08/10/2026
๐ ๐๐๐ถ๐ฐ ๐ท๐ผ๐๐ฟ๐ป๐ฎ๐น๐ถ๐๐บ ๐ถ๐ ๐ป๐ผ๐ ๐ฎ ๐ฝ๐ผ๐น๐ถ๐๐ถ๐ฐ๐ฎ๐น ๐๐ฎ๐ณ๐ฒ ๐๐ฝ๐ฎ๐ฐ๐ฒ ๐ฎ๐ป๐ฑ ๐ถ๐ ๐๐ต๐ผ๐๐น๐ฑ ๐ป๐ฒ๐๐ฒ๐ฟ ๐ฏ๐ฒ๐ฐ๐ผ๐บ๐ฒ ๐ผ๐ป๐ฒ
Apparently, reporting what an artist says now means supporting it. Interview a controversial musician and you endorse their politics. Report an offensive statement and you "give it a platform." Cover an artist taking a political position and suddenly your publication is expected to take the same side. ๐ง๐ต๐ฎ๐ ๐ถ๐ ๐ป๐ผ๐ ๐ต๐ผ๐ ๐ท๐ผ๐๐ฟ๐ป๐ฎ๐น๐ถ๐๐บ ๐๐ผ๐ฟ๐ธ๐. ๐ข๐๐ฟ ๐ท๐ผ๐ฏ ๐ถ๐ ๐ป๐ผ๐ ๐๐ผ ๐ฝ๐ฟ๐ผ๐๐ฒ๐ฐ๐ ๐ฟ๐ฒ๐ฎ๐ฑ๐ฒ๐ฟ๐ ๐ณ๐ฟ๐ผ๐บ ๐ผ๐ฝ๐ถ๐ป๐ถ๐ผ๐ป๐ ๐ผ๐ฟ ๐๐ฒ๐น๐ฒ๐ฐ๐ ๐๐ต๐ฒ ๐ฝ๐ผ๐น๐ถ๐๐ถ๐ฐ๐ฎ๐น๐น๐ ๐ฎ๐ฐ๐ฐ๐ฒ๐ฝ๐๐ฎ๐ฏ๐น๐ฒ ๐ผ๐ป๐ฒ๐. ๐ข๐๐ฟ ๐ท๐ผ๐ฏ ๐ถ๐ ๐๐ผ ๐ฟ๐ฒ๐ฝ๐ผ๐ฟ๐ ๐๐ต๐ฎ๐ ๐ต๐ฎ๐ฝ๐ฝ๐ฒ๐ป๐ ๐ถ๐ป ๐บ๐๐๐ถ๐ฐ.
Artists talk about politics, war, religion, sexuality, elections and social conflict. When those views become relevant to their music, career or audience, they become part of the story. If a band publicly comes out against MAGA, we can report it. If another band publicly supports MAGA, we can report that too. ๐ฅ๐ฒ๐ฝ๐ผ๐ฟ๐๐ถ๐ป๐ด ๐ฒ๐ถ๐๐ต๐ฒ๐ฟ ๐ฝ๐ผ๐๐ถ๐๐ถ๐ผ๐ป ๐ฑ๐ผ๐ฒ๐ ๐ป๐ผ๐ ๐บ๐ฒ๐ฎ๐ป ๐ฆ๐ถ๐ฑ๐ฒ-๐๐ถ๐ป๐ฒ ๐๐๐ฝ๐ฝ๐ผ๐ฟ๐๐ ๐ถ๐.
That distinction should be obvious, but apparently it isn't for some of you as I noticed this weekend.
๐ฅ๐ฒ๐ฝ๐ผ๐ฟ๐๐ถ๐ป๐ด ๐ถ๐ ๐ป๐ผ๐ ๐ฒ๐ป๐ฑ๐ผ๐ฟ๐๐ฒ๐บ๐ฒ๐ป๐
An interview is not an endorsement. A news article is not an endorsement. Quoting an artist does not transfer that artist's beliefs to the publication carrying the quote. Music journalism becomes impossible once every piece of coverage is interpreted as ideological approval.
A band announces its support for Donald Trump? That can be music news. Another artist attacks Trump and the MAGA movement? That can also be music news. The same principle applies to political movements and conflicts elsewhere. ๐ช๐ฒ ๐ฟ๐ฒ๐ฝ๐ผ๐ฟ๐ ๐๐ต๐ฒ ๐ฎ๐ฟ๐๐ถ๐๐'๐ ๐ฝ๐ผ๐๐ถ๐๐ถ๐ผ๐ป. ๐ช๐ฒ ๐ฑ๐ผ ๐ป๐ผ๐ ๐ฎ๐๐๐ผ๐บ๐ฎ๐๐ถ๐ฐ๐ฎ๐น๐น๐ ๐ฎ๐ฑ๐ผ๐ฝ๐ ๐ถ๐. Readers remain free to agree, disagree, criticise the artist or criticise us for covering it.
