Sturgill Simpson Proves He Was Misquoted in ‘New York Times’ Feature on Luke Bryan
Last week, Sturgill Simpson once again turned the internet upside down with some quotes—something he has a history of doing, whether it was his revelations from outside of the CMA Awards in November, or his outcry against the ACMs and their treatment of Merle Haggard. In the latest instance, the quotes came from a feature on Luke Bryan from the New York Times Magazine, where Sturgill was asked to comment. Saving Country Music Music later used the Sturgill quote and other snippets in an article called Hilarious Luke Bryan Revelations. The quote that ran in the story from Sturgill was,
“I don’t know Luke, I don’t think about Luke, and I honestly never heard a single note of his music.”
This seemed pretty sharp, and the way it was portrayed by The New York Times, it appeared that Sturgill was responding to Luke Bryan’s invitation to have coffee with Sturgill. Some applauded Sturgill, others saw it as Sturgill getting a little too full of himself, and cutting down Luke Bryan unnecessarily.
Now Sturgill, who has regularly criticized print media for coming to him with preconceived notions for interviews, as well as using him as their go-to mainstream country music gadfly when they want to inject a little conflict in their story to create buzz, has clarified his statement about Luke Bryan, and revealed via screenshots released Sunday morning (12/10), that his quote about Luke Bryan was cut off mid sentence, and never meant for public consumption.
For sure, Sturgill Simpson was still being somewhat bold in his take on Luke Bryan. But in context, it doesn’t make it come across like he’s the dismissive, “walk on water” figure The New York Times wanted to portray Sturgill as to fit the theme of their Luke Bryan feature.
The full quote to the reporter was,
I don’t know Luke, I don’t think about Luke, and I honestly never heard a single note of his music so I am afraid I am unable to supply you with quotes you and your editor are seeking from me to fill out your narrative.
I can say however a more interesting piece would be perhaps how the Grammy winner for this years (sic) Country Album of the Year somehow doesn’t manage to get recognized/nominate (much less invited) by either the CMA or ACM to their respective award celebrations. When you wanna talk about that I’ll give you all the time you need.
Interesting that not only did the reporter Will Stephenson cut Sturgill Simpson’s quote off mid sentence, the quote Sturgill Simpson provided was clearly not intended for public consumption, this was clearly explained in the very quote that made it to print, and Sturgill even called the periodical out on their own game about trying to “fill out your narrative,” all in the same sentence that got cut off and proffered as Sturgill’s opinion.
Sturgill Simpson activated his Twitter page, which had been dormant recently, and posted screenshots of the entire exchange with the reporter to corroborate his story, along with a quote from himself, “Most of the time the conversation is me providing two or three sentences to fill in the blanks on a piece they’ve already written,..because when you say things in print it’s so easy for context to get twisted.”
The screenshots can be seen below.
December 10, 2017 @ 10:35 am
Sturgill does not like fake news either!
December 10, 2017 @ 11:04 am
This can’t help but put the other “revelations” piece of the article and discussed in an earlier posting under a cloud of doubt. It seems the goal of the article was accomplished with quotes altered to meet the goal.
December 10, 2017 @ 11:25 am
I agree.
I do think it’s likely Luke Bryan greases his arms before performances, for example. But I think this instance proves why context and perspective are everything. Writing an article with an agenda, an opinion, or specific perspective is fine, as long as that perspective or opinion is clearly conveyed. Here, it was supposed to be a snapshot into the life of Luke Bryan.
December 10, 2017 @ 7:41 pm
i know! typical liberal writing an article on an agenda!
December 10, 2017 @ 10:26 pm
Please. Like both sides of the political divide don’t promote an agenda through journalism.
December 11, 2017 @ 12:11 pm
But it happens all the time from NYT, CNN & WaPo.
I didn’t vote for Trump. But I despise the liberal media, and every time they get exposed like this, it’s a victory for freedom.
December 11, 2017 @ 6:38 pm
You seriously think Fox aren’t at least as bad as those you’ve mentioned, Kevin? You reckon they don;t push their own agenda at least as hard? That’s some bubble you’ve got yourself there, sir, and that’s without mentioning Breitbart and all the even madder right-leaning sources. There’s craziness on both sides.
In fairness, said conservative sources have done a brilliant job of convincing many people that there is some kind of overarching dastardly “liberal deep state MSM agenda” hell-bent on destroying your freedoms, and only the God-emperor and his crew of righteous truth-speakers can save you, so I suppose they deserve credit for that. From the outside looking in, it’s pretty damn funny.
December 12, 2017 @ 10:08 pm
I’ve always found he who cries “BIASED!” the loudest is usually the most likely to be the truly biased one, regardless of one’s political beliefs.
People who think the only possible way someone could disagree with them must be rooted in nefarious motivations are usually not that willing to listen to anything that isn’t playing in their echo chamber.
Give it a rest, james
December 10, 2017 @ 11:06 am
The Times should be especially sensitive to this because they have been (unfairly) cast as “fake news” by certain segments of society. Therefore, there reporters should be on their best behavior. To me, Stephenson should be relived of his duties by the Times immediately. Is this the same as misquoting a world leader? Of course not, but the Times should not be giving internet trolls fodder to continue their campaign of undermining an important political/social check & balance.
Stephenson clearly wanted to spice up his story by framing it the way he wanted to. Therefore, he would fit right in at Brietbart or Huffington Post. Media outlets like the New York Times should be held to a higher standard than those other two “journalistic” outlets.
December 10, 2017 @ 11:39 am
I’m not sure if the editorial board or standards are different for “The New York Times Magazine” where this article was published and “The New York Times” itself, but I’m very surprised that there wasn’t an editor or copy editor that didn’t ask to see the original Sturgill Simpson communication with the reporter, and double check that the quote was credible, or in this case, complete. We all make mistakes. I make my fair share, partially because I do not have an editor. But I have never, and hope I would never, cut a quote off mid sentence, especially when the portion I cut off asks that it not be considered a quote because the person doesn’t want to be mischaracterized.
