Login
Register

Home
Bollywood
Slideshows
Entertainment
Fashion
Fashion Designers
Gossip
Health & Science
Lifestyle
Tech
Travel & Photography
About
Hottest Swimwear Designs - 2010
Guess? Tribal Affair cut-out one piece

Photography Tutorials and Knowledgebase
Image Sensors: Compact Cameras vs DSLRs

Designer Swimwear 2010 - MBFW Miami
Tibi Swimwear
L*Space by Monica Wise
Shay Todd
Ed Hardy
Tibi
Cia.Marítima
Luli Fama
Caffe

Loading
Home > Gossip
Previous Next
Michael Jackson: The shocking truth in the FBI files
Posted on Wednesday, January 13, 2010 (EST)
The recently released FBI files debunk the myth of Michael Jackson as child molester. Is it time to ask who is really responsible for his death - Dr Conrad Murray or the media?
 
Print this page
Email this page

The recently released FBI files debunk the myth of Michael Jackson as child molester. Is it time to ask who is really responsible for his death - Dr Conrad Murray or the media? Photo Credit: Sawf News

By Deborah Ffrench

January 13, 2010, (Sawf News) - The one question I hear no-one asking in the press or blogland in general is:- 'why' was Michael Jackson taking an extreme drug? What made a relatively fit man known for abstention from the early part of his career until the mid-1990's, end his days in a made-to-measure trauma room?

A star by the age of 10, catapulted into superstardom after the success of his first two solo albums, his dominance in the music industry coincided with the multimedia explosion of the late 1980's. One of the first of the new breed of artists to fully explore the potential of synergistic promotion of product as a vehicle to reach new audiences, by 1991 Michael Jackson - the brand, had penetrated the consciousness of the entire developed and most of the undeveloped world.

With such unprecedented accessibility came also unprecedented pressure. Pressure to maintain and exceed his own standards, constant deconstruction by the press, and emotional isolation as the gilded chains of a life lived under the microscope bound ever tighter. There is no room here to list the enormous contribution he made to the lives of children all over the globe. His efforts are a matter of public record and the information regarding them is easily obtainable on the web.

Suffice it to say, Michael saw children not as 'people-in-waiting', but as bonafide, sentient personalities whose process and concerns were worthy of respect and protection. Using his fame and wealth to radically benefit the lives of such young people was something Michael believed to be his ultimate purpose here, and it is in this light that we can perhaps understand the catastrophic, internal damage the public cauterization that came from 1993 onwards must have done to him.

Something rotten has been decaying at the the heart of our media for some time now, but it took the death of one of its favorite page-fillers to expose the reality of what the cumulative effect of deliberate mental and emotional attack on a person actually looks like. It must surely now be apparent that the existing regulatory checks and balances within the media are totally inadequate –and further, that those monitoring capabilities are unable to prevent the now standard 'take aim' and 'destroy' default position the media now typically seems to operate from in relation to the subjects it 'goes after.'

Michael's early death was not a given. Only the most imperceptive would deny that the anesthetic that killed him was, in reality, just a formality. What killed Michael Jackson was the sustained agony of being put through a baseless, protracted trial in full view of the world's lens - knowing if found guilty, he would be removed from his children's lives. And even after his acquittal, facing relentless vilification by a media that chose to simply disregard a verdict they found economically inconvenient.

British journalist Charles Thomson's clear analysis of the recently released FBI files which can be viewed at:

http://charlesthomsonjournalist.blogspot.com/2010/01/fbi-files-support-j...

- Thomson's point by point breakdown of the files reveals not only the inability of both the FBI and the LAPD to provide any evidence of criminal wrongdoing by Jackson in an investigation that spanned over a decade, but also the continuing inference by the media of exactly the opposite of this.

It is important to note that there is a profound difference between the FBI stating that X and Y were alleged, and the FBI saying they investigated X and Y – and found X and Y to be proven. Thomson's review of the files is thus required reading for any who wish to separate the facts from the soundbites which have largely dominated the media reporting on them.

Because the truth is, after the most thorough investigation the American taxpayer's money could buy, one of the world's foremost intelligence gathering agencies and the LAPD came up with precisely – nothing. Instead we were served a collage of cut-out articles from a UK tabloid, the dubious recollections of an unverifiable woman on a train, and two ex-employees who only came forward after the 1993 allegations broke and who, coincidentally, were also hawking a tell-all book to anyone who would listen.

Long before Dr Murray ever wrote his first 'feel-good' prescription, a lie of epic proportions would set in motion a cataclysmic series of events that would bring Michael to the state of profound depletion we saw in 2005. Evan Chandler - a known brutalist, and Janet Arviso, a proven welfare cheat and compensation chaser, manipulated the American criminal system and a willing media to bury Michael under the worst label society has determined exists. No proof was required, the suggestion was enough. And the world watched on the edge of their seats, as the obvious perjury of the witnesses was overlooked in the stampede to crucify a man previously so celebrated.

The inevitably, frenzied media coverage of Dr Murray's impending trial which will replay the details of Michael's dying moments for months to come, has now already begun its crescendo. It is more than a little disturbing to observe how quickly those same people who actively colluded in the degradation and erosion of Michael's spirit and dignity for over 15 years, have regrouped to focus on Dr Murray as the 'fall guy' for the part he may have played in Jackson's death. Murray's culpability cannot be denied, but he was far from alone in his opportunism.

Where were the voices now wailing about 'wasted resources' and the 'rights' of taxpayers when Tom Sneddon authorized the use of millions of dollars of federal money to pursue Michael in his deeply personal and blinkered 'takedown' of the, then – biggest pop star on the planet?

Michael Jackson didn't bankrupt the City of Angels; they fell all by themselves. For a country that can shine so bright when it chooses to – what America did to this man stands as one of the most shameful examples of engineered cruelty and unmitigated persecution to be witnessed in modern times.

More Sawf News exclusives on Michael Jackson

Michael Jackson's 'This is It' principal dancer recalls Michael's last days

Michael Jackson: His lead guitarist Jennifer Batten gives a rare insight
Michael Jackson Guitarist Slams Gene Simmons' Child Abuse Accusations

News Copyright © Sawf News. May not be reproduced without explicit written permission

Related Topics:

  • Michael Jackson Secretly Collected Nazi Films? Not True!
  • Michael Jackson's Neverland Ranch May Live For Ever - as State Park
  • Michael Jackson's mother could loose all she makes from business deals
  • Michael Jackson: Mother in big business deal to produce movies
  • Michael Jackson's father files wrongful death lawsuit against Dr Conrad Murray
  • Comments:

    Michael Jackson FBI files.
    By mari8love on Wednesday, January 13, 2010 (EST)
    Thank you very much for this interesting and insightful article. It seems like most of the media continue to promote misleading and wholly inaccurate stories regarding Michael Jackson without conducting proper and thorough research. Evan Chandler's suicide clearly highlights this. It is sickening how the media continue to portray Evan as a martyr instead of the blackmailing extortionist who he clearly was with an unscrupulous lawyer. It was a well documented fact that Evan was taped planning to destroy Michael and was unconcerned as to what impact this would have on his own son (who he also tried to kill in 2005). As for the Arvizo's they were clearly used as pawns by a vengeful DA who did not have a credible case to begin with. Not to mention the family's own fraudulent past of conning money from celebrities and consumer stores. Which is why 12 fair minded intelligent jurors found Michael not guilty on all counts in the 2005 trial.
    The FBI files clearly exhonerates Michael of any improper behaviour towards children. However by using sensationalist headlines the media still perpetuates the myth of Michael as a child molester. I for one would like to see a code of ethics which legally binds all journalists to prevent them from writing false and misleading stories like the ones which ultimately drove Michael to his inevitable decline and premature death.

