Jump to content

This Day in 2006: Infamous Britney Spears 'Dateline' interview with Matt Lauer (June 15)


Recommended Posts

6 hours ago, Intheblue said:

Meanwhile, people want her to do an interview now or speak on the conservatorship. Every time she tried to defend herself or speak her truth it backfired and hurt her . So I don’t blame her for not giving anymore real statements about her life … this was Britney uncandid, in her house, she dressed herself, she did this … and sadly it turned into a joke … and the reason is because Britney is a country girl and not some deep intellect , so she’ll never be able to present herself the ways gays and the fan base wants her too  

 

and lastly the most telling part of this interview is how the media’s photos and stories got child protective services to come to her house and for doctors to treat her like a bad mother. Imagine taking your kid to the hospital and them calling child protective services on you because of some tabloid story . That’s heartbreaking 

imagine being put into a conservatorship because tabloids said you were crazy - that was basically the reason for her conservatorship: tabloid speculation.

Link to comment

I remember this so well - partly because I was 17 years old and it aired the night before I got a nose job so I needed something to distract me and ease my nerves :embarrassed_britney_2007_red_hide_ashamed_cover:

Watching it back then I remember being surprised at her appearance but was so heartbroken by how candid she was in pleading for the paparazzi and the vultures in the media to just leave her alone. People just called her white trash and ignored the fact that she was heavily pregnant with her second child and basically raising another baby without her husband and was just at the end of her rope. It was also so sad to hear her talk about the future and how she would make it work with her babies, whether it meant taking them on the road or easing up her career obligations, but the love she had for them really shone through, which sadly nobody really acknowledged. 

  • Like 5
Link to comment

I remember just how huge a mainstream media event this was. Then the ensuing wave of reactions/jokes.

She put herself out there in goodfaith to address some rumors, set some things straight, and it just backfired so badly. It made her seem like an exceedingly easy target so the bad elements in the media quickly doubled their efforts against her.  Somehow it hadn't occurred to me how much this interview set the stage for the events of 2007. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment

this interview breaks my heart every time. she's too good for nasty Hollywood. she's always been real and candid and people kept making fun of her for not being this perfect elevated person she never claimed to be. and matt lauer attitude is disgusting. you have the chance of interviewing the biggest pop star in the world, get invited to her home, get to make every question you want to make and you end up adding fuel to a very difficult situation. again, everyone failed britney. it's heartbreaking. 

  • Like 8
Link to comment
14 hours ago, Dirk said:

oh gosh, I remember watching it back then, it just added fuel to the media and the general public to trash her even more, they started calling her white trash, Perez Hilton did a lot of nasty memes, this was like one of those moments that shouldn't happen just like Chaotic, but it seems it was her decision to do it, she wanted to be heard so bad she wanted people to feel her and have empathy so she exposed her life so much to the media and the result was not the best, it just added more chaos bc it's more people talking about your life. 

 

13 hours ago, NotBuyingIt said:

So true. With Chaotic, the My Prerogative music video, this interview, paparazzi candids with Kevin, etc., it really was like Britney was trying to say, "This is the real me and I want to be loved for who I am, not some fake image." But the more she fought, the more the world laughed at her.

This is why she's so quiet now.

It's sad that all the things she came up with to try to fight back against the media/public/their perception of her failed to help and made her image worse.

 

I don't doubt that she probably likes a lot of the walls put up now when it comes to interviews, when she even gives those. I feel like she's said in the past that she dislikes dong them. 

Link to comment
On 6/15/2021 at 2:27 PM, NotBuyingIt said:

She was so misguided, trapped, and immature here.

She chose Kevin to get away from the Hollywood “fuddy duddy guys” (as she always used to say), yet she was completely stuck in a reality she didn’t know how to break away from. Looking back on it, she needed to get the hell out of the business entirely - even if it meant moving to another country for a few years. This interview should've never, ever happened.