As much as Sturgill SImpson has been a firebrand against the industry, more so than any other artist, he is couched in this light for being the “Country Music Savior” and assumptions are made about him that are patently unfair. The same goes for Chris Stapleton. In fact that has been the primary narrative around the roll out of “From A Room: Vol. 2” that he’s not trying to attack the industry, he’s just making the music he wants to make.
December 10, 2017 @ 6:37 pm
I’ve been a professional reporter for more than 30 years and the Times reporter definitely got caught with his pants down. No way that is ethical reporting. Shame on him.
December 10, 2017 @ 7:44 pm
thats what these “non-partisan” , “unbiased” liberal reporters do!
December 10, 2017 @ 9:23 pm
Baloney.
December 11, 2017 @ 2:57 am
You could insert conservative in the place of liberal in that sentence James and it would be just as true. Bad journalism exists on both sides of the political spectrum and always has. Thankfully there are honest ,competent and unbiased publications that still insist on being as truthful as possible covering both perspectives. This “journalist” needs to pack his desk and leave the profession if this is his idea of being a professional.
December 11, 2017 @ 8:23 am
Unfortunately there doesn’t seem to be any print media that knows how to tell the truth or report just the facts.
December 11, 2017 @ 8:50 pm
Jesus dude, give it a rest. Twice with this in the same article. Most people come to this site for country music. Go post on the huffington post or something. Leave the politics out of it on this site.
December 10, 2017 @ 11:16 am
This reminds me of the Gell=Mann Amnesia Effect which basically states that people will come across a story in the media that they know very well and will see all the mistakes and distortions because they know the subject matter so well but then they turn the page and read a story about politics or some other topic and just assume that the story is accurate when it very well may have the same problems as the one that the reader was personally well versed in.
If we have learned anything the last few years it should be that the supposed impartial media (all media) have unbelievable amounts of bias and they report and shape their stories to fit this bias.
December 10, 2017 @ 11:17 am
one of the most biased left wing puplications misquoting a leftist musician just to create a narrative. These idiots have no boundaries apparently. Maybe this will pull Sturgill a little more toward the center, and make him a little less polarizing.
December 10, 2017 @ 11:32 am
He’s only polarizing to people like you who apparently cannot separate the work of an artist from their political beliefs. I think Hank Jr. is pretty much off his rocker these days, but I will gladly listen to his 70’s era albums and enjoy them. The same goes for David Allan Coe who as a human being, appears to be just about as awful as you can be, but I still love “The Ride”.
But hey, apparently I still live in an era where I didn’t need artists to support the same causes I do in an effort to somehow “validate” my beliefs.
December 11, 2017 @ 8:18 am
who’s looking for validation? I just want to be entertained, not preached to. I agree, old Hank seems like he’s off his rocker sometimes, and this is coming from a guy who agrees with him politically. I just think that musicians and fans are better served when artists stick to more universal themes in their music and social media outlets. We need More Don Williams and less Rage Against The Machine in the world right now.
December 11, 2017 @ 11:01 am
Respectfully, I disagree. The vast, vast, vast majority of Country artists still remain politically neutral in their music and social media posts. For every Isbell, there are like 5 Eric Churchs. For every Simpson, there are like 10 Luke Combs.
I think this whole idea that Country artists are suddenly “going rogue” and injecting politics into their music/public persona has been over inflated because the few that have done so, like Isbell, DBT, and Simpson are some of “bigger name” artists in Americana music. But, has anyone heard Matt Woods spout off? Justin Wells? Wade Bowen? The vast, vast majority of artists keep quiet because they either legitimately do not have an opinion or are afraid of hurting their brand from either side. Which is fine, but I just don’t understand this idea that all of these artists are suddenly recording Bob Dylan-esque protest songs.
December 11, 2017 @ 1:09 pm
I never said there were a bunch of country artists going rouge. Admittedly most country people stay pretty neutral, which is why I like listen to it. The fact that you recognize that Sturgill and Isbell aren’t neutral let’s me know that you also recognize that they are in fact polarizing to a great many fans.
Listen, I’m just an old school guy from a small Indiana farm town who remembers a time when country music was mainly played by and for people from rural America where people tend to gravitate toward more traditional values. A time when you needed three chords and the truth, not three chords and an over inflated opinion on patriarchal society’s and their effect on western culture. Sturgill and Isbell can vote how they want to vote and believe whatever they want to believe. But when they start injecting their beliefs into the music even you have to admit it will alienate some fans. At some point these cats will need to make up their mind an decide, do you want to be Woodie Guthrie, or do you want to be Keith Whitley. Ya know what tho, there is room at the table for everyone. I Like Sturgill but doubt that I will buy any more of his music going forward. Too many other artists out there doing the right way. Long live the Turnpike Troubadours, and Brent Cobb.
December 11, 2017 @ 8:52 pm
Hank Williams makes his politics just as clear in his music as sturgil does.
December 12, 2017 @ 7:53 am
Yeah, but Hank’s a stud
December 12, 2017 @ 8:55 am
So just so I understand, Sturgill is terrible because he voices his political opinions and because (according to many people on this website) he’s not country enough, he rocks too much, but Hank Williams jr is OK when he voices his political opinion because he “rocks”. For the sake of clarity, I think Sturgill rocks, especially when he’s beatOng the hell out of his guitar, and I also think Hank Williams Jr rocks (or at least, he used to rock back in the day). …and I couldn’t care less about either one of their political opinions.