That is freedom of expression too.
๐ ๐บ๐๐๐ถ๐ฐ ๐บ๐ฎ๐ด๐ฎ๐๐ถ๐ป๐ฒ ๐๐ต๐ผ๐๐น๐ฑ ๐ป๐ผ๐ ๐ฝ๐ถ๐ฐ๐ธ ๐๐ต๐ฒ ๐ฎ๐ฐ๐ฐ๐ฒ๐ฝ๐๐ฎ๐ฏ๐น๐ฒ ๐ฝ๐ผ๐น๐ถ๐๐ถ๐ฐ๐ฎ๐น ๐๐ถ๐ฑ๐ฒ
This is where part of today's music media has lost its way. Some publications increasingly behave as though their task is to decide which political opinions deserve exposure and which should disappear. Artists on the "correct" side receive sympathetic coverage while artists on the other side are ignored, framed differently or treated as inherently illegitimate.
๐ข๐ป๐ฐ๐ฒ ๐ฎ ๐ป๐ฒ๐๐ ๐ฝ๐๐ฏ๐น๐ถ๐ฐ๐ฎ๐๐ถ๐ผ๐ป ๐๐๐ฎ๐ฟ๐๐ ๐ฐ๐ต๐ผ๐ผ๐๐ถ๐ป๐ด ๐๐ต๐ถ๐ฐ๐ต ๐ฝ๐ผ๐น๐ถ๐๐ถ๐ฐ๐ฎ๐น ๐ฐ๐ฎ๐บ๐ฝ ๐ฑ๐ฒ๐๐ฒ๐ฟ๐๐ฒ๐ ๐๐ผ ๐ฏ๐ฒ ๐ต๐ฒ๐ฎ๐ฟ๐ฑ, ๐ถ๐ ๐ถ๐ ๐ป๐ผ ๐น๐ผ๐ป๐ด๐ฒ๐ฟ ๐ฑ๐ผ๐ถ๐ป๐ด ๐ถ๐๐ ๐ฏ๐ฎ๐๐ถ๐ฐ ๐ท๐ผ๐๐ฟ๐ป๐ฎ๐น๐ถ๐๐๐ถ๐ฐ ๐ท๐ผ๐ฏ ๐ฝ๐ฟ๐ผ๐ฝ๐ฒ๐ฟ๐น๐.
There is nothing wrong with publishing an editorial and taking a position. An opinion piece should have an opinion. But news reporting is different. A magazine cannot claim editorial independence while systematically filtering music news according to whether its editors approve of the artist's politics.
Being anti-MAGA does not automatically make an artist more worthy of coverage. Being pro-MAGA does not automatically make an artist less worthy of it. The editorial question should remain much simpler: ๐ถ๐ ๐๐ต๐ถ๐ ๐ฟ๐ฒ๐น๐ฒ๐๐ฎ๐ป๐ ๐๐ผ ๐๐ต๐ฒ ๐บ๐๐๐ถ๐ฐ ๐๐ฐ๐ฒ๐ป๐ฒ ๐๐ฒ ๐ฐ๐ผ๐๐ฒ๐ฟ?
If the answer is yes, it can be reported.
๐ ๐๐๐ถ๐ฐ ๐ต๐ฎ๐ ๐ป๐ฒ๐๐ฒ๐ฟ ๐ฏ๐ฒ๐ฒ๐ป ๐ฝ๐ผ๐น๐ถ๐๐ถ๐ฐ๐ฎ๐น๐น๐ ๐ป๐ฒ๐๐๐ฟ๐ฎ๐น
Pretending politics has no place in music journalism would require ignoring a huge part of music history. Punk attacked governments and institutions. Industrial music deliberately played with political and totalitarian imagery. Folk carried protest movements. Hip-hop addressed racism and poverty. Metal challenged religion and social conventions. EBM, goth, post-punk and darkwave artists have written about war, authoritarianism, alienation and political conflict for decades.
