back when he was with Hot Press, he was dining out on the fact that he's Bono's mate. I'm a big fan of U2 but where's the harm in taking a shot at Bono now and again. Surely he's not bothered by any criticism at this point?

the very mention of 'Hot Press' is making me angry!! maybe that could be next month's feature, 'Hot Press On Trial'!

after reading his article, I have to say...who he?

I stopped reading after "sonic tapestry" - Christ!

That man lost any grain of respect I had of his review-writing when he released that tosh of a charity single after the London 7/7 terrorist attack. It was SO awful as a song, SO misjudged as a decision to do it in the first place and SO embarrassingly promoted, that I cannot take seriously any article written by him.

Frankly, anyone at The Word should take as a compliment any criticism from Neil McCormick.

I'd adore to eavesdrop on a telecon between Neil and Bono.

"Hi Paul, it's Neil"
"Sorry?"
"Hi Paul, it's Neil, Neil McCormick from The Telegraph, you know, I wrote a biography of the band."
"Oh great I love The Band, particularly Music From The Big Pink. Send it to my management company in Holland."
"No, I mean your band"
"Sorry? Who is this again?"

etc

"one of the UK’s best known music critics". You should put him on the Word payroll, poor lamb.

See now this is what i love about WORD's online stuff. You don't get that kind of even handedness anywhere else on the web. Hats off.
Unless you were kidding like.

It was funny but at the same time, reading between the lines, you could tell that the writer really did feel robbed of stardom and possibly still does. It made me wonder how deliberately funny he was actually being which made for a brilliantly intriguing read.

by this gent and elsewhere on this site does point to fact that the gist of the piece that Bono is a divisive figure who polarises opinions was correct.
Lastly on your cv does "bono watcher" go under your "professional experience" section or in "hobbies and interests" after theatre going and walking?

that half his criticisms of the article are essentially the same as those raised by Word readers on this very blog (heard it before, obvious target, was this a space filler?) and yet in defending Bonio by apparently arguing that Word should be prioritising artists on the grounds of their humanitarian efforts rather than their music and lyrics, he manages to make Bonio seems every bit the pompous prick half the writers in the Word article were saying he is.

I can imagine Mr Vox facepalming furiously should he read it.

Sorry to come on here being all negative, but Neil McCormick is a dick.

etc etc. Todays Daily Telegraph rock correspondent, tomorrow is another day.
Telegraph rock correspondent has a ring of Mirror astrophysics correspondent, don'cha think, which is a shame, as the saturday edition, minus all the news and opinion, is quite good

does hang on to U2's coat tails for what passes for his journalistic career he does raise some good points of the word cover piece - like what was the question?
I found myself asking what was the point? I didn't think any of the pieces were very strong and did not learn anything about Bono or change my opinion of him from reading it - would say was probably Word's worst cover story. When compared to say the Springsteen piece of jounro's who had come into contact with him at different stages of his career, the Bono piece was shallow to say the least.

or can I just call you 27? Half a dozen pages of inquiry into a bore cannot help but be boring. The target was the size of a barn door, and most unusually I couldn't be bothered to get to the end of a Word cover story. I would be most interested to know if putting the Napoleon of Pop on the cover caused a blip in sales, and in which direction.

"It is just an attention grabbing headline yolking together some skimpy reminiscences of encounters with the rock star by Word magazine regulars."

"Yolking"?

Is he suggesting they were whisked together to make a journalistic omelette?

Neil McCormick is?

It's a bit sad when a journalist has a bit of a "thing" about a pop star - Paulo Hewitt and Paul Weller springs to mind.

"What does it say about them [critics of Bono], that the rock star they would put on trial is the one who is making the most effort to do some good in the world?"

It depends on whether you think Bono is really "doing some good in the world". And what exactly constitutes "doing some good in the world"?

There is legitimate concern that Bono represents the worst form of celebrity culture: the idea that ordinary people can filter and direct their consciences, their concerns, their criticisms through a man who sells a lot of product and tickets by singing in a rock band and who has elevated himself to a level of influence by doing just that.

Bono and his ilk blur the lines of authority and power by perpetuating the idea that because he can engage with people in a way politicians can't that he is pulling the strings and making a difference. On one level it's true that Bono reaches parts of the apathetic mind-set politicians can't, but this approach to "issues of the day" has created the kind of politician who feels the need to ring Piers Morgan and ask how Susan Boyle is doing and let everyone else know about it in the middle of one of the worst economic and political climates for a long time.

I don't want that from my elected representatives of government as I've already got an army of A to Z list celebrities letting me know just how wonderful they are because they are "doing some good in the world". If I want proof of empathy from my Prime Minister I want to see him doing boring stuff like regulating banks to show me he understands my anger about rampant corporatism.