    Reply to this Comment

    michael jackson
    By rck1968 on Wednesday, January 13, 2010 (EST)
    reading your article has given me some hope in humanity again.I never thought that it will be brought to the attention of the public what the media has been doing to michael jackson.he had to die before people realise what we lost,an extraordinary human being who just wanted us to love and be loved.i wish there is a law against the media namely diane dimond,martin bashir,tom sneddon,jay leno who just for ratings killed michael's spirit.the chandlers and the arvizos,because of you,many were deprived of neverland.sick children were deprived of that magic which michael brought with his cinema,animals,giving them escapism.god gave him wonderful children and i'm happy that at least he had some love before he died.deborah ffrench,charles thomson,thomas messereau,a jones,we michael jackson fans thank you for trying to make it right and hopefully we'll spread the message to make a change.

    Reply to this Comment

    Michael Jackson - The shocking truth in the FBI files
    By Cherubim on Wednesday, January 13, 2010 (EST)
    Thank you, for writing the TRUTH about
    Michael Jackson.
    It has been a long time coming!!!!

    "Mockingbirds don’t do one thing but make music for us to enjoy. They don’t eat up people’s gardens, don’t nest in corncribs,they don’t do one thing but sing their hearts out for us.
    That’s why it’s a sin to kill a mockingbird."
    —Harper Lee
    (From the Novel: To Kill a Mockingbird)

    Message to Michael Jackson:
    "Sometimes for just a little while God lets one of his Angels come to Earth to sing to us and teach us how to love one another. But then, of course, she calls them back to Heaven ever so much too soon.
    One such Angel is you, Michael Jackson.
    When I finally get to Heaven, I'm going to demand front row seats to all of your Heavenly Concerts.
    I WILL LOVE YOU FOREVER, MICHAEL JACKSON
    THANKS FOR THE LOVE."

    Reply to this Comment

    Michael Jackson & FBI files
    By rmills on Wednesday, January 13, 2010 (EST)
    Thank you so much for publishing what so many of us have known for too long.

    Reply to this Comment

    He didn't have to die...
    By Dreamzville on Wednesday, January 13, 2010 (EST)
    The trauma sustained from the media's terrorizing of Michael Jackson was ultimately what killed him. I am surprised he was able to hang on as long as he did.

    Please join friends and fans of Michael's and help make mainstream media accountable for their lies.
    Go to...http://www.mjtruthnow.com ...THANK YOU!

    Reply to this Comment

    Michael Jackson was slandered in the media
    By martinevaudon on Wednesday, January 13, 2010 (EST)
    This article is GIANT, it reflects exactly what I do think about his death. Since he was died as I have ALWAYS been a truly defensor of his innocence I spent 6 months reading absolutely everything that has been written about him and on the 1st january I said to myself I had to act and start a fight to spread out all over the world this message ; WHY is he dead, how come this man became an addict to all those sleeping drugs which lead him directly to death ?If he did so there is only one reason : he was slandered by the media and he just spent 15 years trying to face the amazingly monstruous accusations and allegations spread out by the media and spent his time struggling against them, facing a trial that should have NEVER happen. I joined the facebook community and found hundreds of groups of people, worldwide, thinking like me and started a REAL fight in order to restore his honor and vindicate. I spend all my free time spreading out my message, I have created a group on facebook called "INNOCENT Michael jackson was slandered in the media"I want to act, I can't bear this injustice any more, I want the truth.Thank you for expressing so clearly and so well what thousands and thousand people like me are thinking. We all want the press and all the people responsible for the death Michael's death to PAY the price and admit publicly what they have done at him. It is not too late for his legacy but I must admit it is so desperately sad this is occuring when it is too late to save his life. I feel so ashamed not to have started this fight earlier and I will spend the rest of my life to carry on. Let's keep the faith. Michael i miss you DREADFULLY

    Reply to this Comment

    Michael Jackson
    By dan on Wednesday, January 13, 2010 (EST)
    Conrad Murray murdered Michael Jackson. But who hired Conrad Murray? Who was behind him? The music firm that is now making huge profit out of Michael's death? This video is very eloquent about it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bx4NwrMtgw8&feature=related

    Reply to this Comment

    he just wanted to distribute love
    By izilda on Wednesday, January 13, 2010 (EST)
    Michael was persecuted by people prejudiced against him
    Media, KKK, Nazis, people who were frustrated he felt jealous of his feliciades, his kindness, people who wanted the light and knew they could never have, they wanted their money, they wanted his art, his genius
    I still hope an answer from God, because I know that nothing happens without his will
    And I hope that the death of Michael has been for some other purpose of important
    Nor have words to comment on Article
    I'm hard to revolt me but frankly, after reading this article, which talks about
    such injustice committed against a wonderful human being, not have to run out
    curse, cry, cry

    Reply to this Comment

    The shocking truth
    By Heather22 on Wednesday, January 13, 2010 (EST)
    When I first read the headline ...the shocking truth etc I thought here we go again ... another uninformed medialoid trasher ... I read this article with delight ... thank you, you've obviously done your research unlike most ... it breaks my heart the way Michael suffered at the hands of so many people...unforgiveable. Love you MJ.

    Reply to this Comment

    Jackson FBI Files
    By Tom Joyce on Wednesday, January 13, 2010 (EST)
    When I read the FBI files and compared them to the headlines about them, even from “respectable” media sources, I was appalled. The deception and sensationalism continues even though he is dead. I simply cannot understand how they can get away with this. You would think that at least one reputable news source would care enough to tell the truth.

    When Jackson died, that very day, one of the media jerks that has always written lies about him said something to the effect that now that he’s dead all these other young men are going to come forward and confirm that they too were molested by Jackson. The lie about this was they were too afraid to testify back in 1993 because Jackson was too powerful and they were too young. So far zero have come forward – ZERO. It’s all for money – M.O.N.E.Y

    If they did it to Jackson they can do it to anyone. I don’t believe anything I read or hear in the media. I have zero respect for them and that DA with such a hard on to convict Jackson should be in jail himself, he had to know there was nothing in the FBI files. I don’t know why governor Schwarzenegger doesn’t call for an investigation. It was a waste of money and an abuse of power.

    Reply to this Comment

    love vs fear and envy
    By mireille luba on Thursday, January 14, 2010 (EST)
    Thank you Deborah. Your writing, your research, and your response are greatly appreciated.

    The irresponsible "Journalism" began when 12 year old Michael Jackson began to get death threats, which could only be about the fear and envy of racism, and the media took that ball and ran with it. The coverage never stopped after that. It is like a crazy storytelling game at which everyone gets to add a piece to the tale. The game hasn't stopped.

    Would it be possible to formally adjudicate the media for the persecution of Michael Jackson? It would be a trial of complexity beyond measure, and a trial to the First Amendment. With all of the other tribulations swirling in the world, would this one seem as important?

    The behavior of the media is symptomatic of the disrespect humans are showing to the planet, to animals, and to fellow human beings. Disrespect runs rampant in this age. Interestingly, this is what Michael Jackson wrote and sang about so many, many times, probably because he understood it so well.

    His songs of love for humanity, which make up most of his songs, should never be allowed to fade.

    Michael Jackson was arguably one of the most powerfully influential people on Earth, who spoke out for children, and love, and the planet. As you so beautifully wrote, he was persecuted and vilified.

    Who else in history can we point to and see as having been brutally treated for standing in the name of respect and love?

    What is so threatening about love?

    Reply to this Comment

    time to clear his name once & for all
    By cawobeth on Thursday, January 14, 2010 (EST)
    ...good God, it's been over a decade & 1/2 and to this day so many people believe these lies due to the perverse sensationalism of media ! It's time to stand up to all these liars, especially the media who made millions off of their own millions over what many of them ____ well know to be lies.
    Charles Thompson is the best !!!
    We need more reporters with integrity like him.