Artists continue doing that today. When musicians make politics part of their lyrics, performances, interviews or public identity, music journalists should be free to report it. ๐ง๐ต๐ฒ ๐ฎ๐น๐๐ฒ๐ฟ๐ป๐ฎ๐๐ถ๐๐ฒ ๐ถ๐ ๐๐ฒ๐น๐ฒ๐ฐ๐๐ถ๐๐ฒ ๐๐ถ๐น๐ฒ๐ป๐ฐ๐ฒ.
And selective silence based on political preference is itself a political choice.
๐ช๐ฒ ๐ฎ๐ฟ๐ฒ ๐ป๐ผ๐ ๐ต๐ฒ๐ฟ๐ฒ ๐๐ผ ๐๐ฒ๐น๐น ๐๐ผ๐ ๐๐ต๐ถ๐ฐ๐ต ๐ผ๐ฝ๐ถ๐ป๐ถ๐ผ๐ป ๐บ๐ฎ๐ ๐ฒ๐
๐ถ๐๐
A music publication should not function as an ideological gatekeeper. Our role is not to divide artists into acceptable and unacceptable political categories before deciding whether something is news.
That does not mean every statement deserves an article. Most political comments by musicians are not particularly interesting. But when something is relevant, our own agreement or disagreement should not determine whether readers get to know about it.
๐๐ป๐๐ถ-๐ง๐ฟ๐๐บ๐ฝ? ๐ฅ๐ฒ๐ฝ๐ผ๐ฟ๐๐ฎ๐ฏ๐น๐ฒ. ๐ฃ๐ฟ๐ผ-๐ง๐ฟ๐๐บ๐ฝ? ๐ฅ๐ฒ๐ฝ๐ผ๐ฟ๐๐ฎ๐ฏ๐น๐ฒ. ๐๐ฒ๐ณ๐-๐๐ถ๐ป๐ด? ๐ฅ๐ฒ๐ฝ๐ผ๐ฟ๐๐ฎ๐ฏ๐น๐ฒ. ๐ฅ๐ถ๐ด๐ต๐-๐๐ถ๐ป๐ด? ๐ฅ๐ฒ๐ฝ๐ผ๐ฟ๐๐ฎ๐ฏ๐น๐ฒ. ๐ก๐ฒ๐ถ๐๐ต๐ฒ๐ฟ? ๐๐พ๐๐ฎ๐น๐น๐ ๐ฟ๐ฒ๐ฝ๐ผ๐ฟ๐๐ฎ๐ฏ๐น๐ฒ.
Coverage is not a reward for having the correct opinion. Nor should withholding coverage become punishment for having the wrong one.
๐๐ฒ๐ถ๐ป๐ด ๐ผ๐ณ๐ณ๐ฒ๐ป๐ฑ๐ฒ๐ฑ ๐ถ๐ ๐ป๐ผ๐ ๐ฎ๐ป ๐ฒ๐ฑ๐ถ๐๐ผ๐ฟ๐ถ๐ฎ๐น ๐ฎ๐ฟ๐ด๐๐บ๐ฒ๐ป๐
Readers will inevitably dislike some of the people we cover. That is normal. You can dislike an artist's politics and still read an article about them. You can completely reject what someone says without demanding that nobody report it.
Music publications cannot work according to the principle that whoever generates the most complaints disappears from coverage. That would hand editorial control to the loudest group in the room.
๐๐๐ ๐๐ต๐ฒ๐ฟ๐ฒ ๐ถ๐ ๐ฎ ๐ฟ๐ฒ๐ฑ ๐น๐ถ๐ป๐ฒ: ๐ฝ๐ฟ๐ผ๐บ๐ผ๐๐ถ๐ป๐ด ๐๐ถ๐ผ๐น๐ฒ๐ป๐ฐ๐ฒ
Freedom of expression does not mean a publication must accept everything. ๐๐ผ๐ฟ ๐ฆ๐ถ๐ฑ๐ฒ-๐๐ถ๐ป๐ฒ, ๐ผ๐ป๐ฒ ๐ฏ๐ผ๐๐ป๐ฑ๐ฎ๐ฟ๐ ๐ถ๐ ๐ฐ๐น๐ฒ๐ฎ๐ฟ: ๐๐ฒ ๐๐ถ๐น๐น ๐ป๐ผ๐ ๐ฝ๐ฟ๐ผ๐บ๐ผ๐๐ฒ ๐๐ถ๐ผ๐น๐ฒ๐ป๐ฐ๐ฒ ๐ฎ๐ด๐ฎ๐ถ๐ป๐๐ ๐ถ๐ป๐ฑ๐ถ๐๐ถ๐ฑ๐๐ฎ๐น๐ ๐ผ๐ฟ ๐ด๐ฟ๐ผ๐๐ฝ๐.
