When Calvin Cordozar Broadus - or Snoop Dogg / Doggy Dogg / Lion - was refused entry to the UK after a fracas at Heathrow in 2006, The Sun had a field day. Calling him 'sick' and worse, the red-top worked itself into a preposterous and arguably racist lather, delighting in the decision to send him back to the US and bar him from further visits.
In the grand tradition of tabloid hypocrisy, the paper is now delighted to interview him and feature his exploits on their showbiz pages after the ban was dismissed by a court in 2010.
But - morally duplicitous as this is - it pales in comparison with the attitude The Guardian took to Snoop in last week's Weekend magazine.
But - morally duplicitous as this is - it pales in comparison with the attitude The Guardian took to Snoop in last week's Weekend magazine.
The rapper was on the paper's radar thanks to the release of his first, self-starring documentary (called 'Doggumentary', as you might expect) and an announcement of his conversion to Rastafarianism alongside a new handle: 'Snoop Lion'. So earth-shaking were these events, that The Guardian dispatched Simon Hattenstone to Dogg's HQ in Los Angeles for a face-to-face encounter.
The left-leaning liberal media have long struggled to find an acceptable position on hip-hop. While they tend to be delighted to cover the authentic voice of lower class black American youth, they are simultaneously placed in the invidious position of appearing to support a culture which exalts violence, revels in base misogyny and promotes reckless firearm use. Clearly this is a dichotomy that remains unresolved.
The left-leaning liberal media have long struggled to find an acceptable position on hip-hop. While they tend to be delighted to cover the authentic voice of lower class black American youth, they are simultaneously placed in the invidious position of appearing to support a culture which exalts violence, revels in base misogyny and promotes reckless firearm use. Clearly this is a dichotomy that remains unresolved.
From the off, Hattenstone is unnecessarily impressed with Snoop, labelling him 'beautiful' and finding his habit of dancing to videos of his own music quite charming. This, I suppose, isn't really a problem - perhaps he is stunningly gorgeous in the flesh, maybe rank narcissism is very appealing in some characters. No, the difficulties actually begin as Simon dutifully records Snoop's change of attitude, resulting from his new religion. Having told us he is now all about love and respect, he immediately leers at the backside of a female presenter on his widescreen TV, referring to her as a 'bitch' and a 'motherf**ker'. Hattenstone allows this to pass without comment, other than to say Snoop Lion seems to have some of the Dogg in him. The old rogue!
Unfortunately things go from bad to worse as the interview progresses. Describing the track 'Aint No Fun' as a paean to gang rape, the writer somehow manages to doff his cap to the star for 'daring' to call it a love song for 'ladies'. Then the conversation moves to 'pimping'. Long a favourite brag of gangsta rappers, Snoop was the real thing. Throughout the early part of his musical career, he also ran his own prostitution racket. Something you'd imagine he now deeply regrets, what with him being a devout Rasta and all. But far from it. He explains to Hattenstone how the sexual exploitation of women for profit is an 'art' - indeed, a talent few men possess. This is a revolting boast, claiming credit for a criminal and repugnant business. It doesn't stop our reporter from excusing it all though, serving up the assurance that Snoop is nevertheless 'endearing' (Simon is, somewhat pathetically, the wrong side of a powerful spliff by now).
From here on, the feature descends to a level of absurdity rarely seen in supposedly intelligent papers. Dogg/Lion explains how drugs ruined his childhood community, massive reefer in hand. He condemns gun possession in the same breath as remembering his gang-banging past with wistful nostalgia. Finally he claims to be the re-incarnation of Bob Marley, overlooking the ten year gap between his birth and Marley's death.
That Snoop is a weapons-grade fool, given to talking towering nonsense is, of course, no fault of Simon Hattenstone. However, his reluctance to challenge Dogg/Lion on any aspect of his wrong-headedness and faultily unpleasant ideology frankly beggars belief. Maybe he would claim he was merely handing his subject enough rope to hang himself. If so, he singularly failed to apply the noose. Perhaps he was too stoned.
The bottom line is this: if Hattenstone had been interviewing a middle-aged, white American businessman (and Snoop is a businessman), we can be sure his piece would have been of a very different timbre. So I put this to The Guardian - there is little point in being at the vanguard of liberal comment if you lack the guts to take a solid stand against sexist, reactionary tosh. Regardless of the colour of the man from which it emanates.
Unfortunately things go from bad to worse as the interview progresses. Describing the track 'Aint No Fun' as a paean to gang rape, the writer somehow manages to doff his cap to the star for 'daring' to call it a love song for 'ladies'. Then the conversation moves to 'pimping'. Long a favourite brag of gangsta rappers, Snoop was the real thing. Throughout the early part of his musical career, he also ran his own prostitution racket. Something you'd imagine he now deeply regrets, what with him being a devout Rasta and all. But far from it. He explains to Hattenstone how the sexual exploitation of women for profit is an 'art' - indeed, a talent few men possess. This is a revolting boast, claiming credit for a criminal and repugnant business. It doesn't stop our reporter from excusing it all though, serving up the assurance that Snoop is nevertheless 'endearing' (Simon is, somewhat pathetically, the wrong side of a powerful spliff by now).
From here on, the feature descends to a level of absurdity rarely seen in supposedly intelligent papers. Dogg/Lion explains how drugs ruined his childhood community, massive reefer in hand. He condemns gun possession in the same breath as remembering his gang-banging past with wistful nostalgia. Finally he claims to be the re-incarnation of Bob Marley, overlooking the ten year gap between his birth and Marley's death.
That Snoop is a weapons-grade fool, given to talking towering nonsense is, of course, no fault of Simon Hattenstone. However, his reluctance to challenge Dogg/Lion on any aspect of his wrong-headedness and faultily unpleasant ideology frankly beggars belief. Maybe he would claim he was merely handing his subject enough rope to hang himself. If so, he singularly failed to apply the noose. Perhaps he was too stoned.
The bottom line is this: if Hattenstone had been interviewing a middle-aged, white American businessman (and Snoop is a businessman), we can be sure his piece would have been of a very different timbre. So I put this to The Guardian - there is little point in being at the vanguard of liberal comment if you lack the guts to take a solid stand against sexist, reactionary tosh. Regardless of the colour of the man from which it emanates.
