We know Pitchfork has a penchant for partnering up with reputable people, and the fact they like to only credit a few sources. So with conspiracy theories abound we're asking ourselves this morning, why would NME lie about Pitchfork's top ten records of 2008?
As we reported earlier in the week, The Daily Swarm's Todd Roberts called out NME for posting what he called a "dubious" representation of Pitchfork's top ten list in their aggregated year-end "super list". Though no sources were cited, we assumed he was correct since he risked his journalistic integrity to tell us the list was "reportedly false."
Well sure enough, today Pitchfork revealed their list and low and behold, their perennial poster child Deerhunter is not at the top of the list (they went with the popular bearded choice of 2008. No, the other one). So instead of asking ourselves why many of the best of lists we've seen are so incredibly myopic. And despite the fact that after we read these lists we're left wondering if Fucked Up put out the only punk record and Lil Wayne the only hip-hop record. Or if we have to start looking elsewhere to find truly independent criticism. We're asking why NME? Why?