We can report that an artist called for violence. We can report violent statements when they are relevant to a story. We can discuss violent lyrics, imagery and performances within their artistic context. What we will not do is turn Side-Line into a channel encouraging readers to attack people or use our editorial voice to advocate real-world violence.
There is an obvious difference between reporting, "The artist called for violence during the concert," and telling readers that they should carry out that violence.
One is reporting, the other is promotion.
๐ง๐ต๐ฎ๐ ๐ถ๐ ๐๐ต๐ฒ๐ฟ๐ฒ ๐๐ฒ ๐ฑ๐ฟ๐ฎ๐ ๐๐ต๐ฒ ๐น๐ถ๐ป๐ฒ.
๐ฉ๐ถ๐ผ๐น๐ฒ๐ป๐ ๐ฎ๐ฟ๐ ๐ถ๐ ๐ป๐ผ๐ ๐ฎ๐๐๐ผ๐บ๐ฎ๐๐ถ๐ฐ๐ฎ๐น๐น๐ ๐๐ถ๐ผ๐น๐ฒ๐ป๐ ๐ฎ๐ฑ๐๐ผ๐ฐ๐ฎ๐ฐ๐
The context is also important. Music has always dealt with death, murder, war, revenge and brutality. So have books, films, theatre and visual art. A song describing murder does not automatically encourage murder. A track about war does not automatically promote war. A musician performing from the perspective of a fictional character does not automatically share that character's worldview.
Treating every violent lyric literally would make serious discussion of art impossible.
The distinction is straightforward: ๐ฑ๐ฒ๐ฝ๐ถ๐ฐ๐๐ถ๐ป๐ด ๐๐ถ๐ผ๐น๐ฒ๐ป๐ฐ๐ฒ ๐ถ๐ ๐ป๐ผ๐ ๐๐ต๐ฒ ๐๐ฎ๐บ๐ฒ ๐ฎ๐ ๐ฒ๐ป๐ฐ๐ผ๐๐ฟ๐ฎ๐ด๐ถ๐ป๐ด ๐ฟ๐ฒ๐ฎ๐น ๐ฝ๐ฒ๐ผ๐ฝ๐น๐ฒ ๐๐ผ ๐ฐ๐ผ๐บ๐บ๐ถ๐ ๐๐ถ๐ผ๐น๐ฒ๐ป๐ฐ๐ฒ.
๐๐ฟ๐ฒ๐ฒ๐ฑ๐ผ๐บ ๐ผ๐ณ ๐๐ฝ๐ฒ๐ฒ๐ฐ๐ต ๐ถ๐ป๐ฐ๐น๐๐ฑ๐ฒ๐ ๐ฐ๐ฟ๐ถ๐๐ถ๐ฐ๐ถ๐๐บ
Artists are free to express political opinions. Journalists and readers are equally free to criticise those opinions. Freedom of expression does not guarantee favourable coverage or immunity from disagreement.
An artist can criticise Trump. Another can support him. We can report both. Readers can attack either position. Artists can criticise Side-Line for covering them. We can respond. Nobody owns the final word. This messy exchange of competing opinions is freedom of speech.
๐ ๐๐๐ถ๐ฐ ๐๐ฐ๐ฒ๐ป๐ฒ๐ ๐ฎ๐ฟ๐ฒ ๐ป๐ผ๐ ๐ฝ๐ผ๐น๐ถ๐๐ถ๐ฐ๐ฎ๐น ๐ฝ๐ฎ๐ฟ๐๐ถ๐ฒ๐
It is equally absurd to assume that everyone listening to a genre shares the same politics. Industrial fans do not all vote the same way. Neither do goths, metal fans, punks, EBM listeners, darkwave fans or synthpop audiences.
People listen to music because of sound, production, emotion, nostalgia, lyrics, aesthetics and countless other reasons. Listening to an artist does not amount to signing that artist's political manifesto.
Music journalism should reflect that diversity instead of pretending every scene belongs to one ideological camp.