    Please work to clear MJ's name. If for no other reason out of gratitude for all he's given. And don't you know to stand up for him is to stand up for everyone ? Michael doesn't want what happened to him, happen to any more innocent people.

    You can go to mjtruthnow or the growing FCBK groups dedicated to the vindication of Michael Jackson. Blog whenever you see an untruth in the news. Call them on their ____ !!! The only time I watched ABC on TV was to see Janet Jackson's interview. And as much as I love her, I blogged that I was disappointed that she'd appear on that network.

    Did you hear Michael say "Stand up, stand up stand up" in TII ? PLEASE out of your own sense of integrity and yearning for truth.

    Reply to this Comment

    Thank you for your honesty
    By Voicefortheinnocent on Thursday, January 14, 2010 (EST)
    I stand up and applaud you for being willing to speak the truth when so many of your colleagues continue to run down the trail of media whoredom. I wish others would look in the mirror and admit their error in judgement. It's never too late to change. For the few who stood up for Michael over the years, God bless you! Michael deserved none of the massacre he received and because of it all, we were all robbed. RIP Michael.

    Reply to this Comment

    I apprciate your sincere article
    By Youaremylife on Friday, January 15, 2010 (EST)
    Thank you very much for your brave and profound article. I think the media made our great Michael to be dead slowly and the Dr. was the final trigger. Its very chilly that MJ was dying when the Dr. was on the phone. I wonder who hired the Dr.? If Michael hired him, then who recommended the Dr. to Michael? Why the body gruard didn't mention Michael's name when he called the 911? There are so many mysteries going around in my head after Michale's death. American people should appreciate Michael's life time work to unite the people all over the world as an American.
    Everyday my prayers go to Michael, his family, and his loyal fans.

    RIP Michael Jackson
    I'll love you forever.

    Reply to this Comment

    Charles Thomas is a fraud
    By Minx on Friday, January 15, 2010 (EST)
    What I'd like to know why is Charles Thomas posing as a female named Deborah Ffrench? The other thing I'd like to know is why all the responses are from him? He does this all over the net day after day. There is nothing truthful to this story at all nor anything else you write. This very dishonest person is a total fraud. Enough. You will never rewrite MJs legacy that is set in stone.

    Reply to this Comment

    Deborah Ffrench is Charles Thomas
    By Minx on Friday, January 15, 2010 (EST)
    with his wives. He shared his bed with prepubescent boys. He had a favorite prepubescent boy in his bed for about a year and then would replace that one with a "new" interest.

    He paid 20 million for negligence causing emotional and physical damage to J. Chandler and that was AFTER Pellicano(a guy that makes a living trashing rape vicitms) manhandled the family.

    20 million for what, a dentist with a lie ....SURE

    2 million for fondling of an 8 year old OH plus the 100 dollar bills he gave the boy for the sexual gratification it brought Jacko to diddle his little private parts.

    He had disgusting books and magazines and art that would turn ones stomach.

    It is very SIMPLE he was sexually attracted to prepubescent boys.

    ****Bonus check anyone who goggles Charles Thomson will fall right into the truth!

    ****All your fancy words mean NOTHING when put up against the truth.

    Reply to this Comment

    deborah ffrench didn't read the files
    By Minx on Friday, January 15, 2010 (EST)
    Who is this crack pot trying to kid? It post as Exonian and 500 other nics on topix. It's a net troll trying to make a buck off the dead junky. Google: deborah Ffrench, Exonian and charles thomas..same person same blowhard lies. It has no ounce of credibility. When proven wrong, it will write more lies. It has serious mental issues. It never sleeps, it's everywhere harassing people who know just what MJ was and was not. As I type this this troll is on topix proving how deaf, dumb and blind it is. Why this person never ventures out in public is a mystery. It's living in its own demented world.

    Reply to this Comment

    LAME
    By Emma on Friday, January 15, 2010 (EST)
    This article breaks my heart. I have cried so much this summer because of what I know MJ suffered with media. If even one journalist is finally telling the truth then I am GLAD!!! I have seen loads of comments by deborah ffrench on the web and I am glad she is standing up for justice. I don't think she needs to make up a name. Why don't YOU tell us your REAL name Minx instead of making up bogus claims about someone you don't know. I love Michael and wish he was still here to be a father to his children. Its people like you who go around making up stories and HATING who made his life a nightmare.


    LAME. LAME. LAME!

    Reply to this Comment

    What files are you talking about?
    By SoCalGal on Friday, January 15, 2010 (EST)
    Minx, what "files" are you talking about? Do you mean the FBI files which clearly show that, after exhaustive investigation, the FBI found nothing against Michael Jackson? Do you mean the court files and records that resulted in acquittal on all counts? What do you mean exactly? You're surely not evaluating the life of Michael Jackson by what you read in trashy tabloids or, for that matter, in a biased mainstream media, are you?

    Reply to this Comment

    Why do you think Michael Jackson settled?
    By SoCalGal on Friday, January 15, 2010 (EST)
    Minx, the reason Michael Jackson settled the extortion claim is the same reason that many celebrities settle extortion claims. It takes tremendous time and effort to engage in legal battles against extortionists. Indeed, extortion could not exist without the complicity of a corrupt and biased press. Think this is not the case? Well, you would be mistaken. Here are some examples for you to study:

    http://tinyurl.com/y9xvxcy
    http://tinyurl.com/y9on5ow

    Clearly, then, just because a celebrity settles an extortion attempt doesn't mean he or she is guilty. Remember, extortion could not exist but for the complicity of a salacious press seeking blood from its victim

    Reply to this Comment

    Minx, who are you?
    By SoCalGal on Friday, January 15, 2010 (EST)
    Minx, you're entitled to your delusions, but who are you? Why do you not do your homework and come to the same conclusions that reasonable, thinking persons come to? That Michael Jackson was victimized not only by greedy parents using their children as bait for their extortion plots, but by a biased and greedy press for whom anything written about Michael Jackson brought big bucks to their bottom line. As Jackson said himself, "They [tabloids] can't sell newspapers by telling the truth."

    Reply to this Comment

    Minx, I checked all Charles Thomson references...
    By SoCalGal on Friday, January 15, 2010 (EST)
    ....and I see no reason to think that Charles Thomson is anyone but who he says he is. He's an award winning journalist--an easily verified fact. I've never heard of Deborah Ffrench, but that doesn't mean anything as I live in the U.S. She, too, speaks the truth.

    Perhaps you would explain why you choose to believe an irresponsible media instead of relying on (hopefully) the good brains God gave you to arrive at the truth.

    Reply to this Comment

    MJ Bashing
    By jm on Friday, January 15, 2010 (EST)
    Some advice Linx: Take the time to research before making judgements. Once you really know Michael and what he was all about, you will be a kinder person for it. Believe me, I have seen it happen.

    Reply to this Comment

    MJ was not brought down by media. Do some research before you claim stuff like this
    By poster on Friday, January 15, 2010 (EST)
    >> Quote: before Dr Murray ever wrote his first 'feel-good' prescription

    It wasn't a 'feel-good' prescription

    >> Quote: 'why' was Michael Jackson taking an extreme drug?

    Because Michael Jackson suffered from severe insomnia. He had suffered from this for decades. It had started a long time before the allegations came up

    >> Quote: 'only the most imperceptive would deny that the anesthetic that killed him was, in reality, just a formality'

    You have to be kidding

    >> Quote: 'What killed Michael Jackson was the sustained agony of being put through a baseless, protracted trial in full view of the world's lens'

    You just wrote the closing arguments for Murray's defence at trial. Thanks alot, great job (*sarcasm*). MJ can do without this.