December 10, 2017 @ 11:54 am
Comments like this make me laugh because they are so wrong. The NYTimes is “left wing”? You mean the same NYTimes that inflated a failed Arkansas land deal known as “Whitewater” into the stuff of a special counsel investigation that led to an impeachment vote against Bill Clinton? You mean the same NYTimes that spread the Bush Administration’s lies about Iraq’s non-existent weapons of mass destruction? (Remember “Curveball”?) You mean the same NYTimes that gave as much coverage of Hillary Clinton’s emails in the last six days before the election as it gave to policy issues in the previous 69 days? THAT NYTimes? Doesn’t sound very “left wing” to me. I know it is a popular theme among conservatives, but the NYTimes isn’t left wing. Odd that when the paper was slapping Whitewater articles on the front page, conservatives weren’t calling the paper “left wing.” When Dick Cheney was referencing NYTimes stories he and his people had planted about Iraq’s supposed WMDs, conservatives weren’t saying the paper was “left wing.”
Simpson may have a beef with the reporter, but if he wanted his comments off the record, he should have said so explicitly. He’s smart enough and worldly enough to know that. But he didn’t say anything remotely to that end. His comment boils down to, “I don’t know enough about the guy to provide insight for your article.” But the way he said it can be interpreted differently. It is reasonable that a reporter would follow up Simpson’s email by asking, “What do you mean you don’t ‘think’ about Bryan?” but it appears he didn’t. That’s not malpractice (or even unethical) on the reporter’s part. Just lazy. And certainly not “left wing.”
December 10, 2017 @ 12:39 pm
Yes, that NYTimes.
December 10, 2017 @ 12:56 pm
“Simpson may have a beef with the reporter, but if he wanted his comments off the record, he should have said so explicitly. He’s smart enough and worldly enough to know that. But he didn’t say anything remotely to that end.”
I respectfully disagree. No, he did not expressly state, “Don’t quote me,” but by saying “I am unable to supply you with quotes you and your editor are seeking from me” seems to be pretty clear that he was not intending to contribute to the article he was quoted in.
I don’t know an editor in the business who would see the quote Sturgill supplied, and the one that made it into the story, and say that wasn’t underhanded.
December 11, 2017 @ 12:51 pm
Yeah I just don’t agree with this. You are also quoting just a part of a sentence. I read the full sentence, in context, as a whole, as essentially saying: “You are a piece of shit reporter with an agenda, but Luke Bryan doesn’t even register in my mind. So sorry I can’t help you infect the world with your “narrative.”” I also think Stephenson’s email simply stated the fact that Bryan and Simpson have been held up by many as representatives of opposing poles in the country music genre, neither accepted nor rejected that view, and asked Simpson if he wanted to comment on that situation or on Bryan. He didn’t ask for a particular kind of quote, and Simpson could have said absolutely anything in response, including “thanks but no thanks.”
December 10, 2017 @ 12:02 pm
Curious to see how all of the snowflake conservatives here take this since they all switched their tone on Sturgill after his CMA remarks. He just proved why he’s the way that he is towards media yet y’all will still call him an overrated, liberal asshole for what he said to poor ol Luke.
December 10, 2017 @ 12:14 pm
Not sure why we need to inject politics here. I think it’s pretty universal that people’s words should not be mischaracterized in the media, and that both sides of the media too often go into interviews etc. with preconceived notions or agendas.
December 10, 2017 @ 12:40 pm
I mean, I hate seeing politics always being brought up in places they don’t belong, but he has a slight point; in almost all of SCM’s Sturgill posts, the overwhelming amount of comments are petty comments about how the commenter doesn’t like him for his politics or they bring it up (like during the initial Luke bryan post on SCM) unprovoked. But I agree that the comments taken should be viewed from a non political view but both sides just can’t seem to do that lol
December 10, 2017 @ 4:06 pm
“Not sure why we need to inject politics here.”
Because most liberals and many doctrinaire conservatives can’t drink their morning coffee without injecting politics. Seriously, anyone who listens closely to Sturgill’s and Isbell’s lyrics can’t possibly be surprised their politically left of center.
Also, not liking to be called a “fucking bigot” doesn’t make you a snowflake.
I’m glad Sturgill clarified. The way the quote was used made him sound like kind of a dick no matter what you think of Luke Bryan. Clown move on the part of the “journalist”.
December 11, 2017 @ 9:05 am
Because most liberals and many doctrinaire conservatives can’t drink their morning coffee without injecting politics.
Very true, and it gets old and so very tiring. There is so much I could say in response to the off-topic political discussion in the comments on this post and other recent posts, but I choose not to because this is a music blog.
December 11, 2017 @ 10:36 am
Agreed, what an annoying waste of time the same ole back and forth political arguments. Even today with all the weirdness that is out there, just seen as boring, repetitive, go nowhere nonsense.
December 11, 2017 @ 10:59 am
I thought S.S. was libertarian leaning for awhile. I was wrong about that. However, being against a war doesn’t make you automatically a liberal.
December 11, 2017 @ 12:02 pm
“doesn’t make you automatically a liberal. ”
Close-minded politically-charged BS, marginalizing open-minded people.
from Dictionary on Google:
liberal = “open to new behavior or opinions and willing to discard traditional values.”
I don’t see anything wrong with being liberal. In fact, I’m proud of it. Living in the liberal frame of mind allows me to learn and grow. It allows me to see the good and bad in all ideologies, whether it’s libertarianism, socialism, capitalism, Christianity, etc. I can change with the times AND hold on to the best of the old.
December 11, 2017 @ 12:15 pm
But calling Republicans & Trump “fascists” makes him ignorant, at least of what that word means.
December 10, 2017 @ 10:23 pm
I’m curious as to why you haven’t confronted any of the conservative readers for injecting politics into the story.