๐ ๐บ๐๐๐ถ๐ฐ ๐ป๐ฒ๐๐ ๐ฝ๐๐ฏ๐น๐ถ๐ฐ๐ฎ๐๐ถ๐ผ๐ป ๐๐ต๐ฎ๐ ๐ฟ๐ผ๐๐๐ถ๐ป๐ฒ๐น๐ ๐๐๐ฝ๐ฝ๐ฟ๐ฒ๐๐๐ฒ๐ ๐ผ๐ป๐ฒ ๐ฝ๐ผ๐น๐ถ๐๐ถ๐ฐ๐ฎ๐น ๐๐ถ๐ฑ๐ฒ ๐๐ต๐ถ๐น๐ฒ ๐ฝ๐ฟ๐ผ๐บ๐ผ๐๐ถ๐ป๐ด ๐ฎ๐ป๐ผ๐๐ต๐ฒ๐ฟ ๐ถ๐ ๐ต๐ฒ๐น๐ฝ๐ถ๐ป๐ด ๐๐ต๐ฎ๐ฝ๐ฒ ๐ฎ ๐ฝ๐ฟ๐ฒ๐ณ๐ฒ๐ฟ๐ฟ๐ฒ๐ฑ ๐ฝ๐ผ๐น๐ถ๐๐ถ๐ฐ๐ฎ๐น ๐ป๐ฎ๐ฟ๐ฟ๐ฎ๐๐ถ๐๐ฒ.
That may be intentional. But it should not be confused with neutral news reporting.
For Side-Line, editorial independence means accepting that the music world contains people whose politics differ radically from ours, from each other and from many of our readers. Our coverage should reflect the scene that actually exists, not the politically sanitised version we might personally prefer.
๐๐ฑ๐ถ๐๐ผ๐ฟ๐ถ๐ฎ๐น ๐ถ๐ป๐ฑ๐ฒ๐ฝ๐ฒ๐ป๐ฑ๐ฒ๐ป๐ฐ๐ฒ ๐บ๐ฒ๐ฎ๐ป๐ ๐ฑ๐ถ๐๐ฎ๐ฝ๐ฝ๐ผ๐ถ๐ป๐๐ถ๐ป๐ด ๐ฏ๐ผ๐๐ต ๐๐ถ๐ฑ๐ฒ๐
Side-Line will cover artists whose opinions some readers strongly support. We will also cover artists whose opinions those same readers strongly reject. That is what we call editorial independence.
We are a music publication, not the communications department of a political movement. Sometimes the news is an album announcement. Sometimes it is a tour. Sometimes an artist makes a political statement that becomes part of the music story.
We will not silence one side because another side dislikes hearing about it. And we will not turn every music story into a political morality test either. The standard remains relevance, accuracy and context.
Music reflects the world around it. That world contains political conflict, cultural division and opinions ranging from sensible to outrageous. Artists will continue talking about those subjects, and we will continue reporting them when they become relevant to music.
A publication should not ask, "Do we agree with this artist?" before deciding whether something is news. It should first of all ask, "Is this relevant to our readers?"
๐ข๐๐ฟ ๐น๐ถ๐ป๐ฒ ๐ถ๐ ๐๐ถ๐บ๐ฝ๐น๐ฒ: ๐ฟ๐ฒ๐ฝ๐ผ๐ฟ๐ ๐ฟ๐ฒ๐น๐ฒ๐๐ฎ๐ป๐ ๐บ๐๐๐ถ๐ฐ ๐ป๐ฒ๐๐ ๐ฟ๐ฒ๐ด๐ฎ๐ฟ๐ฑ๐น๐ฒ๐๐ ๐ผ๐ณ ๐ฝ๐ผ๐น๐ถ๐๐ถ๐ฐ๐ฎ๐น ๐ฑ๐ถ๐ฟ๐ฒ๐ฐ๐๐ถ๐ผ๐ป, ๐ฝ๐ฟ๐ผ๐๐ถ๐ฑ๐ฒ ๐๐ต๐ฒ ๐ฐ๐ผ๐ป๐๐ฒ๐
๐ ๐ฟ๐ฒ๐ฎ๐ฑ๐ฒ๐ฟ๐ ๐ป๐ฒ๐ฒ๐ฑ ๐ฎ๐ป๐ฑ ๐ป๐ฒ๐๐ฒ๐ฟ ๐๐๐ฒ ๐ท๐ผ๐๐ฟ๐ป๐ฎ๐น๐ถ๐๐บ ๐๐ผ ๐ฝ๐ฟ๐ผ๐บ๐ผ๐๐ฒ ๐๐ถ๐ผ๐น๐ฒ๐ป๐ฐ๐ฒ ๐ฎ๐ด๐ฎ๐ถ๐ป๐๐ ๐ฝ๐ฒ๐ผ๐ฝ๐น๐ฒ ๐ผ๐ฟ ๐ด๐ฟ๐ผ๐๐ฝ๐.
Everything else can be debated. That is precisely what freedom of speech is for.
Bernard @ Side-Line