Furthermore Bono's day job is becoming an ever more transient and disposable market for his key audience. Young people, in the main, approach music very differently to people of my generation or of Bono's generation. So when they see a rock star talking/sermonising avout famine in Africa or debt relief for the 3rd World there is a real danger that the message is viewed as emanating from the same message centre that puts out an album every couple of years or goes on tour. When people grow out of Bono's band do they grow out of Bono the do-gooder and therefore move on in their media-driven need to find "issues" to Twitter/Facebook/Party/Flashmob about?

So again it's the blurring of lines that makes his whole approach suspect and worthy of criticism. He deflects people from getting to the root of making a difference in the world which is to engage in the system of politics as it really is, not as something that can be understood by listening to Bono and acting at his behest by making a donation, wearing a T-shirt or passing off a sound-bite as "my ideology".

Finally how does Neil McCormack know that Bono is "making the most effort to do some good in the world"? By or with what does he measure such a claim? Is there a league table of celebrity do-gooders that Bono tops that I've neglected to consult?

Don't give the story away. I've not got to the Bonio pages yet in Word. I'm saving them until I need to read a really ripping yarn. Or was it I needed something to send me to sleep? One of them anyway...

I guessed that's why it was relegated to the back end of the mag.

who was I suppose the first of the rock royalty to use his position to 'address big issues'. He consorted with Presidents and garnered publicity. The fact that Lennon became increasingly less discriminatory about the causes he supported blurred the picture further. Even back then - in a much less celebrifty conscious age - it quickly became more about the star than the message.

These days it's all about the messenger. I don't doubt Bono's commitment to the causes he champions however there is as Bisto says a wider effect. And you do have to seriously question whether or not that - the political celebrities and the celebrity politicians - will outweigh the good in the longer term.

Yes, modern life is indeed rubbish, and U2 are the Plastic Bono Band.

Mr Hewson is Mr McCormick's meal ticket.

Turkey's don't vote for Christmas.

I've not got around to picking up this month's copy yet, and this is possibly due to the offputting cover... not sure (I will do over the weekend though, I promise).

*However!*

I thought McCormick's writing was pretty bad, even before reaching the "sonic tapestry" line referenced above - surely this goes to the top of the The Word writers' blacklist.

And then there's the idea that we shouldn't be knocking Bono because he's doing so much good for the world. Even if I thought he *was* (I don't), I fail to see what that's got to do with anything. We're talking about an article on a musician, in a music magazine here. U2 want to be taken seriously as a band, fair enough, but much of their music is bland and reductive - and I suspect they know it - and yet they benefit from massive media exposure, partly due to their singer's extra curricular activities. On which basis, Bono is totally fair game, and from what this McCormick dude says, he knows this.

So if Bono knows and accepts the game he's entered into, why cant his mate?

"Yes, Father"

"You're sitting on the wrong side of the Confessional booth y'eejit"

Sigh. Anyone who markets themseleves as "One of the best known music critics", and discounts other people's opinions because they aren't famous (WHO HE? WHO SHE?) doesn't deserve print space, and I'd never visit his blog again.

He won't care about this, though, because none of us are famous. Jackass.

Plus, that song is repulsive, even if well meant.

HOWEVER... he's right about these "four or five different writers piece together their thoughts about a certain rockstar" pieces though. I.e. the recent features on Springsteen and Kate Bush. I don't enjoy them as much as the single extended interviews, such as with Van Morrison, or the focused articles, such as Joe Meek. Just a thought.

On the one hand, Neil McCormick raises a couple of reasonable points.

Dambisa Moyo would not be my choice of expert witness to knock down Bono's work in Africa - but there are plenty of economists less extreme who would argue that Live 8 etc. has done little to improve the economic welfare of Africa.

Also, let's face it, this kind of cover story - big picture of star on front which links to a bunch of opinion pieces inside - doesn't represent the mighty Word magazine at its best, does it?

On the other hand, there's something a little bit creepy about that website, isn't there? If I was Mr McCormick's girlfriend, wife or partner, I'd feel a little bit worried by the devotion he shows to Bono. In fact, if I was Bono, I'd feel a bit worried too.

“They wouldn't be heroes if they were infallible, in fact they wouldn't be heroes if they weren't miserable wretched dogs, the pariahs of the earth, besides which the only reason to build up an idol is to tear it down again.”

He should try subbing his own copy (or at least get someone to do it for him). What a pile of badly written, toys-out-of-the-pram shite.

And the 'who he/she' comments are pathetic - he's hardly Ernest Hemingway in the recognition stakes. Twat.

he's a bit of a Liddle.
Insult "our brave boys" at your peril, Mr McC, the curse of Stimpy will rain down on you.........
Got all those discs backed up? Insured? Sure? Looks like rain?

