He did look like he started to develop a hunch back towards the end didn’t he
Back when the article was released I read something by a journalist who said that with big pieces like this the quotes and interviews etc are checked over and over again by multiple people, legal teams are involved, etc. Rolling Stone is a big magazine with a long history, there is no way they’d mess up or try and craft a negative narrative for the sake of it.
variety.com
well, based on what people have been saying, that may not be a bad move, regardless of the baby thing. He sounds like he has gone in the wrong direction and probably needs a reset
Rolling Stone published an article in 2003 claiming gay men were deliberately trying to get infected with HIV on a massive scale. The doctors quoted in the article later said they had never made the statements attributed to them
en.m.wikipedia.org
Damn, did not know that!Rolling Stone published an article in 2003 claiming gay men were deliberately trying to get infected with HIV on a massive scale. The doctors quoted in the article later said they had never made the statements attributed to them
In 2005 they published an anti-vax article written by Robert F Kennedy.
In 2014 they published a fabricated story about a gang grape on a University campus, they were forced to retract it and lost more than one defamation lawsuit resulting from it.
In 2016, they published an interview with Sinaloa Cartel leader El Chapo and gave him full editorial control over the article.
In 2021 they published a fake story about hospitals being overrun with Ivermectin overdoses. They basically had to admit they did no fact checking whatsoever.
In 2023, they claimed that an ABC journalist had been arrested for criticising the government, when he had actually been arrested on CSEM charges. The editor is a friend of the journalist and had the article rewritten to remove all references to child sex abuse.
So, yeah, I could easily believe they bull that article and twisted the interviewee's words, whatever Dave might actually be like.
All on their wiki page for further details
Rolling Stone - Wikipedia
It amuses me that I've seen so many comments across different platforms that the other band members would be disappointed etc. Assuming they're not all at it? They're all in the same position as Dave but without the mega fame - more than likely they've all dabbled in a bit of groupie fun.
They're probably annoyed with him for getting so embarrassingly and publicly caught out thereby dragging the band through the mud, rather than what he's actually done.
Ah yes, didn't think of it that way.
The whole narrative RS picked to go with in that story is so messy that I shake my head over how anyone can take it as gospel or even Taylor's final word. There's an account that's built its whole worldview around it to blame Dave for killing Taylor...like Taylor wasn't a 50 year old ADULT who couldn't speak for himself.
Every band member is an equal partner and publishing credits are distributed evenly. They are all officers in the band's LLC. The only part where that differs is Dave being president of Roswell Records, the label that releases the band's music (RCA/Sony has a distribution agreement).
yup-they are all making a living and need to keep it going, if DG retired the band, they are in a tough spot
Wouldn‘t they be rich enough to retire? They surely will spend a lot of money, but they must have earned fortunes? Or am I naive?
Depends how well they’ve looked after their money, if they’ve hired financial advisors, etc. Do they all have publishing rights?