I remember watching this interview as it aired on television. My thoughts were that she sounded far too young and uneducated for her age. I didn’t appreciate back then, however, just how different her reality is from the rest of the world’s, with the exception of a select few who have achieved that particular level of public interest and scrutiny, such as Michael Jackson.

On 6/15/2021 at 2:51 PM, NotBuyingIt said:

So true. With Chaotic, the My Prerogative music video, this interview, paparazzi candids with Kevin, etc., it really was like Britney was trying to say, "This is the real me and I want to be loved for who I am, not some fake image." But the more she fought, the more the world laughed at her.

This is why she's so quiet now.

On 6/15/2021 at 3:02 PM, Dirk said:

yeah it was really her, but she was adjusting to a simple regular lifestyle bc of Kevin, she was like becoming "trash looking" bc of Kevin, we know Britney tends to mirror the man she's with... but she was also not giving a **** about her popstar image, she was living her life, a simple fun recent married life with a lot of money, it was basically the first time she didn't have to worry about work and her image... she was so young learning how to live, that's why she made some "mistakes", she was living it and discovering it by her own terms, no one to guide her, she wouldn't listen to no one at the time tho bc all she ever did was listen to people, so she had this fresh of breath air to live a life the way she wanted... but of course, it wasn't cute and posh for a popstar like her, it didn't match the perfect image and lifestyle people wanted her to have. 

On 6/15/2021 at 9:10 PM, PokemonSpears said:

well, I don't know the others, but what I think most of us think when we say it's bad, is not because of Britney herself, but because of the way Matt Lauer approached her with those topics (kind of like the 2003 interview with Diane Sawyer) and the way it only backfired for her to the eyes of the press and the public, especially with things like when she says that she's country and that driving with babies on their laps is normal if you're from the South.

As you say, she actually handled it very well considering the topics of the interview, everything that she had been going on for years already, the fact that she was pregnant and that also may have make her more emotional or more susceptible, but the fact is that nothing that was said on that interview helped her situation about how the world perceived her, and the proof is everything that happened in the following years and the lack of compassion the world kept showing for her.

The whole thing seemed more like an attempt to expose her for "all her sins" rather than an opportunity for her to change people's minds.

Despite recognizing her resiliency in a demented music industry and disgraceful media...

 This is the main point and problem I keep coming back too: Britney was clearly aware of how terrible the media (and industry) was by 2003/2004, not 2005, 2006, 2007 or 2008, even if 2006-2008 was worse.

When you look back at her what she was feeling in those years it was a desire to be a normal person.  Nobody signs a contract for 7 albums.  Her contract had to have been up after In The Zone or her Greatest Hits album.  And we already know her dissention with her label with her Original Doll album and the Do Somethin' video.

If she was fed up with all the scrutiny, why didn't she "get the hell out of the business entirely" around 2004-2005???

Was she really still being forced to keep providing for extended family?? (I did see that during that time-2004-she did buy her father a restaurant in Venice Beach...

http://popdirt.com/britney-spears-opens-a-new-restaurant-for-her-dad/34398/

I did read somewhere on Exhale that she had a contractual obligation to release something around 2005 and that's why she released Chaotic. 

Is that true? If so, she really did not pay attention to her contracts if she was craving a normal life.  The time for Britney getting out of the spotlight was 2004/2005 not 2006-2008 (because things like Blackout, Circus are all contractual with Jive, requiring her to promote)

So what is the real reason she never did?  Despite her fame, if Britney truly wanted to put an end to this, she really could have back then, unless she was still tied up in contracts.  Nobody would care about her marriage if she lived in New Mexico, Montana Wyoming etc.. (And she even thought about moving to Arizona in 2005)  And we can all agree she would have had it that way rather than continuing to be scrutinized.

Link to comment

What Britney did her is what celebrities love doing nowadays; showing your vulnerability. Cancel culture has enabled celebrities to let fans have their backs. Attacking a pregnant, vulnerable woman would NEVER slide nowadays. It’s fkn disgusting what they did to her ugh

  • Like 6
Link to comment
4 hours ago, zxcvb said:

Despite recognizing her resiliency in a demented music industry and disgraceful media...