December 10, 2017 @ 10:41 pm
I’m curious as to how this comments section became about politics, like everything in 2017. One mark of every political discussion is how each side feels like they’re being dealt with inequitably. I have straight up deleted some comments in this comments section from conservative commenters, and edited others. I have also personally challenged some of the things said. Nonetheless, I try to keep these comment section a free and open forum as best I can. I’d rather focus on writing articles than playing referee in the comments section.
December 11, 2017 @ 1:15 am
I think I did.
December 10, 2017 @ 1:53 pm
You mean Honky?
December 13, 2017 @ 5:28 pm
I’m not a Conservative, and I’ve always hated Sturgill. His politics are dumb, but his music sucks regardless.
December 10, 2017 @ 6:48 pm
And I’ll respectfully disagree right back atchya…. Simpson’s comment was in the *way* he was declining comment, and that is fair game. I don’t know an editor in the business (and I knew quite a few over four decades in newspapering) who wouldn’t have stuck that quote in the story. (And, yes, the full quote should have been used.)
Simpson is an intelligent and media-savvy guy. If he didn’t want to comment for the article, all he had to say was, “I have nothing to say.” But he declined comment (or now wants to contend he did) with rather pointed observations about Bryan. A stalwart of Americana said he doesn’t think about and has “never heard a single note” of one of the biggest stars in country music. Simpson is saying he works to avoid Bryan’s music. Does Simpson’s quote not sum up, rather succinctly, how he feels about Bryan and his music?
Yes, the full quote probably should’ve been used so readers could make their own judgment about what Simpson was trying to say. But sometimes, the *way* someone declines comment is part of the story, and I don’t know a professional reporter or editor — or media-savvy source — who doesn’t recognize that.
December 10, 2017 @ 11:19 pm
Trig,
I think you’re wrong there. If you respond to a reporter’s question, he’s free to quote you–unless you first get him to agree that what you’re saying to him is off the record. You don’t give him a juicy quote and then add, “I’m afraid I’m unable to supply you with a quote.” Sorry, Sturgill–You just did!
The only legitimate beef he has is that the writer should have included the whole sentence.
December 10, 2017 @ 11:21 pm
Heyday–
I tried to say the same thing as you. But you beat me to it–and said it a lot more eloquently and with more sophistication than I did!
December 11, 2017 @ 8:59 am
Disagree with this. As I read the email exchange, the reporter asked Simpson to comment for his story on Byran and Simpson said he had no comment to make because he didn’t know Byran’s music. Simpson’s reply to the reporter was not intended to be published as a comment — rather, it was specifically intended to express his desire NOT to comment. That means the reporter had no business using ANY of what Simpson said.
December 11, 2017 @ 9:58 am
Respectfully, that’s not the way it works, and Simpson knows that. If he doesn’t want to comment, then he says, “No comment.” He is not obligated to explain why he doesn’t want to comment. Instead, he goes out of his way (even if you read the complete sentence) to say he doesn’t care about or listen to Bryan. That’s akin to a physician saying she doesn’t read medical journals. The doctor doesn’t have to agree with or use every study published in the journal, but you expect them to have a working knowledge of their profession’s contemporary issues..
When it comes to music, I’d pick Simpson over Bryan any day of the week. But I fear he’s being disingenuous here. He expressed an opinion in the way he now says he chose to decline comment.
December 11, 2017 @ 10:21 am
You’re saying Simpson knows what the rules are and therefore had some hidden agenda in mind. Hidden agendas aren’t consistent with his style. Yes, I agree that he was making a point that he didn’t give a shit about Byran’s music, presumably because he doesn’t respect it, but nonetheless, his email was clear: He didn’t want to comment for this piece. Being an artist isn’t analogous to being a physician.
December 10, 2017 @ 12:25 pm
While I think someone’s sentence shouldn’t be cut short, and that Simpson wasn’t intending on any of that to be quoted, I think it’s fair to say that the shortened quote is still within the spirt of the actual quote. It’s not like the rest of the quote doesn’t make him sound like a jerk.
He could have just as easily said, “I don’t pay very much attention to mainstream country music, so I wouldn’t have informed opinion on Luke Bryan, or any other artist in that vein.”
Communicates the same idea, but without still being a little bit of a slap in the face.
December 10, 2017 @ 2:29 pm
Yep, still an asshole
December 10, 2017 @ 6:54 pm
Chris Stapleton would probably have answered a loaded question like that with something like Jacob’s alternate response above even though Stapleton has penned a song, “Drink a Beer” (lolol) for Bryan. Stapleton is amazing in interviews. He’s great at remaining neutral when a touchy topic comes up. Smart dude. That said, Sturgill is also a very smart dude. The differrnce between the two is that Simpson will speak what he believes in, even if it is going to be an unpopular opinion that can and has cost him fans. I see both of these differing qualities that Sturgill and Stapleton have in interviews as positive in their own ways…but Stapleton is far less abrasive and seems to have himself under control more than Sturgill in interviews. Very professional. Simpson is just about as punk rock as a country musician could be (besides Hank3, of course). He’ll let loose about his own thoughts on any matter regardless of backlash from the country music community. i admire them both. …But Stapleton seems to answer touchy questions in a professional and business-like way. Very smart of him.
December 10, 2017 @ 12:33 pm
I applaud Sturgill Simpson. In recent years the media has been less than entirely honest, often twisting facts or as in this case, omitting them entirely so as to skew their story to fit their own agenda. For decades everyone has seen the Enquirer and similar tabloids as “trash”. Considering recent history, in my opinion, it’s all trash. If I don’t see or hear it with my own eyes, I question all. And often, even then.
December 10, 2017 @ 12:36 pm
While a part of me is selfishly sad that this isn’t the Mariah Carey “I don’t know her” level shade this originally seemed to be, in all seriousness, this is better and shows that Sturgill was just trying to be honest about a lack of familiarity with Luke and his work. Good for him for setting things straight.
December 10, 2017 @ 12:40 pm
Just as I thought. I’ve been misquoted enough to be suspicious. The NYT has really been subpar in the last year or so.
