Justin Bieber: Were his answers worse than Rolling Stone's questions?

Justin Bieber found this week that social media, which has played such a large part in elevating his star since his discovery on YouTube, doesn't just fawn and gush, it also barks and bites.

Following an interview with Rolling Stone, trailed in snippets on the magazine's website, excerpts began to circulate widely which suggested the 16-year-old Beiber is opposed to abortion and thinks "all things happen for a reason", including rape.

Among some other quotes which suggested Bieber is yet to form his own opinions or world view on a number of issues (such as lumping North and South Korea into one country and describing it as "bad"), Bieber told Rolling Stone journalist Vanessa Grigoriadis:

"I really don't believe in abortion. It's like killing a baby."

Asked whether that opinion changed in cases where pregnancy is a result of rape, he said:

"Well, I think that's really sad, but everything happens for a reason."

Rolling Stone later clarified that the full interview includes Bieber caveating this with a rather woolly: "I don't know how that would be a reason. I guess I haven't been in that position, so I wouldn't be able to judge that."

He had already judged of course - certainly as far as many critics were concerned - in the previous sentence when he said "everything happens for a reason". Supported by his anti-abortion rhetoric, that read like the kind of preaching the Christian right in America would love all role-models to peddle to impressionable young minds.

Polarising question

But whatever we may think, individually about Bieber and such opinions, this article raises a number of questions beyond the rights and wrongs of abortion, or other such incendiary issues.

What did the journalist, Grigoriadis really expect to be the outcome of asking such a polarising question of a 16-year-old such as Bieber?

This is not to excuse his opinions. Not least because that would be to assume those even are his opinions.

Bieber is a 16-year-old, born and raised in small-town Canada by his mother, a practising Christian, who according to a New York Times article from 2009, prayed with church elders to determine whether her son should be allowed to follow a mainstream music career rather than enter the church or dedicate his life to Christian music.

Apparently, after getting the nod from her church and overcoming some concerns that the music producer courting her son was not a Christian, Bieber was allowed to travel to Atlanta to record demo tapes, aged just 14. Since then he has travelled the world on a rollercoaster of pop stardom.

It's easy to imagine the world according to Justin Bieber has not been the same one any of us grew up in. 

In March last year, shortly after turning 16, Bieber's second album debuted at number one in the US Billboard charts - selling more than two million copies. If he hadn't already worked it out for himself, Bieber will have been told in no uncertain terms that popularity in the US will be the one thing that keeps him in trainers and baseball caps for many years to come.

"Morally wrong"

In 2010, according to figures from Gallup, 50 per cent of Americans said they believe abortion is "morally wrong". Although the volume at which the pro-life lobby campaigns may lead people, such as Bieber, to believe it is even higher.

So asked his views on abortion, put on the spot during an interview for a US pop music magazine where he may have been expecting a more forgiving line of questioning, it's impossible for us to know why Bieber gave the answer he did.

Perhaps it was the inate pressures and beliefs of the Christian upbringing he was born into. Perhaps it was a combination of fear that whatever he said was going to anger 50 per cent of the country, coupled with a commercial awareness - as with career 'virgin' Britney Spears before him - that the Christian right would be a more powerful ally for an aspiring pop star.

It could have been upbringing, commercial savvy, the sheer teenage stupidity of giving an answer, any answer, without thinking about the risks and repurcussions of his words. Or a combination of all three.

A lot of what Bieber said was no doubt ignorant. But does it really further any cause to discover this about him, or any 16-year-old? 

Was there really any value, beyond the publicity it has generated - and therein lies the key perhaps to such irresponsible reporting - in asking that question, or following up with such a highly-charged and confrontational question - to a 16-year-old - about rape, which he so clearly tripped over as the awkward, fumbled wording of his caveated answer suggests?

Much of the anger aimed at Bieber has pointed out how inappropriate it is that such ill-informed opinions fell from the mouth of a teenage role model, or that he would even wade into and skew the debate about such a controversial subject matter. But I can't help thinking, on this occasion, it was the question that was even more inappropriate than the answers. 

