A waste of ink and paper
Posted by Larry Jordan on July 9, 2014, 3:06 pm
Edited by board administrator July 9, 2014, 3:36 pm
Being a conservationist I'm chagrinned that trees had to be cut down to produce the paper that the UK's Maverick magazine is printed on. Their publisher, David Rossiter, apparently doesn't mind going into print with articles that are poorly researched and written. This would not have happened under former editor Alan Cackett. |
On his supposed Reeves fan site Arie den Dulk recommends people read a 3 page article on the 50th anniversary of Jim Reeves' passing in the current issue of Maverick. It is bylined by David Brassington, whom Den Dulk boasts is a member of his fan club. Why does that not surprise me?
Someone in the UK who called my attention to the story described it colorfully as full of errors and an outright howler. Now that I have acquired a copy, I agree.
Brassington claims, for instance that Marty Robbins found the plane wreckage (but Marty did NOT go and search for the plane because, he explained to me, "I didn't want to find him.")
The writer says that Jim married his childhood sweetheart (even though Reeves met Mary after he became an adult). He credits Chet Atkins with moving Jim closer to the microphone to capture his low tones (but it was Bea Terry who brought this about). On and on.
Over the years I have read many such articles on Jim Reeves which are slapped together by ignoramuses who are too lazy to actually research their subject matter, rely on myths and half-truths, and thus perpetuate outright falsehoods about Jim. I would not dream of recommending such pieces, but the Holland webmaster obviously feels no similar restraint.
Mr. Brassington takes an oblique swipe at me by telling his readers that 'two fairly recent biographies...have not been very flattering but as a Christian I regard us all as flawed characters to a lesser or greater degree, and personally I am not interested in 'hatchet sensational journalism' as mostly they are after making a fast buck...”
Putting aside the fact that his dishonest mischaracterization of my book is hardly consistent with Christian teachings about being truthful, I must say I am wondering on what basis Mr. Brassington is able to ascribe motives to me, which he could not possibly know? To be dismissive of a piece of work that took over 13 years to complete, is based on more than 500 taped interviews plus Jim and Mary Reeves' personal diaries and private correspondence, is irresponsible in the extreme. It is also inexcusable and very arrogant. Maverick readers have a right to know about my book and to judge for themselves by perusing excerpts of it (which are available on Amazon and elsewhere) as to whether it is "sensational journalism." I also don't appreciate being lumped in with Michael Streissguth who did indeed produce a piece of trash on Jim.
Mr. Brassington's article reproduces some of the most unflattering early pictures of Jim and he credits Bear Family Records as their source (which also doesn't surprise me; they have a penchant for presenting Jim looking like a hillbilly hick).
He also fails to tell Maverick readers about any of the new CDs that VoiceMasters/H&H have produced. So he is depriving people of even knowing about these wonderful new products, which are a significant contribution to the Reeves legacy. But elsewhere he reviews a years-old release by Bear consisting in part of music from the Oslo show I already released years earlier than that!
As true fans of his know, Jim Reeves was a uniquely talented artist who had far-reaching and long-lasting impact on the music world. He deserved a better article than what Maverick printed.
The intelligent response I got from publisher David Rossiter to an email I sent him was, and I quote: "Whhhhooooo!"
That should tell potential readers of the magazine all you need to know: Don't waste your money, as clearly they aren't interested in the truth and they will let unqualified people fill their pages with crap.
I *am* a magazine publisher myself, and a radio show producer, and have worked in journalism since I was 15. So I have some insight into the news business. Playing fast and loose with the truth as Maverick apparently does can only get you into trouble. Readers aren't as stupid as some would believe. Sooner or later they'll catch onto you...