December 10, 2017 @ 1:27 pm
The New York Times is a joke. A bell cow for the Democratic Party the same way Fox News is for the Republican Party.
December 12, 2017 @ 10:15 pm
LOL.
December 10, 2017 @ 1:30 pm
The New York Times published an article on October 5th titled “Repeal the Second Amendment”. If you were still taking them seriously after that, may God have mercy on your soul.
December 10, 2017 @ 3:57 pm
That was an editorial. Paper’s publish lots of ridiculous editorials. We should be careful to distinguish the difference between the news that the New York Times publishes versus their editorial page which is a variety of conservative (the man who wrote that article, Bret Stephens, is a self-professed conservative) and liberal think-pieces.
December 10, 2017 @ 5:36 pm
I don’t care what it was. They shouldn’t have allowed that horseshit to see the light of day.
December 10, 2017 @ 6:44 pm
Sounds like you’d rather repeal the first amendment.
December 11, 2017 @ 12:25 am
The 1st doesn’t exist without the 2nd, Zach. How long do you think free speech would have lasted without an armed citizenry? Remember why Japan never invaded the United States? You think they would have thought twice if not for old number 2?
I don’t dispute anyone’s right to say repeal the 2nd amendment, but it’s a slap in the face to the history of this country and to folks who have exercised armed defense of self/family/property. The New York Times has the right to allow treasonous propaganda like that, but they are not then allowed to wonder why they’re seen as a joke by half the country.
But go ahead Zach, point out exactly where I stated my desire to repeal the 1st amendment.
December 11, 2017 @ 8:18 am
Calling a critique of the 2nd amendment, or any law, treasonous propaganda is a pretty clear assault on free speech in my opinion. Treason is a capital crime that carries the death penalty. The first amendment exists to allow citizens to critique the government without fear of persecution and a free press is an essential check on the powers of government. Hate the NYT all you want but leave out the but about treasonous propaganda
December 11, 2017 @ 7:49 pm
I agree regarding the first amendment allowing citizens to critique the government without fear of persecution. That however is not even remotely what that editorial was intended as. Treasonous propaganda was too harsh, I’ll give you that. How about I just call it traitorous negligence regarding the constitution and the rights it entails.
December 11, 2017 @ 12:28 am
Mike W., regarding Bret Stephens…He can kiss my gun-toting tree hugging politically moderate ass.
December 11, 2017 @ 10:54 am
Which is fine, but the man has the right to write such articles and the Times has the right to publish such articles. The local newspaper where I live published opinion pieces from readers saying Obama was a muslim. I disagreed with that opinion, but I certainly support the right of those who wrote it to do so.
It’s fine to be upset about some article like Stephens wrote, but I personally think it is a dangerous, slippery slope to start calling such articles “treason”.
December 11, 2017 @ 7:53 pm
If you read above you will see where I clearly stated I agree that he has the right to write that article and the NYT has the right to publish it. I didn’t literally mean treason. Disgusting and traitorous propaganda, same as the opinion pieces on Obama, but not literal treason of course.
December 11, 2017 @ 10:53 pm
Boring. You political windbags are boring. Take it somewhere else.
December 12, 2017 @ 10:17 pm
“People who disagree with me shouldn’t be allowed to express their opinions!!!”
The most 21st century political statement of them all. You’re a real man of the times, Ulyesses.
December 13, 2017 @ 12:15 am
Not what I said Kevin, not at all. I said NYT should think twice before what they put in their publication. Maybe don’t support attacking the constitution.
December 10, 2017 @ 1:41 pm
This “reporter”, or opinionater earned, his degree in journalism from a journalism school, right?
Reporters are supposed to report; who, what, when and where and how.
Opinionaters are to present their opinion, which is of course, opinionated, read biased. It doesn’t matter what the agenda is, opinion is still opinion, and ALWAYS subjective. Sadly print alleged journalist and talking heads attempt (and succeed) in forming opinions for others who take opinion as gospel.
Not having been properly educated in gov’t agenda schools very few readers and writers offer objective analysis. Leaving out pertinent facts renders ANY opinion biased. Don’t pretend for a minute that isn’t a known by those who use it for whatever agenda/purpose.
“My” “opinion” of SS hasn’t changed. I still don’t like him or his music. I didn’t like his music first.
Others “opinions” may be different.
December 10, 2017 @ 4:06 pm
The problem is that so many local newspapers have shed staff or cease to exist. Journalists are then “forced” to give their time to terrible online outlets like Huff Post or Breitbart in order to gain experience so that they may one day work at a Times, Post, etc. They learn bad habits because modern journalism is all about “clicks” versus actual solid reporting.
My guess? Stephenson wanted to make sure he got as many clicks on his Luke Bryan piece, so that he would be able to cover other, more serious items than Luke Bryan oiling himself up. Writing an article that is essentially: “Luke Bryan is boring, but is irrelevant to his critics like so many other modern artists are in Nashville” doesn’t drive as many clicks as “Luke Bryan is hated by indie artists, but loved by the mainstream”.
December 10, 2017 @ 1:55 pm
He blasted the ACM’s for the Merle Haggard award they made after he passed. He’ll never get asked for that one. If the CMA’s asked,I’m pretty sure he would be too cool for school to attend.
December 10, 2017 @ 2:20 pm
That does not change the context of the quote very much. This would be considered an acceptable paraphrase. Sturgill already said it might be his fault he did not get nominated.
December 10, 2017 @ 3:16 pm
That’s not a paraphrase, by definition, but ok.
December 10, 2017 @ 9:34 pm
You are correct. But it is still an acceptable form of the quote, because it does not change the intention or idea behind the text. Good catch.
December 10, 2017 @ 2:21 pm
Naughty fake news. One cannot help but wonder what else they have taken out of context.
