I think it's kinda gross to release an interview where the person who was interviewed requested for it not to be released.
Idk, apply that logic to a CEO or a politician or anyone else, and obviously we wouldn’t want them to decide what can and can not be published. Broadly speaking, I think if someone were scared that something they said could impact their safety or something, i get it. Personally i think it’s fucked up that a famous successful person/their team can have an interview killed just because they don’t like the tone of the interview.
but she's... not a politician or a CEO, she is a musical artist who is promoting her own music. It's not uncommon for interviews to take place and then one of the two parties decide they don't want it to go live, it's VERY common for music, tv, movies, etc.
I mean she didn’t want to talk about her Dad and the interviewer kept pushing that topic on her so I understand why she wanted it pulled.
I absolutely don’t think it’s gross for a journalist to release an interview just because the subject didn't want it published. Nothing in the interview was particularly private. It’s not like she doxxed someone. Journalists don’t exist to do PR for you.
Compared to Chance who got an article pulled because it was an unfavorable review which is childish, I don’t really see much of an issue here.
At the end of the day the interviewer was just trying to do her job. I thought some of her questions were a little strange, but I don't think she asked anything that could be construed as disrespectful. It seems like Annie probably could have handled her concerns directly at the time rather than sending her team after Emma after the fact.
If your dad is part of your PR materials, people will want to dig into that. If you don’t want to discuss it, the best bet is probably not to do interviews. There’s a level on which i think that everyone involved in this story is both pitiable and culpable.
Like I said no one looks good the angle discourse of this album is gonna overshadow the music and we will forget all about it by May 17th haha
She’s a famous and powerful [within the industry] musician who regularly - from the sounds of it - puts people through the ringer who interview her. Her team cost this interviewer a paycheck because they didn’t like the tone of the interview, and they used their power to squash it. That, to me, feels more gross than publishing the interview.
you're making a lot of jumps here, you have no idea what the interviewer was paid or not paid. If you're assuming that people only get paid if their interview runs, you're making wrong assumptions.. Anyway, looks like she took down her tweet already
Yeah I have no idea what y’all are talking about because I just got caught up, but that Tweets been deleted
Would it be all that weird for Annie to just openly be like "Hey everyone, I know my PR team pushed the father aspect hard at the outset of this record push, but I realize now that this was a mistake and I have no interest in talking further about my private family life or how it impacted my recording of this album"? Maybe I'm an outlier but I would find that kind of bluntness far more endearing than this awkward tightrope walk that people always do when they want to avoid doing a full 180, especially since the subject matter in this case is about something that very obviously falls more on the private side, which people would presumably be more likely to respect
She was tweeting in the original thread that she was being threatened legally, and that she would be going private soon.