 This is the main point and problem I keep coming back too: Britney was clearly aware of how terrible the media (and industry) was by 2003/2004, not 2005, 2006, 2007 or 2008, even if 2006-2008 was worse.

When you look back at her what she was feeling in those years it was a desire to be a normal person.  Nobody signs a contract for 7 albums.  Her contract had to have been up after In The Zone or her Greatest Hits album.  And we already know her dissention with her label with her Original Doll album and the Do Somethin' video.

If she was fed up with all the scrutiny, why didn't she "get the hell out of the business entirely" around 2004-2005???

Was she really still being forced to keep providing for extended family?? (I did see that during that time-2004-she did buy her father a restaurant in Venice Beach...

http://popdirt.com/britney-spears-opens-a-new-restaurant-for-her-dad/34398/

I did read somewhere on Exhale that she had a contractual obligation to release something around 2005 and that's why she released Chaotic. 

Is that true? If so, she really did not pay attention to her contracts if she was craving a normal life.  The time for Britney getting out of the spotlight was 2004/2005 not 2006-2008 (because things like Blackout, Circus are all contractual with Jive, requiring her to promote)

So what is the real reason she never did?  Despite her fame, if Britney truly wanted to put an end to this, she really could have back then, unless she was still tied up in contracts.  Nobody would care about her marriage if she lived in New Mexico, Montana Wyoming etc.. (And she even thought about moving to Arizona in 2005)  And we can all agree she would have had it that way rather than continuing to be scrutinized.

She’s a corporation! She employees probably over 100 people. That amount of pressure for her to be like “I don’t want to work anymore” they probably used guilt tactics and she is a people pleaser so she said yes because in her mind her life was to please people hence when her family got used to the fame and money she found Kevin to “see things through his eyes” … she definitely thinks her sole purpose is to provide for others it’s all she’s really known.

Plus record labels mtv etc do not spend so much money for an artist to be successful to have them retire . There’s a reason the biggest artists are generally signed and promoted starting around 16 … they need to be able to pump them for profit till 30 when they stop investing in them and the artist has a baby . 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
On 6/15/2021 at 10:27 PM, NotBuyingIt said:

She was so misguided, trapped, and immature here.

She chose Kevin to get away from the Hollywood “fuddy duddy guys” (as she always used to say), yet she was completely stuck in a reality she didn’t know how to break away from. Looking back on it, she needed to get the hell out of the business entirely - even if it meant moving to another country for a few years. This interview should've never, ever happened.

She’s never known how to make decisions in her life because her circumstances are so unusual and unprecedented. What she needs is not a permanent conservatorship, but someone to actively teach her how to handle her life on her own: here's how to deal with loneliness, money, relationships, paparazzi, etc. Of course she struggles with daily choices - who wouldn't in her shoes!

 

This is kind of patronising? I don't think people in the industry can simply pack their bags and leave whenever they fancy unfortunately, they become stuck & obligated by contracts & those around them, even when times get awful. 

I'm near certain that she tried to make decisions in her life several times but wasn't allowed to. They made her feel like a trapped infant and she therefore saw no option other than to 'rebel'. 

I think she was trying to do the absolute best she could in the circumstances she was in. Criticism from every single angle, regardless of what she did and she's already struggling hard. It would be a horrid situation to be stuck in and for it to keep getting worse a couple years later hurts to think of and I'm not even her. 

It's so easy to judge someone we can watch & give them our opinions on what to do, and there will be MANY opinions from the millions watching them, but how would we react in those exact same circumstances? You'd just trust your judgement and attempt your best and deal with the consequences as they happen.:otears_oprah_crying_tissue_napkin_tears_sobbing_sad:

  • Like 2
Link to comment
6 hours ago, Salsa555 said:

This is kind of patronising? I don't think people in the industry can simply pack their bags and leave whenever they fancy unfortunately, they become stuck & obligated by contracts & those around them, even when times get awful. 