I never quite understand why the quality of The Word veers from month to month in such fashion. The Pet Shop Boys and Iggy cover stories were excellent and well worth reading. The Bono piece (and the Island Records one) seem like the work of a different group of people. The Bono one in particular smacks of a last minute cut-and-paste job (did the original cover star pull out?). None of the articles were particularly interesting and the whole was less than the sum of its parts. Great cd this month though.

Does The Word think The Word should be above any criticism at all?
That cover “story” (hem hem) is a shabby piece, not revealing anything new about Bono or offering any new opinion about him that hasn’t been aired a million times before, not least on here. An excuse to put a big star on the cover (to attract people who like him) while at the same time slagging him off (for the many people, me included, who don’t). Talk about having your cake and eating it.
As far as Neil McCormick goes, I’ve never read his Bono book but he’s a perfectly good rock critic, one of the best on the newspapers I’d say. Good piece on Britpop today in the Telegraph.
He likes Bono. Get used to it. All music journalists have their favourites and their sacred cows, not least the ones who write for The Word.

I don't know why he chose Mr Forde as the target for his opprobrium, since other hacks have hacked into the Beshaded and Platform-Shod One with an even meatier machete.

Here's Marina Hyde (who she?), on him suing a former stylist to get his leather trousers back:

You've probably lost count of the number of times Bono has claimed with mysteriously acquired moral authority that the problems Africa faces puts things into perspective. Is it not fair to say that lavishing vast sums of money on this staggeringly petty little case puts his claims of moral authority into perspective?

[...] For many years, this chap worth hundreds of millions had enjoyed the tax-free status extended to artists in Ireland, driving around on roads paid for by teachers and nurses and plumbers - the very people to whom he'd appeal for donations when an African village needed a well. Or, indeed, a road. Anyhow, do imagine Bono's horror when the government decided that artists' tax-free income would be capped at $625,450. He and his band promptly decided to move their tax affairs to the Netherlands, which offered a yet more favourable rate.

[...] The Tax Justice Network estimates that rich individuals avoid paying a collective $255 billion a year by protecting it in offshore havens, more than five times the amount needed to fund the Millennium Development Goals trumpeted by Bono. These goals include halting the spread of HIV/Aids, reducing extreme poverty by 50 per cent, and providing universal primary education by 2015.

"Sanctimonous git" has it.

I like multi-faceted and multi-opinionated (or multi-populated opinions) "cut'n'paste efforts, far better than sheets of torrid prose from but one enthusiast, apologist or detractor.
Hey ho, takes all sorts, broad church etc etc etc

I'll suggest that he's a little peeved as possibly the world's No 1 Bonio expert (it may be in his own mind but could also be true) that you did this feature and didn't ask him to contribute a few paragraphs for the defence.

Bono sings songs for a living.Does that qualify him to go on about N Ireland ,Africa or anywhere else for that matter. Does he not think that all these politicians dismiss what he says or probably laugh at him when he swans off after their meetings.
As for that other writer is he not Smithers to Bono's Mr Burns.If someone was paying your rent would you not stick up for him ?

I notice that Neil McCormick doesn't attempt to justify Bono's glasses.

Some things are indefensible...

This morning, Neil apologised for "his rudeness" towards Eamonn - he agreed it was not needed.
He stands by his view on the Bono section in Word, and (in my opinion) he is entitled to do so, regardless of whether we/you/I agree with him.

It ended up with fairly cheery exchanges between Eamonn & Neil.

Ultimately nobody died and the world is still turning.

for many Irish newspaper readers young Mr Vox is referred to as 'Bongo'...strangely fitting.

He's not even the best drummer in U2

Here's a question for you - has the advent of online commentary finally given us all a suitable forum for the angry thoughts that have always been within us, or are we all just suffering from increasing word rage these days?

How can such a schoolboyish bit of magazine fun about one of rock's most obvious and up-for-it targets cause such a lengthy and worthy response from...another rock critic?

As Neil McCormick points out, Bono is thick-skinned and he's certainly been around long enough to not need defending against such flimsy mud throwing. It was hardly a grilling from Paxman was it?

If I hadn't known that Neil McCormick was a rock critic I would have thought that his article was written by someone who didn't know how magazines and newspapers are constructed. My mum for instance. For a journalist to criticise an article because the headline promised more than the story actually delivered is a bit like the old joke about the man who bought a self-assembly wardrobe from MFI then took it back because it didn't do anything.

Like a large carp, he fell for it hook line and sinker.

Sigh, too much wine.

I am heartily sick of people who constantly slate Bono. OK, if you want to dislike his music then fine, say what you want about it. However, at least he is actually trying to make a difference in the world over important issues such as AIDS, debt relief and other similar things. What exactly is wrong with that? At least the man cares and attempts to do something with his fame and position as a superstar. Many of the people who slag him off probably care little about anything. As it is Bono actually knows a lot more about debt relief and AIDS prevention than I and many others do, including many of the naysayers.

he doesn't see the importance of paying tax in his own country.

