By Rachel Krueger
Bye Bieber Bunting rocks the cover of Rolling Stone next month, looking as bad-ass as his infant-face is capable of. The Stone is teasing out its Biebernterview by releasing all the salacious bits, and the PITCHFORKS ARE A-GATHERIN. Particularly around the Bieb’s stance on abortion which, though RStone calls it a “solid opinion,” he feels the need to end in a question mark. “It’s like killing a baby?”
Heedless comments like that are interview-bait gold, and RStone knows how to capitalize on an interviewee who has not yet learned to curb his tongue by asking him about abortion in cases of rape. Clearly disconcerted, the teenlette stammers, “Um. Well, I think that’s really sad, but everything happens for a reason.” REMARKABLY INSENSITIVE THING TO SAY, yes, even when followed by the admission that, never having been in that position, he “wouldn’t be able to judge.” But what 16-year old pampered boy-child has a well-balanced, reasoned view of rape and abortion? This is how we develop informed decisions, y’all, by saying really ignorant things and then having someone correct us.
Unfortunately for the Biebling, his learning is done on the pages of Rolling Stone and all the idiotic teenaged remarks that usually go reprimanded by parents are being SLATHERED on the intertubes. His wranglers need to wrangle him better, because following his abortion comments he goes on to comment on the political situation in Korea. Come ON, RStone! That’s like letting a puppy talk about universal health care! I’m hesitant to call shenanigans on an interview not yet released in full, but perhaps we should be hollering for the Bieber’s education before his blood.
Hey Lindsay,
It sounds like we’re arguing the same side of the coin. I said, ‘what 16-year old pampered boy-child has a well-balanced, reasoned view of rape and abortion?’ and YOU said, ‘What 16 year old child has a staunch or informed view on rape and abortion?’ Both excellent questions.
I never said Bieber was being intentionally salacious. I said Rolling Stone released the salacious bits, the bits that would cause controversy.
I also never said his responses were idiotic, I said that teenagers say idiotic things (a position I stand behind) but that USUALLY they aren’t dragged through the PR mud as Bieber currently is. I think we’re on the same team, here.
I realize your article is meant to illustrate that the “Biebling” gave inconsiderate and potentially salacious answers to questions asked by Rolling Stone, but I disagree with your position. It is not the fault of Bieber or of his handlers. The onus should be placed solely on the interviewer for having the gall to ask a young, virginal and openly devout christian boy his views on pre-marital sex and abortion. It’s disgusting, and considering his responses (which Rolling Stone has already acknowledged have been heavily edited) I feel he handled himself well and with poise, considering his age and his obvious inexperience with the subject matter. What 16 year old child has a staunch or informed view on rape and abortion? Rolling Stone should be ashamed of themselves, and you should be ashamed of yourself for suggesting that his responses are “idiotic”. He was clearly doing his best, and no one can fault him for that.