Keith Richards wants apology from Swedish newspapers

[Robert]

Read this - http://apnews.myway.com/article/20070829/D8RAM17O0.html

I guess the Swedish media weren't complete blown away...:munch:

 

[Spudman]

Sweden is a tough crowd.
First they set the level for excellence and then they expect it from everyone else. I don't blame them one bit.

 

[Jimi75]

I think the media is right and Keith reaction is ridiculous.
The Stones sucked all over on their last German Tour.

 

[Plank_Spanker]

I hear that Keef had a bad night..........................

 

[sunvalleylaw]

Having represented clients in bad situations, I have always felt it is a bad move to demand apologies from the press. Even if the newspapers have some of it wrong (not commenting about this concert, but newpapers often do have it a bit wrong in the legal world), demanding an apology just gives more opportunities to debate the issue in the public eye. Keith should drop it at this point.

 

[Robert]

I find it very strange to demand an apology. I mean, it's a subjective thing to write a review, right? Journalists are entitled to their subjective opinion; it's not like they are stating a universal truth.

On the other hand, you know the statement "any publicity is good publicity"... :crazyguy:

 

[sunvalleylaw]

I find it very strange to demand an apology. I mean, it's a subjective thing to write a review, right? Journalists are entitled to their subjective opinion; it's not like they are stating a universal truth.

On the other hand, you know the statement "any publicity is good publicity"... :crazyguy:

I agree. I suppose that he could view the controversy as good publicity. I wouldn't tend to agree though. In my client's situations, especially if they have to stand for trial in a small town, publicity is not so good. This is because the information that is released to the press early on comes often straight from the police reports. That is sometimes just one side of the story. The matter can be prejudged in the media. That is why sometimes the trials are moved.

In Keith's case, it is subjective, and now that he has made his statement of initial denial, I can't imagine benefit from debating it. :deadhorse: I am a lawyer and not a celebrity publicist though. I may have the risk/benefit analysis all wrong. BTW, these new smilies are fun!

 

[SuperSwede]

One of my friends saw that concert, and she said that Mick was the only one who seemed to know what song they were playing. She is a die hard Rolling Stones fan, but according to her they were not exactly tight. So I dont blame that journalist for writing such a review, and as someone said earlier, its his RIGHT as a journalist to write what HE felt about the concert.

 

[sunvalleylaw]

I certainly agree with that SS. Esp. hearing what your friend observed.