Luke Bryan has oil massaged into his arms (in order to better facilitate the rescue of children and defenceless animals from wells and other tight spots).
I’ve said if Ivanka weren’t my daughter, perhaps I’d be dating her (but that was only a tasteless joke and I didn’t really mean it, because otherwise it would be creepy in the extreme).
Disgraceful. Heads must roll.
December 10, 2017 @ 2:30 pm
This is just an off-shoot of the way the modern “music press” operates nowadays. Thanks to the execrable world of “pop” music, there’s always a need to create idiotic “feuds” or “beefs” between artists. For example, the imbecilic Kanye/Taylor Swift nonsense and the tiresome rap “call outs” and “dis tracks”. I doubt Simpson cares very much about Luke Bryan and vice versa, but writers want that “controversy”…”Sturgill says he hates bro-country phonies” and so forth. It’s cheap lazy writing, IMO artists shouldn’t always be compared to or measured against others in that competitive sort of way, as it’s art thus always subjective. I mean IMO Luke Bryan’s music is straight-up cowflop but so what, lots of other people enjoy it so who the hell am I to label them or sneer at their tastes?
Of course every so often artists might clash and have differences of opinion and/or just flat-out dislike one another but when it infiltrates the music you get garbage of dubious artistic merit that becomes dated and obsolete very quickly. Led Zep didn’t waste studio time on “dissing” Deep Purple or Kiss or Grand Funk and that music still sounds as vital as it did when it was created. On the other hand, ten, fifteen years from now absolutely no one will remember or care about some moronic pop track about who Jay Z banged or Taylor Swift’s personal life.
December 10, 2017 @ 3:09 pm
All this seems as relevant to music as the old 16 Magazine my sister used to get decades ago. They would feature insightful articles such as “Who would be a better date. Paul or George?
December 10, 2017 @ 3:53 pm
Luke shouldn’t have even bothered with the NYT interview . The NYT music critic was condescending and dismissive of him when they reviewed his new album last week. I am not a huge fan of Luke but I do like some of his songs. His PR people messed up on this one as why would he bother to give them an interview without a positive review.
December 10, 2017 @ 4:01 pm
Because, like it or not, the NYT reaches a lot of people who are and are not Country music fans (I would argue saying Luke Bryan fans are Country fans may be generous, but to each their own) and Luke Bryan is one of the top contemporary artists in Pop/Country music. I would actually give Luke credit for interviewing with an outlet that did NOT give him a positive review. Do we really want/desire artists to only do interviews with outlets like CMT.com that will only say positive things about them?
December 10, 2017 @ 4:31 pm
That NYT album review was not good for promoting Lukes new music so again I think it was a mistake to give them an interview. The critic also dragged Blake and the whole bro country negative into the review. I think Blake s album is very good. Luke’s is just OK to me. I just found the whole tone of the NYT music review to be dismissive and elitist. Just trying to appeal to the cool hipster Nashville music crowd. Which is fine and I am sure many here agree but don’t give them an interview for it.
December 12, 2017 @ 10:21 pm
Why SHOULDN’T people be dismissive of bro-country?
Why is it soooo terrible that someone (NYT) would take that stance.
In trying to convert my friends to how great country music is, all the frat boy stuff is both the biggest hurdle in convincing them and usually the only think they know about because it’s all that gets played on radio and TV.
December 10, 2017 @ 3:55 pm
Sturgill is tiresome. And seems to be an asshole. He’s not that freakin’ great.
December 10, 2017 @ 3:58 pm
Thanks for contributing a lot to this conversation!
December 10, 2017 @ 4:00 pm
Thank you for acknowledging my contribution.
December 10, 2017 @ 4:15 pm
I never get tired of listening to Metamodern, or of him speaking his mind and fucking with the “country music” establishment, and I never get tired of seeing those that are butthurt by him express their disgruntled opinions. I personally hope all of the above continues. Thanks!
December 10, 2017 @ 6:14 pm
I don’t think Sturgill was misquoted at all. The reporter took what Sturgill typed in his email and used it in the story. I think the quote very clearly showed that Sturgill does not think about Luke Bryan at all. The New York Times got it right.
December 10, 2017 @ 7:13 pm
Yep Chris. After I reading his emails I would agree the NYT did state what he emailed them.
December 10, 2017 @ 8:42 pm
Bullshit. The reporter cut off Sturgill’s words IN THE MIDDLE OF A SENTENCE. And furthermore, specifically deleted the part of the sentence where Sturgill explained he was not in a position to contribute a quote to the reporters story, and even more specifically spoke about the reporters “narrative,” knowing what he wanted from Sturgill was a derogatory statement. There is not a professional reporter on the plant that will say this was in any way ethical. Most professional reporters would get fired for an incident like this, and I expect this reporter will at least be reprimanded, and should be reprimanded.
December 11, 2017 @ 5:54 am
In his email Sturgill wrote: “I don’t know Luke, I don’t think about Luke, and I honestly never heard a single note of his music ”
He wrote those words. All the reporter had to do was copy and past like I just did. That was the part of Sturgill’s answer that answered the reporter’s question so that is what he used. The last part of the sentence doesn’t really change the quote. Either way, Sturgill is still being dismissive and saying he doesn’t think about Luke at all. I don’t really get the outrage over this.
December 11, 2017 @ 8:14 am
Bullshit back. Don’t provide a quote and then say you’re not in a position to provide a quote. He knew what he was doing.
December 11, 2017 @ 8:28 am
“There is not a professional reporter on the plant that will say this was in any way ethical. ”
It’s not ever ethical to be a professional reporter on the plant. But whatever makes you happy. That’s what this country’s all about, anyway. Pursuit of personal happiness. Go for it.
“Most professional reporters would get fired for an incident like this, and I expect this reporter will at least be reprimanded, and should be reprimanded.”