Post in haste, regret at your leisure.

There are some good points in these comments (some better than the original article, indeed). I know I am on a hiding to nothing when I write about Bono and U2 but I find myself by some accident of life as a professional music journalist, I write every day about the music I care about ... and U2 is a band a care about a lot.

However, in my original blog, I was thoughtlessly rude and supercilious about some Word journalists, who are entirely entitled to their negative opinions, when what I really wanted to write about was the cultural shift behind the headline. I have apologised for that in our Twitter debate, and will certainly grovel at the feet of the great Laura Barton next time we meet. So without wishing to get too involved in rewriting history, I have removed a couple of my more intemperate remarks. I would point out that this was a personal Blog, not a newspaper feature for the Telegraph or anyone else. As such, I wasn't paid for it by anyone. I stand by the premise. And I won't be cancelling my subscription to Word.

a) NMcC may be a U2 apologist - but it's hardly the worst thing in the world
b) having this kind of go at music journalists seems ridiculously petty in extremis - at least McC is still ploughing a fine furrow promoting decent music in trying journalistic times.
c) While I hate branding journalists, McC hardly qualifies as a 'Liddle' as someone suggests. Liddle is an odious, bigoted, reactionary, empty controversialist, ignoramus twat of the highest order. And if he wants to come to Liverpool and meet me and my mates to debate this fact we'll batter him back to whatever mistress' home he is currently polluting with his rancid presence. To borrow Brian Reade's phrase, brand Liddle, with an iron.
d) McC and Forde's magnanimity are wonders for all to behold - that's how to sort things out lads.
e) I stand by the first posts on this on Sunday evening: the Bono article was beneath Word which usually does better. Rob Fitzpatrick's missive on pop culture was worth a lot more pages and would have been a much more fitting big read with the imminence of Glastonbury and the other BBC-sponsored summer cultural behemoths.

think that Mr McC had every right to defend Bono with the the same fervour as those who made critical comments.

The fact that the matter has been handled with a bit of good humour and classiness all round is to be applauded

Now, when does the Paul Weller backlash start?

Oh, it's begun already you say? Right, let's get those sleeves rolled up...

Hasn't apologised for that yet, has he...........

nah, jokes. Isn't it nice when everyone's nice?

Twas I.
And anyone who disses Team Word should be henceforth known thereas, except us, of course, who can still hurl insult after insult at the arsewipe scribblers without reason or recompense. "Bit of" is to allow for your point well made, in much the same way as when I say Brian Johnson has a voice "like a banshee".

Just a good thing the b*stards have thick skins. Innit?

What happens if Liddle joins the Massive?

but I still think Bono is a pompous tosser.

This Rock star celebrity endorsement does my head in. Just donate some of your dosh and leave us to decide what to do with ours.

Mother Teresa did sterling Charity work and was a crap lead singer, wrote dreadful songs and was in the media a lot.

Anyone spot the resemblance? Are they by any chance related?

on Mother T's death - "Sandal in the Bin"

Ah! A thought on Mr. Neil McCormick.

Such a good mate of Bono that as far as I am aware even though he too is a songwriter his friend has never co-written a song or placed a Neil McCormick original on any U2 album.

Also U2 are supposed to be extremely averse to parting with any money that does not enrich U2 and only U2. Have these people ever given any significant amount to alleviate the suffering of any one not fortunate to be rich like them. Have they not moved their company HQ from Ireland to avoid paying a little more tax?

A Word lifetime boycott would be really appreciated!

He is allowed a view on U2 after all (and, as a subscriber, Word magazine as well). And surely loads of song writers are friends with other songwriters and don't co-write.

..as he said on the blog - if there are people out there alive, healthy and educated as a result of Bono's charitable efforts then I can live with the ubiquity and the pomposity, (I gave up on U2 after The Unforgettable Fire ushered in the pomp and saw off the charm of their early records). I find photos of him shaking hands with Politicians much less irksome that Puff Daddy fannying around on a yacht.

I groaned when I saw Bono on the cover of this issue as i find him, his band and his politics dull beyond description. And it was made worse as I'd just got my Dad a subscription to word (Cool Dad manifestations) and Bono made it look like an issue of Q.

The article itself was interesting enough. Not too interested by Neil McCormick's blog either, except for the idea at the end (which I'd skipped to) of putting rock stars on trial. Who has committed the most evil crimes in rock music? Could Paul Weller be charged for dissolving The Jam? Cobain for killing himself? Phil Collins generally?

Or would this make future cover stars rather difficult?