    Did you do any research at all in this case? What Murray did on June 25 was mindboggling, and he better get tried for 2nd degree murder.

    The allegations against Michael Jackson were ridiculous and the way how media tried to spin them and defame MJ was disgusting and malicious. But media didn't bring him down. Hell, no!

    Michael Jackson had won his trial and was prepared and ready for what would have been a brilliant comeback. He was not frail, broken-hearted, or mentally unstable as you are alluding. From where do you get these ideas anyway, from the 'tini' campaigners, or is the National Enquirer your source?

    You call out your colleagues for being biased, twisting facts and arriving at half-assed conclusions, instead of researching their subjects and report fairly. But you are no better.

    If you want to get at the bottom of what happened on June 25 and how and why MJ had to die, do some research and report fairly and accurately on what you found.

    And don't claim stuff like 'the anesthetic that killed him was, in reality, just a formality'.

    'a formality', My a*se!

    Reply to this Comment

    Michael Jackson
    By Alicia on Friday, January 15, 2010 (EST)
    Thank you Deborah Ffrench, for this extremely well written and honest article. I couldn't agree more with everything you said. Michael Jackson was persecuted by the media and extortionists, then crucified on the cross of, once again the media aided by the city of Los Angeles....he never recovered. They killed him. Other celebrities beware, no one is safe from the monster the media is. If someone as great, and kind and generous and caring and strong as Michael Jackson can be taken down, anyone can....no one is safe from their evil.

    Reply to this Comment

    WE'VE BEEN HERE BEFORE
    By Deltaquadrant on Saturday, January 16, 2010 (EST)
    It was only a matter of time. MJ wasn't no big deal to me, but everyone can see he got sliced and diced by the system. Was he different? Check. Was he about helping the disenfranchised? Check. Was he into elitist power hoarding? No. Check. Was he powerful? Check.

    Yeah, he got taken down alright. So what's new people. You shouldn't need me to tell ya. Be interesting to see if this angle gets picked up in the press though.

    Doubt it.

    Reply to this Comment

    Was Minx in MJ's bedroom?
    By karins on Saturday, January 16, 2010 (EST)
    "He had a favorite prepubescent boy in his bed for about a year and then would replace that one with a "new" interest".

    I'm trying to conclude how you could assume that readers are so stupid as to believe this made up rubbish. The truth is you would not have a clue about Michael Jackson's private life Minx and neither would I.

    Please take your bitterness and hatred elsewhere as we are just not interested in your lies and negativity.

    The truth is what it is and that was that the FBI files found nothing whatsoever to corroborate Sneddon's charges. Now the FBI takes its work very seriously indeed so if you have issues just take it up with the FBI and leave us alone.


    Reply to this Comment

    Propofol isn't a "feel good" pharmaceutical
    By SoCalGal on Saturday, January 16, 2010 (EST)
    I agree with "poster" that Propofol doesn't have anything to do with "feeling good." It's a drug that completely removes feeling. But, poster, the author is writing euphemistically. Michael Jackson was fully empowered to lead a full and rich life. He was strong, mentally fit, enthusiastic and passionately striving toward his goals. What she's saying is not that he was broken (I believe he was bent but not broken), but that he should not have had to endure, from acquittal onward, the negative press that he endured. That he endured is without question, but he should not have had to. Obviously, he had a sleep disorder and dealt with it incorrectly. When we attempt to put ourselves in Michael's shoes, we understand that a combination of things--negative press, stress, even creative stress, and heightened expectations--led to severe insomnia that was treated incorrectly.

    Reply to this Comment

    MJ FBI files
    By symba45 on Saturday, January 16, 2010 (EST)
    Minx aka Diane Dimond. You are full of disgusting lies and always have been. Your villification is unwarranted and the truth is coming out. Michael loved being around all children and there are plenty of photos now on YouTube to show that. His payment of the 20 million was made by his insurance company under Michael's protests and that is well documented. Everyone if you don't know already go to mjtruthnow.com for the facts. Diane I mean Minx take your pick. Get a new life!

    Reply to this Comment

    MJ was full of life, of love and hope, and of joy
    By poster on Saturday, January 16, 2010 (EST)
    Quote SoCalGal:
    >> What she's saying is not that he was broken (I believe he was bent but not broken), but that he should not have had to endure, from acquittal onward, the negative press that he endured.

    I'm afraid that's not what the author says. Read her article again. She's doing her best to downplay Murray's part in Michael's death and starts her article with the question:

    Quote from article:
    >> Is it time to ask who is really responsible for his death - Dr Conrad Murray or the media?

    She's constantly alluding to MJ being emotionally and mentally unstable long before Murray came into the picture. She's impyling MJ would have died anyway, probably from some 'feel-good' drug overdose (*rolls-eyes*) bc he allegedly wasn't able to get over the trial and negative media coverage. She makes him look like some druggie who's on his last legs, Murray just did the finishing job.

    Quotes from article:
    >> Only the most imperceptive would deny that the anesthetic that killed him was, in reality, just a formality. What killed Michael Jackson was the sustained agony of being put through a baseless, protracted trial in full view of the world's lens

    >> those same people who actively colluded in the degradation and erosion of Michael's spirit and dignity for over 15 years, have regrouped to focus on Dr Murray as the 'fall guy' for the part he played in Jackson's death. Murray's culpability cannot be denied, but he was far from alone in his opportunism.

    The nerve of her to claim that 'the anesthetic that killed him was, in reality, just a formality'! Yeah, sure! And now, according to her, Murray is just the 'fall guy' bc MJ was really killed by bad media coverage. With other words, according to her, MJ had shrinked to some frail, broken-hearted creature who was drowning his sorrows with the help of 'feel-good' prescriptions, and the fatal overdose was waiting just around the next corner...

    I don't know anything about this author, but reading this article you could think she has been hired by Murray's defense team. This is excatly the way how Murray's defense will try to paint MJ during trial. Murray will be the hero who tried to save MJ (the broken drug addict) but failed. The jury should have pity of him. After all, he's just the 'fall guy'.


    To use misleading, twisted media coverage targeting Michael didn't help Sneddon during trial. Let's hope it won't help Murray now. His attorneys will do their best to paint MJ as a hopeless, broken drug-addict whom Murray tried to help, but failed. They will try to influence the jury pool by spreading the tale of MJ, the 'tragic, frail, debt-ridden, mentally unstable drug-addict whose career was as good as over and whose end was already predictable'. And media will be more than happy to help.

    Unfortunately for Murray, the autopsy speaks volumes and paints a completely different picture. So does testimony by all the people who closely worked with Michael in the last months of his life.

    MJ was not broken. He was not brought down by the trial. He WON the trial.

    He stood strong and proud till the end. The autopsy and the coroner's report show MJ died a healthy man AT THE HANDS OF ANOTHER. He has 3 lovely kids which he enjoyed to bring up. He was at the outset of what would have been a brilliant comeback.

    Less than 12 hours before his death, MJ was full of life, of love and hope, and of joy.

    This is the truth!

    Reply to this Comment

    Michael Jackson.
    By Tia on Saturday, January 16, 2010 (EST)
    I love this article & will be sure to share it with all my friends.

    Reply to this Comment

    I believe too believe Dr. Murray caused Michael's death
    By symba45 on Saturday, January 16, 2010 (EST)
    If things happened like Murray said then he was grossly negligent which translates, in my book, to manslaughter or murder. He obviously was not qualified to adminsiter this medication safely and needs to pay for his crimes. Needing money is no excuse for what he did nor is helping his fellow man as he has been quoted as saying. But this man is not going to be convicted of murder unless they find some other type of incriminating evidence. Are they setting Conrad up for acquittal if the charge is murder, I wonder? In my gut I do feel there is more behind Michael's death. I hope the courts do him justice.