I'm near certain that she tried to make decisions in her life several times but wasn't allowed to. They made her feel like a trapped infant and she therefore saw no option other than to 'rebel'. 

I think she was trying to do the absolute best she could in the circumstances she was in. Criticism from every single angle, regardless of what she did and she's already struggling hard. It would be a horrid situation to be stuck in and for it to keep getting worse a couple years later hurts to think of and I'm not even her. 

It's so easy to judge someone we can watch & give them our opinions on what to do, and there will be MANY opinions from the millions watching them, but how would we react in those exact same circumstances? You'd just trust your judgement and attempt your best and deal with the consequences as they happen.:otears_oprah_crying_tissue_napkin_tears_sobbing_sad:

I don’t mean to patronize, and I’m recognizing the impossibility of her situation. I guess this is in response to Britney’s own words from For the Record where she herself said, “Why the hell didn’t I go to Louisiana?” It’s also in response to her conservators putting her on the road in 2009 after a serious breakdown.

She would’ve needed to literally go to an elusive country for years to escape her situation. It’s something only a few people like Michael Jackson can understand. She needed to escape, but it was basically impossible.

I would never be able to survive what she has, and I look back on how I judged her and can see that it’s not a reflection of her - it’s her circumstances that I couldn’t in a million years stay alive in.

She’s not crazy, she just has had one hard life. I wish they’d give her the resources she needs to be independent, as opposed to trapping her forever. It seems like she’s being punished for her circumstances and it drives me crazy. Her family and conservators think she can’t make decisions and that she’s subject to undue influence (their own words exactly) - how exactly would they thrive in her shoes?

There are no examples to look up to when you’re that famous and the world is that cruel to you, especially in the 90s and 2000s.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
6 hours ago, Salsa555 said:

This is kind of patronising? I don't think people in the industry can simply pack their bags and leave whenever they fancy unfortunately, they become stuck & obligated by contracts & those around them, even when times get awful. 

I'm near certain that she tried to make decisions in her life several times but wasn't allowed to. They made her feel like a trapped infant and she therefore saw no option other than to 'rebel'. 

I think she was trying to do the absolute best she could in the circumstances she was in. Criticism from every single angle, regardless of what she did and she's already struggling hard. It would be a horrid situation to be stuck in and for it to keep getting worse a couple years later hurts to think of and I'm not even her. 

It's so easy to judge someone we can watch & give them our opinions on what to do, and there will be MANY opinions from the millions watching them, but how would we react in those exact same circumstances? You'd just trust your judgement and attempt your best and deal with the consequences as they happen.:otears_oprah_crying_tissue_napkin_tears_sobbing_sad:

I actually agree with you here about her contractual obligations, but isn't this the point I've been making about the years 2004-2005?

Did she really sign a record contract for 8 albums???? I don't think so.  We know she wanted to become more of an artist after In The Zone and was frustrated with her label with her Do Somethin video and her Original Doll album, based on her own words.

But somewhere around that period she had to have been persuaded in re-signing her contract.

Then again, she may have had other contractual obligations to stay in LA (was releasing Chaotic something contractual?) 

At the end of the day, if Britney wanted to cement her musical artistry after In The Zone, you kind of do have to hold Britney responsible for not taking that step, if her contract was up around 2004-2005.  

Blackout is great but it can never be her artistic peak, as long as Britney composed 'Everytime'. (And the burden of proof IS on Annet Artarni since she has 0 solo writing credits and there isn't footage for her writing her OWN melody/riff on a musical instrument)

As I've always said, I respect her resiliency but if she did have a choice back in 2004-2005 to either re-sign with her label or maybe restructure her deal/leave her label entirely for far more autonomy but didn't do so, I just don't know how you can hold others responsible for that.

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...