lol:

They're super PC and very progressive, so the staff must be WTF.

 

Please. Establishment media such as NYT and the BBC assume a very PC stance partly to compensate for their total indifference to social issues in the past. The fact that sexual assault cases took so much time to be reported speaks volumes. It's totally ridiculous for them to want to school Madonna on feminism, which is what the writer did. I'm surprised that fans do not see it. Perhaps we are too used to negative articles that a semi-positive piece seems good.

Posted
31 minutes ago, Monsieur X said:

FUCKING

hate

the

press

 

image.png

There was headlines about the rape comment in the original article but they clearly didn’t have the intended reaction. Now they’re ramping it up with the second use of the term. They are clearly trying to get the SJW fired up. Fuck them. 

Posted

I said this with eurovision but it bears repeating, the more ammo we give to this kind of criticism from the press, the more it's going to spread.

 

Kill negativity if you want to, ignore it. Don't go looking for it.

Posted
1 hour ago, XXL said:

 

Well the New York Times is the mouth piece of the US government every time they feel like launching one of those bizarre wars "to save the world" and "export democracy" only to make it messier instead. Regardless of who's sitting in Congress or the WH. It's the "elite" publication

So in a sense that's patriarchy there and then

Also the article was written by a WOMAN.  So the "down with the patriarchy" stuff made ZERO sense, it's like Madonna's is kind of implying that women can't form their own opinions and despite a woman doing the profile piece, men were still.involved because a woman can't possibly do it in her own!

 

Not very "feminist"

Posted
1 minute ago, Samo said:

Also the article was written by a WOMAN.  So the "down with the patriarchy" stuff made ZERO sense, it's like Madonna's is kind of implying that women can't form their own opinions and despite a woman doing the profile piece, men were still.involved because a woman can't possibly do it in her own!

 

Not very "feminist"

But a woman can conform to the rules of the game made by men.

Posted
1 hour ago, Monsieur X said:

FUCKING

hate

the

press

 

image.png

 

The mediocre d-list cast on the view, good morning Britain and similar shows are going to have a field day with this ...

Posted (edited)
49 minutes ago, Monsieur X said:

FUCKING

hate

the

press

 

image.png

She really needs to stop feeding the trolls at every turn... And she also needs to retire the word rape for real, it's soooo cringe

Edited by articunocc
Posted
Just now, systemvalues said:

But a woman can conform to the rules of the game made by men.

Doesn't matter, a WOMAN still took it upon themselves to write it.

 

It's called accountability

 

Madonna didn't like the profile written by a woman, I don't blame her after reading it, but she attacks men????

 

That's like it we don't like Madonna's new Album, let's blame men and scream "Down with the Patriarchy"!

 

Third Wave feminism folks

Posted
43 minutes ago, DreamTheater said:

Please. Establishment media such as NYT and the BBC assume a very PC stance partly to compensate for their total indifference to social issues in the past. The fact that sexual assault cases took so much time to be reported speaks volumes. It's totally ridiculous for them to want to school Madonna on feminism, which is what the writer did. I'm surprised that fans do not see it. Perhaps we are too used to negative articles that a semi-positive piece seems good.

 

:clap::clap:

Guest CzarnaWisnia
Posted

Love M's reaction on her ig. Although the piece was well written for the most part, clearly M knows more from having talked with the writer for so long. I love how she pointed out the stupid remark about rape. That was so cringy. (BTW, the word "rape" meaning sexual abuse IS metaphorical, which the writer would know about just from opening a dictionary.)

Posted
13 minutes ago, Samo said:

Also the article was written by a WOMAN.  So the "down with the patriarchy" stuff made ZERO sense, it's like Madonna's is kind of implying that women can't form their own opinions and despite a woman doing the profile piece, men were still.involved because a woman can't possibly do it in her own!

 

Not very "feminist"

 

I don't understand your view here

Are you saying that because the article was written by a woman one could not associate this particular publication with the patriarchy per se? Maybe I didn't read well. I must be missing something

Posted
10 minutes ago, Samo said:

Doesn't matter, a WOMAN still took it upon themselves to write it.

 

It's called accountability

 

Madonna didn't like the profile written by a woman, I don't blame her after reading it, but she attacks men????

 

That's like it we don't like Madonna's new Album, let's blame men and scream "Down with the Patriarchy"!

 

Third Wave feminism folks

I don't understand the comparison with M'S album..however if you don't like  the rules that govern a system, you attack the ones who created them and the others who follow them.

×
×
  • Create New...