    Reply to this Comment

    Article Introduction
    By Sawf News Connect on Monday, January 18, 2010 (EST)
    The introduction / summation of the op-ed has been written by our editorial staff, not Deborah, and the poser in it, under editorial license, is rhetorical.

    Dr Murray may or may not be responsible for MJ's death. He hasn't been charged for it so far, and even if he is he will continue to be deemed innocent until proven guilty. The media, more precisely a small section of it, may or may not be morally responsible for MJ's death.

    We think most readers already knew that.

    Go ahead and express your opinion, just as Deborah has done. - Ed



    Reply to this Comment

    A small section of it?
    By SoCalGal on Monday, January 18, 2010 (EST)
    Excuse me, Sawf News Connect, but not a "small section" of the media crucified Michael Jackson.

    How was it possible for Michael to have withstood such withering assaults against his spiritual integrity? I don't know. A person can withstand much. They do so in war. They do so in prison. But the human heart can't tolerate massive doses of spiritual alienation. Spiritual alienation contradicts the most fundamental inclination of the person; namely, love.

    For too long, Michael's personal dignity—his very person!—was violated at its deepest dimension. He was subjected to a cruel spectacle on the world stage. Names were created by the media to ridicule him. "Wacko Jacko!" The sole purpose in all this was to bring the rage of world public opinion to bear on him so he would suffer spiritual alienation to the very depths of his being. The human heart can't tolerate spiritual alienation. It has enough trouble with psychological aloneness and isolation. It cries out for love and this crying out flows from the deepest part of our being. This is what Deborah Ffrench is saying.

    Dr. Murray most certainly committed gross medical malpractice upon Michael Jackson, and the District Attorney when he receives the case will press his case as such. However, Ms. Ffrench wants the effin' media to reflect on its complicity in making the last half of Michael Jackson's life a living hell on earth. Whether he was directly and actually killed by the media is not the issue. The issue is, he did not come through his ordeal unscathed. The media was complicit in contributing--no, wait, it led the charge--to the general decline of his very existence.

    For his part, Michael Jackson at age fifty managed to rally his physical and moral strength to prepare for the performance of 50 concerts before 5 million people! Yet some--not a small section--continue to say he had no character? What a crock!

    Every member of the media, as an amorphous whole, should send its highest ranking representative to the nearest broadcast studio and APOLOGIZE en masse, on a date certain, on national television, for its attempted destruction of a human being for its own gain. It's a testament to a mighty human spirit that Michael Jackson survived as long as he did under the unrelenting condemnation of the world's press. It was hardly a small section of the media, either. Nearly every single news outlet the world over condemned him, implicitly if not expressly. It was the lynching of Michael Jackson--a gang bang on his soul.

    And that's a fact.

    Reply to this Comment

    MJ: The shocking truth in the FBI files
    By 6labi4 on Wednesday, January 20, 2010 (EST)
    Brava Deborah, you article gave me goosebumps ! Great language use and straight to the points.

    Well done and I agreed with all you've written
    laura

    Reply to this Comment

    Dear Deborah
    By Curious on Thursday, January 21, 2010 (EST)
    Deborah, I did a google search, after reading some of the above comments, and noticed you have posted quite a bit on other sites about this very topic. So the questions I want to ask you are as follows. (It's the reason I signed up, actually.) What stake do you have in all of this? To need Michael Jackson to be innocent or guilty, what does this say about you? What does this say about the things you need from a celebrity, one you probably never knew? If the man's name had not been Michael Jackson when he was accused, what would your reponse have been?

    Unless there is something I don't know, neither you nor I were there when Mr. Jackson was having sleepovers with children. More than likely, we will never know what really happened. Nor is it any of our business. Why not just focus on the man's music?

    As a regulator, my professional curiosity got the better of me when the files were released, and so I read them. They mostly revealed how horrifingly he was stalked. But they did not prove Michael Jackson was innocent or guilty.

    In my world of compliance, I have learned to recognize when something is being withheld that could actually hold the key to somebody's innocence or guilt, and it is my job to seek it and get it. As you can imagine, lawyers hate regulators.

    This being so, in order for me to know beyond a shadow of a doubt Mr. Jackson was innocent or guilty, I would first want to see the rest of the documents, which were not released by the FBI. Then I would want to read the documents gathered by the police departmet, since I believe they did most of the investigating. I would also read the complete files gathered by the attorneys of both Mr. Jackson and his accusors. I would also expect to be given documents, memos, notes, etc., that were given the D.A., any judges, doctors, etc., by the attorneys and their clients. Until then, I remain neutral. I simply don't know.

    No, I don't have a lot of faith in the corporate-owned media. But as I have become more and more intrigued by the wildfire exchange between fans and foes, I have found myself wanting to somehow bring people back to earth, in my own small way by saying, perhaps we should just let the man rest in peace.

    Reply to this Comment

    Dear Curious
    By symba45 on Thursday, January 21, 2010 (EST)
    Since the jury was privy to this information are you negating their conclusion also? So your summation would be the one that counts solely? I think not. Yet you say you remain neutral. A lot of the information you are talking about is available for public consumption if you seek it (except for the unreleased files). If you think about it, if it was something damning in those files against Michael I am quite sure it would have been turned over to the prosecutors, so I think that is a moot point. And you don't have to be present to know the truth. According to you, then no one who has ever been accused of or charge with anything could ever be totally innocent. I guess not even you. I agree with Deborah some things are worth fighting for whether it directly involves you or not. Michael was intentionally smeared by the media to taint him and now his legacy. That does not need to happen to anyone ever again.

    Reply to this Comment

    So, Curious...
    By SoCalGal on Thursday, January 21, 2010 (EST)
    ...it sounds to me like you, Curious, don't care that a man was brutalized by the media for nearly two decades. That his quest to be the best in his art was negated by the senseless hate spewed in every direction and continues now to torture his children. Look at the right column of this page: " Tiger Woods' wife not taking his calls," "John Mayer now masturbates so much." You don't find this senseless intrusion into the lives of celebrities demeaning to us all?

    I swear, Satan himself runs the media. It's his instrument of terror. The problem is medialoid--defined as the infiltration of tabloid journalism into traditional media sources, including the proliferation of sensationalism, triviality and disregard for privacy, with particular emphasis on news coverage of the sports and entertainment industries. Medialoid thinks they make the rules by which society must live. They think they define what is and is not free speech. They have no morals, no decency and no shame. What we have is not qualified reporters reporting on newsworthy topics but packs of bloodthirsty jackals always on the prowl for their next victim. Ka-ching! They hide behind the First Amendment while they tear down society by pandering to humankind's basest instincts. From their presumed position as the final arbiters of what people should think and what they should be thinking about, they smell blood in the water and circle the victim like a bunch of braying hyenas. Ka-ching! I hope you're all proud of yourselves. Michael Jackson…now Tiger Woods. Tiger isn't the one who should be ashamed—except before his wife. Medialoid should be ashamed for the disreputable way they behave when a high profile personality stumbles. Ugh. I hate the media. You all make me sick, including gossip mongers like Sawf "News." I now have a personal policy that I will purchase no products of companies that sponsor gossip rags like this one.

    Reply to this Comment

    To Symba45 and SoCalGirl
    By Curious on Thursday, January 21, 2010 (EST)
    I believe my comments were directed at Deborah.

    Your posts were fascinating and entertaining. But you don't know me, just as I strongly suspect you more than likely never knew Mr. Jackson. (Correct me if I'm wrong and you really were personally involved with him.) However, As I directed questions toward Deborah, I am likewise posing the following questions to you.

