Bingo wrote on Nov 5^th, 2010 at 7:49pm:


________________________________


Oh come on I know....

In addition, to these websites or papered outlets not ever mentioning the name ...further ...how is this person affiliated and/or what way are they an official representation of the band??

I have one:

Against much talk, a spokesperson for the band reports The Rolling Stones are proposing their next tour, now slated to start as early as January, 2011, are planning to host every other show completely free of charge. This proposal is said to be a grand gesture of gratification to the entertainment industry, and music fans alike. The source goes on to say "The Rolling Stones are very much involved and in support of their next experimental musical venture, which includes distributing tickets at most public libraries next year without base pricing or ticket fees"...

See now that isn't so hard now is it...

Don't get me wrong. There are some instances in which an actual spokesperson is named, and it is stated as such. One out of 20 times it just may be factual. Realistically speaking, more often than not many, many (most mathematically) media outlets that are stating such snippets are simply filling pages or looking to gain following...

Why? Who is ever going to look into it? Who is actually going to confirm this? More to the point .... if the outlet is found to be "full of it" ....what is really going to be done about it? Especially for stating something so minimal... It is a short snippet and it's gone. If a really "credible" source such as Rolling Stone Magazine or MTV News states something it is has much weight. They have been misinformed here and again as well, but they, at least don't put out total BS simply to gain an audience... Why? because they have a reputation to protect and/or they would actually be worth suing if someone cared.


Ian