NME U2 blunder!

[crazyu2]

Look what the U2 artist page on the nme site says:

"In 1976 a 14 year old Larry Mullen Jr posted an advert at his school for band-members. Four decades later and U2 are the biggest band in the world..."

Four decades later!!!!Those guys really rock at maths!

 

[1stepcloser]

In that guitar magazine interview with the Edge that just came out (think it's Guitar World), they talked about one of the U2 songs they like called "Waiting for the end of the world". i know it's only a small thing but it annoyed me.

 

[Palace_Hero]

The enemy is often full of crap, and I often feel their talking about U2 is autopilot. Like they just have to for some reason, but very rarely do I get the impression they hold the band these days in the esteem they should.

 

[gareth brown]

70's, 80's, 90's, 00's

lots of people do that...

 

[Bodnex]

In that guitar magazine interview with the Edge that just came out (think it's Guitar World), they talked about one of the U2 songs they like called "Waiting for the end of the world". i know it's only a small thing but it annoyed me.

I read that too! That seriously annoyed me, if you are going to ask someone a question about a song, at least get it right! Edge probably broke him in 2 for calling it that!

 

[typhoon]

It pisses me off when journalists can't be bothered to get song titles right. You don't have to be a hardcore fan or spend hours researching to get those right, you need to look on the back of the fucking album.

 

[indra]

It pisses me off when journalists can't be bothered to get song titles right. You don't have to be a hardcore fan or spend hours researching to get those right, you need to look on the back of the fucking album.

No kidding.

I remember reading a review (of another band) where the writer noted that three of the original band members (and she named them) had left the band. All three were still with the band and all three were named in the cd notes as being in that band. What a piss poor journalist.

It was good for a laugh though. I'm still wondering who she thought was still in that band.

 

[Lemonfix]

70's, 80's, 90's, 00's

lots of people do that...

right, I don't think NME made a mistake.

 

[Total U2 Nut]

I'm not a fan of NME, every week there's something, no matter how small, just a dig at either Bono or the band.....
NME's not a fan of U2, so you can't really blame them for not doing their maths right.

 

[roy keane]

Enemy stinks

 

[susanp6]

NME has really gone downhill recently!

 

[gareth brown]

i'm assuming a majority of this forum are over 16? I think that magazine's aimed at a very young audience (teenage, OC-watching scenesters who go round wearing ties and Dragonball Z hair) compared to those who read The Word/Q/Mojo, so I don't think their readers are going to be incredibly bothered by the journalism (especially something as minor as the decades U2's career has spanned.) since they have a much more relaxed style etc compared to other magazines, so it's nothing worth fussing over.

If you're THAT 'outraged' beyond wanting to score points with people here by highlighting the infidels at NME making a tiny error, just write to them I'm sure they'll just love to take a break from whatever it is they're doing to read what you have to say.

 

[indra]

i'm assuming a majority of this forum are over 16? I think that magazine's aimed at a very young audience (teenage, OC-watching scenesters who go round wearing ties and Dragonball Z hair) compared to those who read The Word/Q/Mojo, so I don't think their readers are going to be incredibly bothered by the journalism (especially something as minor as the decades U2's career has spanned.) since they have a much more relaxed style etc compared to other magazines, so it's nothing worth fussing over.

If you're THAT 'outraged' beyond wanting to score points with people here by highlighting the infidels at NME making a tiny error, just write to them I'm sure they'll just love to take a break from whatever it is they're doing to read what you have to say.

You know if they had written that their career had spanned portions of 4 decades it would be fine. But they wrote "four decades later" which means 40 years. And that is a factual error.

And I do find it offensive that people are getting paid for sloppy and factually incorrect journalism, and their readers should be offended also. It shows a blatent disregard for their readers when they do not bother to get it right because their readers won't care. I don't care how old or young their readers are, they should respect them enough to do a good job. And sloppy writing is not doing a good job.

 

[AtomicBono]

You know if they had written that their career had spanned portions of 4 decades it would be fine. But they wrote "four decades later" which means 40 years. And that is a factual error.

And I do find it offensive that people are getting paid for sloppy and factually incorrect journalism, and their readers should be offended also. It shows a blatent disregard for their readers when they do not bother to get it right because their readers won't care. I don't care how old or young their readers are, they should respect them enough to do a good job. And sloppy writing is not doing a good job.

sorry, I don't have anything else to add to this really, I just second what indra and typhoon said. Errors are annoying.

 

[Zoots]

The thing that pissed me off the most in recent times was I think when a radio dj said that COBL clearly has Coldplay influence!!!

 

[AtomicBono]

The thing that pissed me off the most in recent times was I think when a radio dj said that COBL clearly has Coldplay influence!!!

I don't know whether I should or

 

[U2DMfan]

And I do find it offensive that people are getting paid for sloppy and factually incorrect journalism, and their readers should be offended also. It shows a blatent disregard for their readers when they do not bother to get it right because their readers won't care. I don't care how old or young their readers are, they should respect them enough to do a good job. And sloppy writing is not doing a good job.

It also shows that these "journalists" don't even know how to utilize a fucking search engine.

There is no excuse for a basic factual error at all, especially if the publication is actually being sold. Maybe 10, 20 years ago, not in a day where google will tell you everything you want to know just about anything in a manner of 5 mintues. But you have to be above cro-mag stage to utilize it, otherwise, well......