    1. What is at stake for you?
    2. Why do you need Mr. Jackson to be innocent or guilty?
    3. What does your need for a particular verdict say about you?
    4. What does this say about that which you need from celebrities?
    5. What is it about your identification with a celebrity that triggers these particular emotional responses from you?
    6. If the man accused of molestation had not been named Michael Jackson, would you have immediately taken a guilty or not-guilty stance, or would you have wanted to read all the documents, first, and why would you have chosen a particular response?
    7. Have you considered the possibility most people may not believe what corporate-owned media says about anything?

    You can repeat your opinion about the media. But I am not interested in that. I am interested in knowing the emotional and thought processes inside you, as individuals, that is causing this reaction.

    Reply to this Comment

    Well, Curious...
    By SoCalGal on Thursday, January 21, 2010 (EST)
    ....since this is a BLOG, not a personal communications system, I guess I can comment on anyone else's communication, and I have.

    There's something wrong with a system whereby a mere accusation is enough to ruin a person's life. Michael Jackson is the poster boy for wrongful allegations that cannot be (and, in Michael's case, did not) set right by full exoneration by a jury of one's peers. As we're seeing, defamation of the dead isn't illegal, either, but it should be, in my opinion. In fact, I head a group of people whose goal is this: (1) professionalization of journalism, to separate the hacks from the professionals who write with integrity and responsibility; (2) a law that prohibits defamation of the dead; and (3) a media grading system (similar to the grading system used by the film industry) so that readers are warned: "The views expressed herein may not have been fact-checked or verified according to principles of journalistic ethics and integrity. In addition, rumor, barely credible sources, an appeal to emotion and the use of checkbook journalism may be a part of this story or program. This story or program is for entertainment purposes only and was not reviewed by a licensed journalist."

    Many occupations require licensing; for example, doctors, lawyers, architects, and accountants must be licensed in all 50 of the United States. To qualify, one must graduate from an accredited university and pass a rigorous board examination. A license doesn’t guarantee a doctor, lawyer, architect, or accountant will be competent. However, licensing prevents a plumber from operating on a person, a homemaker from arguing in court, a dog groomer from designing a building, or a student from maintaining the books of a corporation.

    Is it no less important that those entrusted with reporting world events be licensed? Reporters should not be allowed to call themselves journalists unless they graduate from an accredited university with a degree in journalism (including at least one course in journalism ethics and one course in communications and media law) and pass a rigorous board examination.

    Media play a huge role in our lives. Television, radio, the Internet, movies, books, and newspapers inform and influence our ideas, opinions, values, and beliefs. They shape our understanding of the world and give us the information we need to hold our leaders accountable. They help us separate fact from opinion.

    It's time for destruction of living, breathing, striving and contributing human beings by the media to stop. That it happened to Michael Jackson is regrettable. Now it's happening to Tiger Woods and there will be others, because all the media cares about is MONEY. Journalism is in steep decline and deteriorating daily. This ought to matter to EVERYONE, Curious.

    Reply to this Comment

    SoCalGirl
    By Curious on Thursday, January 21, 2010 (EST)
    Your post about your opinion of the media was very interesting. But it doesn't answer the questions I asked. I'm much more interested in what is going on, inside you, that has caused this to strike such an emotional chord with you.

    Reply to this Comment

    What's going on inside ME...
    By SoCalGal on Thursday, January 21, 2010 (EST)
    ....is I'm sick 'n tired of lying by the media, unhealthy gossip, unsupported innuendo, the wholesale hijacking of a person's civil rights regardless of a verdict and the gross deterioration of the once-proud profession of journalism. Period. Got it?

    Reply to this Comment

    SoCalGirl
    By Curious on Thursday, January 21, 2010 (EST)
    That still doesn't answer the questions I previously asked you.

    I don't like the media either, for reasons of my own. As a result, I read alternative news to give me a better picture of what is happening around the world.

    But I want to know the personal reasons why this issue is such an emotional trigger for you. I want to see your answers to the questions I posed for you.

    Reply to this Comment

    You're not listening, Curious
    By SoCalGal on Thursday, January 21, 2010 (EST)
    I already told you I have no vested interest in Michael Jackson. I am, however, extremely concerned about what happened to him and anyone like him, where accusation is the same as conviction because the media has the power to completely and utterly form public opinion. If the media can do that to a person, they can do it to public policy, political agenda, societal attitudes, etc.

    Now, seeing as you apparently cannot read my cogent remarks and take them at face value, and you seem determined apply armchair psychology to my remarks, I see no good reason to further engage you, except to ask why you're NOT concerned about the vilification by the media of an innocent man. You should be very concerned about this, Curious, because you show yourself to be like the frog in tepid water who doesn't realize the heat is being cranked up slowly but surely and is cooking him.

    In any event, you sound awfully young, and don't recognize the deterioration of journalism when it's all around you. Maybe TMZ and the National Enquirer are more your style. If not, I suggest you educate yourself before it's too late.

    How Fox Sued for the Right to Lie--and Won
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jane_Akre

    The owner of Fox News is of course, Frupert Murdork--from England, I believe.

    Reply to this Comment

    SoCalGirl
    By Curious on Thursday, January 21, 2010 (EST)
    Your assessment of my character and motives is actually enertaining, as you definitely don't know me. But you still aren't answering the questions, in your discussion of the media, particularly in the context of what Deborah Ffrench wrote and the previous responses posted. (Bear in mind this particular author has posted about Mr. Jackson, in this same vein, all over the internet and not about other celebrities.) I will pose the questions to you, again.

    1. What is at stake for you?
    2. Why do you need Mr. Jackson to be innocent or guilty?
    3. What does your need for a particular verdict say about you?
    4. What does this say about that which you need from celebrities?
    5. What is it about your identification with a celebrity that triggers these particular emotional responses from you?
    6. If the man accused of molestation had not been named Michael Jackson, would you have immediately taken a guilty or not-guilty stance, or would you have wanted to read all the documents, first, and why would you have chosen a particular response?
    7. Have you considered the possibility most people may not believe what corporate-owned media says about anything?

    As an aside, I regard Fox "News" as merely a propoganda mouthpiece for Rupert Murdoch.

    Reply to this Comment

    You don't know me, either...
    By SoCalGal on Thursday, January 21, 2010 (EST)
    ....but you're attempting to psychoanalyze me. I'm not taking the bait.

    Again, I have already indicated the reasons for my intense interest in the Michael Jackson saga, as well as others similarly accused by the media without proof.

    Reply to this Comment

    By the way, Curious...
    By SoCalGal on Thursday, January 21, 2010 (EST)
    ...the National Enquirer is going to apply for a Pulitzer Prize for its "coverage" of John Edward's personal life (digging for the true identity of his illegitimate child). That ought to concern you. If not, I have some questions for you:

    1. Why are you content to accept the current deterioration of journalism at an alarming rate?
    2. Why are you so disengaged from what really matters among mainstream society; namely, the wholesale denigration of people in positions of influence (politicians, entertainers, policy makers)?
    3. Where are you going to go for news when those who we have previously trusted in the past are no longer trustworthy?
    4. Why do you have your head in the sand about injustice, no matter who it involves?

    For you, there's always the Sun.

    Reply to this Comment

    SoCalGirl
    By Curious on Thursday, January 21, 2010 (EST)
    Psychoanalyse? I am actually trying to understand why people feel the need to proclaim Mr. Jackson as innocent or guilty, with such vehemence on both sides. This includes you, although I hope you are able to now see why prosecuting and defending attorneys hate regulators, such as myself.