That’s good and generous of you. Otherwise, he might have to subsist off a homemade website dedicated to what he loves the most, country musicians.
December 11, 2017 @ 7:57 pm
Homemade or storebought, it doesn’t really matter that much to me anymore. Didn’t mean to be insulting.
December 10, 2017 @ 6:35 pm
Respectfully, rather than characterize him as being misquoted, I think it would be more accurate to say he was incompletely quoted. He did say the words that were attributed to him, but the full context of his remarks was not provided.
December 10, 2017 @ 8:46 pm
Sturgill Simpson’s words were very specifically cut short to characterize his sentiment towards Luke as terse and brutish. I agree saying “Incompletely quoted” might be a better way to word it, but I also don’t think this coveys the gravity of what the reporter did. It also happens to be too long of a phrase to fit in the title bar of this site’s template 🙂 .
Sturgill was misquoted.
December 10, 2017 @ 9:16 pm
Could this be a case of semantics?
Technically not misquoted per se, however the intent of what he was trying to say was changed by cutting him short in that context, which is unprofessional and disingenous. Not to mention baiting and shit stirring.
So everyone so cleverly pointed out it’s not a misquote, might be missing the point?
December 10, 2017 @ 7:28 pm
Well I just read the email the NYT writer sent him. The writer clearly states the article was going to be about “real country ” or Americana vs “bro country ” or pop country. The “vs” part kind of gives away the writers agenda in the piece he was writing . Interesting. Why as a country music artist get involved in with this if you don’t have to?
December 10, 2017 @ 8:48 pm
Sturgill Simpson was being polite by replying to the reporter, and saying he didn’t have anything to contribute. Then a portion of that email was specifically cut out in the middle of a sentence to characterize Sturgill’s response to be more dismissive and terse than it actually was. This was underhanded, and just as unfair to Sturgill as it was to Luke Bryan.
December 11, 2017 @ 2:44 pm
Yep I do agree with your point Trigger that the NYT writer was being unfair to both of them. Actually Sturgill was much smarter than Luke as he wanted no part of it and made that very clear. Luke gave the NYT an interview and they gave him a rather bad music review for his new album . Lol. I am not that impressed with his album. It’s OK but that music review was very dismissive of him. The interview wasn’t that great for him either.
December 10, 2017 @ 7:40 pm
Really? He was misquoted? He didn’t write exactly word for word what was written in the article?
Maybe he didn’t intend for the words to end up in the article. But respectfully, Sturgill has proven himself to be a smart, articulate individual in numerous interviews. He’s been working with and around the media for a long time. I find it very difficult to swallow that he would have written that as the first sentence, in response to an email that very clearly laid out what the reporter wanted, and not known/expected/thought it was going to end up in the piece.
Also I think in the article, and in the email, pretty succinctly says what Sturgill thinks about Luke i.e. he doesn’t. What additional context am I missing?
December 10, 2017 @ 7:59 pm
Now maybe Sturgill didn’t mean it to sound as dismissive of Luke as it came off, but instead intended to totally shut down the reporter. People sometimes/often say things in interviews that don’t come off as they intend (although generally I have higher standards of email than live interviews, because you can stop and re-read).
December 10, 2017 @ 8:52 pm
“He didn’t write exactly word for word what was written in the article?”
No, he didn’t. He cut off Sturgill’s quote, inserted a period, and acted like Sturgill was being purposely dismissive of Luke Bryan, as opposed to conveying his ignorance on the subject, so he shouldn’t be included in the story at all.
You won’t find a professional journalist alive working at any newspaper under either the Chicago Manual of Style or the AP Style that will tell you this is ethical, or correct, and it’s not even close. THis is open and shut.
December 10, 2017 @ 10:19 pm
Agree 100% on this trigger.
December 11, 2017 @ 8:22 am
I can’t believe that it has to be argued that Sturgill’s quote was completely misrepresented. From his full quote, it’s obvious he didn’t want to provide any thoughts on Luke Bryan but would be happy to discuss other subjects. Crazy how the comment section on an article presenting something as straightforward as this ends up with people defending the way his quote was presented and additional political arguments.
December 12, 2017 @ 5:11 am
“Quoted out of context,” maybe?
December 10, 2017 @ 7:55 pm
The title of this article is fake news.
December 10, 2017 @ 8:37 pm
Reminds me of the quote on the back of “graffiti artist”, Banksy’s book: “There’s no way you’re going to get a quote from us to use on your book cover” – Metropolitan Police Spokesperson 😀
December 10, 2017 @ 11:01 pm
I’m not defending the journalist here, but looking back at the exchange with Sturgill (hindsight and all), if Sturgill had just left out the part about Luke, there would have been nothing to work with. The rest of the sentence would have conveyed the message perfectly:
“I am afraid I am unable to supply you with quotes you and your editor are seeking from me to fill out your narrative.”
No comments about Luke that could easily be misconstrued.
December 11, 2017 @ 9:15 am
This is true, but it suggests that Simpson measures and carefully edits his every remark. A lot of commenters here have said, in one way or another, Simpson is smart, he knew exactly what he was doing. Sure, he’s smart, but he’s an artist with strong opinions and passions and it’s pretty obvious at this point that he says what he thinks without putting it through a p.r. filter. His email response to the reporter’s request for comment was clear enough — he didn’t want to comment. Sure, he could have been more careful by editing his email as you suggest, but he shouldn’t have had to. He’s not careful in his music, either, and imo his lack of caution pays off, big time. Calculation over inspiration is the problem with a lot of mainstream country these days.
December 11, 2017 @ 9:43 am
Agreed on all points!
And as you stated earlier, Sturgill’s intention was obvious. The journalist in this case was fishing for something that wasn’t intended to be used in that way.
