comment on the rolling stone article: it's how a journalist works. they take things out of context, they exaggerate, and focus on minor things to make them seem like a big deal. although horribly written, paul doyle is good at his job. it was meant to cause a fuss because now everyone is talking about rolling stone and the article. for god's sake, the first three paragraphs were about partying. what ashton said about wanting a more branched out fan base rather than just women was quoted in a manner that made it seem completely sexist. what he meant was that he wants respect from males as well as the band is lacking it because of the largely female fan population. let me make this clear, **i do not agree with what luke said that degraded women. i'm actually pretty disgusted with that. i don't agree with calum, saying that his nudes was a good thing to happen. *bad publicity does not equal benefits to the band. i also recommend reading the entirety of the article and noticing how it's structured to talk about something, change the subject, and then go back to the same subject so that you don't remember what was said in the first place.