    I would like to say Mr. Jackson innocent. But I wasn't there, so I don't know with 100% assurance he was. I also regard what happened as none of my business, as it was and should have remained between Mr. Jackson and the accusors. I have only read the FBI files that got released, and they neither proved him innocent nor guilty. As in my initial post, I would have to see the remaining documents, too. But until I have personally read every piece of documentation, I have to remain objective and say I don't know the truth. Neither does Ms. Ffrench. Neither do you.

    I do believe, however, it was inapprorpriate for the child-molestation accusations from all parties levied at Mr. Jackson to have reached the press. Issues, such as those, need to be addressed by only the parties involved. At each time the charges were levied against Mr. Jackson, something of greater political siginificance was taking place.

    Reply to this Comment

    There you go...
    By SoCalGal on Thursday, January 21, 2010 (EST)
    Curious wrote: I do believe, however, it was inapprorpriate for the child-molestation accusations from all parties levied at Mr. Jackson to have reached the press. Issues, such as those, need to be addressed by only the parties involved. At each time the charges were levied against Mr. Jackson, something of greater political siginificance was taking place.

    We agree. And that's why we're working to pass Michael Jackson's Law:

    1. Professionalize journalism.
    2. Prohibit defamation of the dead.
    3. Install a monitor so people know the difference between professional journalists and TMZ punks.

    Reply to this Comment

    SoCalGirl
    By Curious on Thursday, January 21, 2010 (EST)
    As a regulator, I disagree with your proposed law, for too many reasons to list here. Bear in mind, I keep people within state and federal regulations, on a daily basis. But I'm glad you have brought up your desired law so that I can caution people about it.

    If you examine history, which includes current history, any time the state has controlled information, the ending results are ominous. People have been killed or exiled for telling the truth nobody wanted to hear. The mainstream media is already corporate controlled, and people seeking information already have to go to alternative sources. What you propose further limits options, and the potential consequences for not complying within this "law" are frightening.

    A better proposal is to not patronize those sources you regard as inappropriate. In addition, it might be a better idea for you to push to have independent news sources made more available to the public rather than continuously forced out by corporations, or at the very least, successfully hidden from the public. Just a suggestion.

    By the way, you still haven't answered my questions.

    Reply to this Comment

    Acquiescence v Activism
    By Deborah Ffrench on Friday, January 22, 2010 (EST)
    Hi Curious,


    Thank you for your valid questions. I can't promise brevity, which is why I am a writer and not a journalist. I believe my views on the implications of the FBI's findings were sufficiently stated in the article above, so I won't reiterate them. But I will do my best to answer your other questions.

    I was not a 'fan' of Michael Jackson and did not follow his career, although obviously I know his work. Nor did I particularly follow the trial or know the extent of his immense, humanitarian contribution to the welfare of children. These were things I discovered in the wake of June 25th. For me, Michael's death resonated profoundly on many levels, and I found the degree of that resonance personally shocking. As a writer by trade, I began to process that resonance the only way I know - by writing about it.

    What came, were questions.

    Briefly, they are: How do we define, and what do we as participants in the community of humanity hold as values worth protecting, where are we heading in terms of our social and psychological evolvement as a species, and what is my personal responsibilty in response to those questions?

    The wider issues of media integrity, social norms and our reaction to perceived transgressions of those norms, judgement and perception, sexuality, privacy, celebrity, race, manipulation of public resources and opinion, and the abuse of power are; in my opinion, exemplified by the life and death of Mr Jackson and as such - worthy of examination.

    Thus I began a journey. A journey that would find me reading unfeasible amounts of material in order that I could write from a place of fact. I am but one of many, although some started earlier. Thomas Mesereau, Aphrodite Jones, Geraldine Hughes, Mary A Fischer, Barbara Kaufmann, Deborah Kunesh, Armand White, Charles Thomson, Azja Pryor and The Silenced Truth team -being just a few of those who have been talking for some time now, about the misrepresentation and non-disclosure of essential information about Mr Jackson's experience in relation to the American criminal justice system and American (and international) media as a whole.

    Many people - myself included, were and in many cases still are, unaware of the extent to which both these formidable entities were directly invested in the establishment and belief in Michael's guilt in the minds of the American people. When the 1993 allegations first arose, there is a huge amount of evidence to suggest the District Attorney's department - at the time headed by Tom Sneddon, worked in unofficial collusion with key figures in the media to galvanize and steer the course of the investigation in a direction which would not serve Mr Jackson.

    These journalists were given unprecedented rights of access to documentation regarding the investigation e.g the grand jury findings, as well as being kept supplied with 'off-record' quotes from the DA's office. The careers and increased profile of many of those journalists were directly proportionate to their success in perpetuating misinformation and selectively reporting on the allegations. It is no stretch to surmise that the hostility of the media in 1993, played a significant part in convincing Mr Jackson's legal team that a defensive position i.e a settlement would be less 'risky' than fighting the allegations in court.

    That decision, erroneous in my opinion, severely compromised many people's view of Michael and I believe, exposed him to a further extortion attempt by the Arviso's years later. The reality that powerful sections of the media can impact whether or not someone - anyone, feels sufficiently disempowered to defend their reputation against an accusation, goes right to the heart of what we define democracy, citizenship and liberty to be.

    Post 1993, almost all the stories carried in the media uniformly described Michael as a 'race-denier',a 'freak', 'Wacko Jacko', 'dying' etc. The gradual and wilful dehumanization of Michael Jackson became a self-perpetuating industry for the media, in the process, transforming it into a tangible 'intent-to-harm' machine.

    Is it suprising that when Mr Jackson was indicted in 2003, independent polls of public opinion suggested an almost homogenous belief in his guilt? Had the American public not been force-fed a grossly distorted image of Michael Jackson by the media for over a decade, and been told that the alleged - and subsequently disproved, multiple charges of molestation and impropriety were alleged to have occurred after the programme, 'Living With Michael Jackson' aired - I very much doubt that opinion would have been so consistent.

    If what was done to Michael Jackson by the media was done in the workplace to a private individual, that individual would be able to take their case to a tribunal (or American equivalent), on the basis that they were being bullied or harrassed. No such option as regards his treatment in the media - with the exception of the publication of Halperin's book, seems to have existed for Michael Jackson.

    Aphrodite Jones, in a recent interview with Deborah Kunesh:-

    http://www.reflectionsonthedance.com/Interview-with-Aphrodite.html

    - talked about how when Neverland was raided, members of the media were there to film it. Who allowed that? How did that happen? On what basis was this breach of due process under the law ignored? And why were these questions not even asked? Aphrodite also said in the interview that such a breach, "..could only have happened if the prosecution had allowed that. There had to have been some simpatico, some kind of information crossing lines there, between the media and the DA, long before there was ever a trial, (sic) that fueled the fire..."

    With hindsight we know Michael was acquitted in 2005. To say there was an audible wave of disappointment from the media when the verdicts came down, is an understatement. Those verdicts however, did not lead to any, 'how could have this have happened?' post-mortems in the press. On the contrary, the comparative silence of the media as opposed to its blanket coverage before the verdicts, was deafening.

    During the trial Michael lost dangerous amounts of weight; the daily press gauntlet, the unravelling of his private life and financial affairs, and the ordeal of listening to former 'friends' and employees damn him on the stand, clearly took its toll on him mentally, emotionally and physically.

    Thomas Mesereau, who has spoken extensively since 2005 on the absolute non-merit of the charges against Mr Jackson, described his prosecution as a "...travesty of justice and one of the most mean-spirited attacks on an innocent person in legal history." Journalist and topical pundit Geraldo, said watching Michael physically deterioate during the trial was, "..something he would never forget."