December 11, 2017 @ 10:26 am
Doug, thanks for bringing some insight (as a writer), intelligence and emotional maturity to the table. It’s refreshing to read comments like yours.
December 11, 2017 @ 11:17 am
Thank you, F Hugh, appreciated. As I’m sure you know, Trigger sets a high standard, and there are consistently a lot of good commenters here. I learn a lot.
December 11, 2017 @ 8:18 am
It is so funny that this has come up. Over the weekend I was listening to Luke Bryan’s new album and was thinking about him and Sturgill and comparing the two. Luke Bryan has some really bad songs but sometimes I think he is an easy punching bag for traditional fans. The thing about Luke most of his music country fans can still relate. His lyrics still have the country culture in them. Then I think of Sturgill. His last album musically is much less country than Luke’s. Then I compare Sturgill’s whole attitude. His attitude is much more anarchist punk than it is country.
The conclusion I came to is as a country music fan we don’t like all of the pop sounds in our music like Luke uses. But as a whole I feel like most country fans can relate a whole lot more to Luke Bryan than the liberal anarchist attitude of Sturgill.
December 11, 2017 @ 9:09 am
His last album was big country, in the way that Elvis was big country with the Stax Records. His attitude is country like Johnny Cash’s or Waylon’s. He’s far from an anarchist. Country music used to have big themes like life and death, love gone wrong, aging, class warfare. Girls on tractors ain’t country and it never will be.
December 11, 2017 @ 10:44 am
Couldn’t have said it better.
December 12, 2017 @ 10:27 pm
My all-time fav artist is Springsteen. And he has always talked about loving country music because of the adult themes the music captures. That’s just not true anymore. I’m not versed enough to know when it changed…but the only thing I hear on the country music are songs written for clueless tweens.
December 11, 2017 @ 8:49 am
Sturgill made it clear he’s moving past country music. Why does he care about a CMA nod? Can’t have it both ways Sturgill.
December 11, 2017 @ 11:22 am
They’re both not country, so who cares
December 11, 2017 @ 7:56 pm
Maybe not currently, but Sturgill’s first two albums are more country than Luke Bryan could ever hope to be. Perhaps Sturgill is now veering in the direction of rock, but his music is still 1 million times more honest than Luke’s.
December 11, 2017 @ 12:24 pm
To me, this is another count in the Sturgill Simpson douche-nozzle indictment. The reporter wrote a respectful request for a quote, even identified himself as a fan, and clearly explained what the piece was about. Simpson responded with a bitchy mini-tantrum. Maybe he’s had bad experiences with the press, but unless he had a bad experience with this particular author, he didn’t have cause to respond in a snarky manner. Not tom mention the fact that when you’re in the the public eye, the press is part of the deal.
I’ll leave the journalistic ethics to the journalists, but I don’t read the second part of the first sentence in Simpson’s response as “don’t quote me.” I read it as a sarcastic, “so sorry I can’t help you and your editor, asshole.” “No comment” or “I am not interested in providing a quote for your piece” would have sufficed. He could’ve said either, but he wanted to pout. I also didn’t read the partial quote in the NYT article as a response to Bryan’s coffee invitation. I read it more like, “I asked Bryan about Simpson, he said X. I asked Simpson about Bryan, he said X.” I also think the quoted portion of Simpson’s assertion was an accurate reflection of his thoughts / views / exposure to Bryan (i.e., none). The article was about BRYAN, and the author quoted what Simpson said about BRYAN; nothing Simpson said after the quoted portion makes what he said before inaccurate or misleading. Simpson’s advice to the author about the story he SHOULD be writing is as irrelevant as any advice the author might have given Simpson on how to play his music, so to my mind there’s no question that omitting that off-topic rant was perfectly appropriate.
December 11, 2017 @ 1:15 pm
Trashes the CMA’s, ACM’s, some fans and acts like he wants nothing to do with Nashville, then complains about not being invited.
December 12, 2017 @ 9:39 am
Editor: “just end the quote right there.”
Writer: “really?”
Editor: “yep.” (Chuckles)
Writer: (chuckles??)
sturg: (doesn’t chuckle, checks email, chuckles)
December 12, 2017 @ 10:52 am
As sneaky as it is, it’s pretty common for reporters to use partial quotes and if you don’t make it clear you intend to be off the record, they can include them. They just can’t add anything or change words. Where the reporter crossed the line was adding a period instead of an ellipsis (…). It’s a subtle difference, but the reporter made it seem as if the quote ended right there instead of indicating that it continued. He should change that and also include a correction/addendum that indicates the fuller context, given that Sturgill objected to the way the quote was used.
December 14, 2017 @ 7:05 am
i like this guy’s music, but i have to admit it is comical that a guy with three albums — which haven’t amounted to a gold record COMBINED — gets this much attention. not saying record sales are the be-all-to-end-all, but they do translate into somebody having a diverse range of supporters and not the same 125,000 people in a country of 300 million buying his stuff because it’s just. so. awesome.
it always has been, and always will be wise to not believe your own press. and the notion that because he won a grammy translates into some sort of automatic nomination for album of the year at the CMAs defies not only this guy’s schtick — which is being a country-music outlier — but his own seeming levels of self-absorption and letting the music speak for itself.
he comes off more and more like a tool every time i read something about him, regardless of whether i like his music. i just don’t like this knucklehead’s routine.
December 15, 2017 @ 11:52 am
Man, this is hilarious. Whatever you think of SS, that SOB knows what the hell he’s doing. Love him or love to hate him, people feel absolutely compelled to talk about him. And the greatest thing of all is that he plainly just DGAF. Lol
October 25, 2021 @ 2:10 pm
Luke’s music isn’t good. But the writer admits that he comes from the same town. Another Southern sellout. Thanks to modern society, he was indoctrinated into thinking the South was evil and backwards.
Cultural traitor. The cultural genocide of the South is hard to take.