Have your say on this issue, post a reader comment below:

Comments

[Jimbo]

Well said. Bieber may be a total cretin.

But what kind of journalist asks a 16-year-old questions about rape and then publishes the idiotic answers, knowing the impact they will have.

[Helen Walker]

It is clear that kids in America badly need responsible education about issues such as abortion.

If Rolling Stone (or likely a more youth-oriented titled) wanted to seriously address such issues they could do a lot of good, and use influential pop stars to deliver the message on all sides of the debate and promote safe sex and proper sexual health.

Sadly asking throw-away questions about abortion of teenagers like Bieber and throwing their words up on the page simply to drive magazine sales, will only set back the debate.

[Claire Watson]

Who cares what Bieber thinks? Whatever your personal views on abortion his opinions will only damage the debate.

But 16-year-olds will have a whole host of idiot opinions. Rolling Stone should know better that to ask the questions that draw them out. This isn't journalism, or a 'need to know' piece of information. It's a scandalous undermining of serious discussion about a very important subject.

[Davey]

Bieber is probably a right little shit, but then I don't know that for sure - it's just my uneducated opinion (seems OK for Bieber to share his, so I'll do the same).

What I do know though is that his critics can't have it both ways...

"He's so manufactured..."
"His management team are just pulling the strings..."
"He's totally artificial..."

Yet when he says something like this about abortion everybody does a right fucking number on him, rather than the bonkers system he is a product of where the far right, Christian nut-jobs of America carry so much power in the media.

Is it really the case that we can forgive a bit of religious indoctrination and look the other way - blaming the individual - but meddle with our pop music and we'll cry foul?

That is proper fucking twisted!

[Marlo]

Agree and agree! I posted a similar take on my website too, and will be talking about it on my show on Monday. Thanks for speaking the truth on this!!!

[annette]

A music magazine deciding to ask these questions to a 16 year old who's reality is far removed from ours is questionable. The concern isn't in the way Justin Bieber answered the question but it points to a troubling aspect for me - these young performers/celebrities, it seems, are not being taught to use their brains for themselves.

The life of a celebrity child? As my favourite blog writer puts it "I don’t dispute that Justin Bieber has some skill. In the relentless pursuit of fame however what’s happened is that they have become his ONLY skills, juxtaposed with a lack of knowledge about almost everything else. There is no focus on the importance of critical thinking. This is why Lindsay Lohan never makes any sense. This is why so many of them make no sense. They’ve lost the opportunity to learn how to formulate a thought, and properly articulate that thought, argue it and defend it if they have to." (~Lainey)

[Michael Greene]

Boo Rolling Stone... What kind of a magazine are you. Teenagers have all sorts of opinions on every thing. Their opinions change and develop with age. Just enjoy or dislike the music which ever you choose. Justin Bieber isn't a world leader. The name of your magazine carries connotations of rebel like views and news. This is stuff is crap and not worth reading. Boo Rolling Stone... gives us something interesting.

[Polly]

I'm sure somebody will say because he's a role model Rolling Stone was being controversial, but relevant in getting his thoughts on an issue which affects his peer group.

But that's the problem.

Personally I disagree with his views but I don't generally disagree with his right to air them (if he can explain why he holds them).

I do disagree however, with the journalist's decisions to include them in the article. He was pushed for no reasoning, no pros and cons, no context, no consideration of the issues - just an uninformed, and slightly uncomfortable opinion from somebody who sadly some misguided teenagers may listen to rather than consulting somebody who could offer meaningful insight.

[Chris]

Ask a stupid person a stupid question and there will only be one outcome.

Sadly, in these days of lazy 'churnalism', celebrity obsession, easily-won fame and poor attention spans among mass audiences, it's too often the approach newspapers and magazines take.

[desi kamasutra]

I've been following this issue since then. Probably the social media have had a misunderstanding in Justin Bieber's answers to their question. Sometimes Justin is silly but then for sure he's going to fix this issue.