So, I guess there is a Canadian kid. He’s a pop star or something; his name is Justin Bieber, which sounds like a lot of jokes could be made from it. I dunno. A lot of people like him, a lot of people hate him - more on that later - but I’ve never heard more than a few bars of one of his songs, and that’s the extent of my opinion about him.
Anyway, he did an interview with Rolling Stone, and the interviewer, contributing editor Vanessa Grigoriadis, turned the topics over to American politics and a women’s right to choose. Because that’s the kind of thing a 16 year-old singer is going to have a fully-formed, educated opinion on, right? Right?
So apparently Bieber’s political opinions, from the advance solicitation Rolling Stone has given, are:
- Canada good.
- North Korea bad.
- Abortion bad, maybe? Rape pregnancies may be included in the “everything” he believes happens for a reason.
So of course, people lost their shit over the interview, complaining about Bieber’s opinions about abortion, particularly regarding abortion following rape, generally missing the part where his opinion comes with a question mark and is followed by, “I guess I haven’t been in that position, so I wouldn’t be able to judge that.”
But here’s the thing: Justin Bieber is a fucking child. His experience with world issues and sex are practically zero, but he’s asked about this, over, say, Rolling Stone employees’ children - or, you know, informed people - because he’s famous and his opinion on a hot-button issue will generate page hits and sell copies. He doesn’t know about these things.
So no, I don’t give a shit what Justin Bieber thinks about abortions. In fact, if it weren’t for people my age or older constantly complaining about him being famous, I probably wouldn’t know who he is. He’s just a kid who puts out music I don’t listen to. Period. Frankly, it’s easier to ignore him than it is to ignore the people whining about him instead of ignoring him.
What I do care about is contributing editor Vanessa Grigoriadis asking him about it for no other reason than the mercenary pursuit of profit and the knowledge that all the fallout will be on him, not on her or the magazine. Before you ask, I refuse to accept that “she’s just being a journalist, asking questions” because the second part of that expectation of journalists is that they ask people questions appropriate for their knowledge and role, which is to say instead of asking a child pop star about abortions, maybe you ask someone who’s read a little about the issue, or who can at least give the pretense of some experience, thought or expertise regarding it. And Bieber makes it clear in his answer that he doesn’t, though Rolling Stone still bafflingly prefaces it as a “solid opinion,” presumably to capitalize on people getting too outraged to finish reading a goddamn sentence.
Grigoriadis should know better. In fact, I’d be willing to wager she does; I’d rather assume someone is simply bad at their job instead of being too stupid to do it. However, she’s chosen to go for buzz over quality or journalistic ethics. So, well, fuck that. At the end of reading Rolling Stone’s promotion for the interview, I continue to not care about Justin Bieber, though I certainly have a lower opinion of Rolling Stone and Vanessa Grigoriadis.