    After the verdicts, a member of the prosecution team was asked to comment on the decision. Their reply? " ....at least the defendant had to work for his accquittal.' In other words, Michael may have won the trial, but the prosecution knew it had come at a tremendous cost - his health.

    Even Ex-President Clinton, believed at one time to have been considered for impeachment, was not subjected to the levels of scrutiny and public judgement Michael Jackson endured. To imagine a human mind and body can indefinitely take that kind of prolonged pressure - whoever they are, without there being a consequent effect is, in my opinion, unsustainable.

    Notwithstanding Doctor Murray's still-to-be determined role in the exact circumstances surrounding Michael's death, the question for me is not: Did a ratings-driven media and to a lesser extent, we, as acquiescers in what we have allowed our media and justice systems to decide are acceptable codes of conduct - play a part in the events of June 25th? But, to what degree? Such a question could obviously never be asked in a court of law, but that doesn't diminish its truism.

    Yes, less than 12 hours before he died, it has been said Michael was full of zest to rehearse, and undoubtedly his love for his children was a big part of his strength; but yet, he couldn't sleep. I believe the probabilites that led Michael to make the choices he felt were available to him as regards how he dealt with his chronic insomnia, are undeniably linked to the context in which he was forced to operate in for over 15 years. How could he not be affected? How could anyone not be?

    I can't really answer your question as to 'why' I feel and continue to feel, that not writing about what the wider ramifications of Michael's death represents to me - is something I cannot do. But I can tell you I am not alone.

    The exponential growth of web discourse and blog capabilities on an increasing number of sites has naturally, and rightly, given millions a voice. What we do with that voice, and whether the raising of those voices leads to real change in how our public bodies and we as democratic societies function however, is another matter.

    But I believe that I, like anyone else who has been affected by a world 'happening', be it Haiti, Afghanistan, terrorism or indeed the death of Michael Jackson, should be asking such questions. Questions slowly but surely lead to answers. And maybe, somewhere in those answers we'll figure out, if what we as a species 'are' and what we 'do' to each other, could do with a radical reappraisal.


    Right now, there are three children living in Encino, who will one day perhaps - want to hear them.

    Reply to this Comment

    To Deborah
    By Curious on Friday, January 22, 2010 (EST)
    Deborah, that was lovely prose. But it's the kind of speech I hear, all the time, when people try to sidestep regulators. It's also a lengthier version of what I noticed you've posted on other websites. It doesn't cut to the real issue. The real issue is why do you need to pronounce a celebrity you never knew (If you did know him, please correct me.) as innocent when the FBI files that got released - which I have definitely read - do not prove said man was innocent or guilty!

    Maybe it's my highly trained compliance skills that made me realize I would need the rest of the documents from everyone involved before I could say he was innocent or guilty. Yet, the bottom line is no matter how hard any of us proclaim his innocence or guilt, we don't really know because we weren't there.

    Yes, there is a lot wrong with mainstream media. Too much of it is racist, classist, sexist, homophobic, etc. It's the reason I made the choice, long ago, to seek alternative sources for my information. I simply don't trust a news source owned by oil corporations or even a rich, old white man, named Rupert Murdoch. The people I personally know believe the same way as me.

    But why not pick a different springboard with which to launch your own movement to bring fairer media representation?

    Reply to this Comment

    Curious...still missing the point
    By SoCalGal on Friday, January 22, 2010 (EST)
    I can't believe that you, a "regulator," and seemingly intelligent, continue to miss the point entirely. What has the fact that Michael Jackson was the world's biggest celebrity got to do with any of the points made by Deborah Ffrench and myself? We repeatedly told you that it's the manner in which he was treated, not that HE was treated that way, that is the point, but you continue to ask your silly questions about why we would be so emotionally vested in Michael Jackson.

    I, like Deborah, wasn't particularly atuned to Mr. Jackson at the time of his trial. (I had other matters going on at the time that forced my complete attention.) But after he died, I started to read about the way he lost his civil liberties and about how NO ONE IN THE MEDIA thought that fact was worth mentioning. This was completely preposterous. This all went down in America?! Land of the free? Not where Michael Jackson was concerned. He LOST his civil rights at the hands of a prosecutor intent on a big win and by the complicit pen of members of the media who made careers on the scarred back of Michael Jackson.

    The practical reality is that media won't police itself, so someone else must police the media. When you abuse your freedom, you lose your freedom, and the media is close to losing its freedom. Yes, the First Amendment is formidable, but the Supreme Court can step in and make sure that another American citizen doesn't suffer as Michael Jackson suffered. If it could happen to him, it could happen to anyone. In fact, it has happened to many people. Many ordinary people have lost their livelihood because the media stepped in and ruined their reputations. It's happening to Tiger Woods right now.

    The media has a Code of Ethics that it routinely violates and ordinary and extraordinary American citizens suffer mightily by their poison pens. This. Is. Not. Right. Rather than time cooling the angst of Michael Jackson admirers the world over, their rage is building. They are sick and tired of witnessing him being defamed (still!) in ugly rags all over the world. The Diane Dimond's of the media are STILL earning big bucks by denigrating an innocent man who is no longer here to defend himself. This. Is. Not. Right. Anyone who thinks this is acceptable is just not capable of reasoned thinking.

    The sad state of affairs of American media has really nothing to do with Michael Jackson but everything to do with the slow disintegration of American values aided and abetted by the media. When your rights are violated by another person's ability to vilify you repeatedly in the press, under cover of "freedom" of the press, something's radically wrong.

    The Lynching of Michael Jackson
    http://tinyurl.com/yczqhso

    Defaming the Dead (plus > 1,000 legal analyses in Lexis/Nexis)
    http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20090710.html

    Reply to this Comment

    SoCalGirl
    By Curious on Friday, January 22, 2010 (EST)
    SoCalGirl, I find you an endless source of entertainment. But before you start slapping laws to further clamp the already controlled media, I suggest you read something by Noam Chomsky. What you suggest sounds ominously like a police state and opens a can of worms that leave too much potetial for abuse. Mr. Chomsky's work could help shed light for you, on this topic.

    I also want to continue moving past the smoke screen of "The Media Killed Michaal Jackson" and get to the real issue. Now, please answer the questions I put to you.



    Reply to this Comment

    To Curious
    By symba45 on Friday, January 22, 2010 (EST)
    You asked me what my vested interest is. For me, I am sick and tired of the media trying to tear down every African-American national treasure they feel has gotten too wealthy or too popular with the American people. After Michael died I told my friends when it was reported that Tiger Woods had made I believe was close to 1 billion (if that is true) that he would be next. Low and behold look is happening. If Oprah does go for getting her own network after her current show then she had better watch out as well. I realize this is probably not a good enough answer for you, but hey you asked.

    I have a question for you though. How could seeing the rest of the FBI files help with your opinion about the matter if you say we weren't there so how could anyone know for sure? Wouldn't that same logic for you still apply? Since you say you are trained at this sort of thing I am asking for that insight.

    Reply to this Comment

    To Symba45
    By Curious on Friday, January 22, 2010 (EST)
    Symba45, that's the most intelligent response I have heard, yet. I agree. Successful African-Americans are vulnerable targets in America, where the corporations that own the media are generally white privileged men.

    But it only partly answers my questions to you. If Mr. Jackson had not been the name of the man accused of child molestation, would you have immediately proclaimed him guilty or not guilty? Or would you have wanted to see all the documents, first? And if a grown man whose name was not Mr. Jackson wanted to have a sleepover with your child, would you approve, regardless of how innocent it may have be? It is how people choose to defend or condemn a celebrity that interests me so much and causes me to want to find out the issues and needs behind it.

    I will now answer your questions to me. The FBI files I read showed Mr. Jackson to be neither innocent nor guilty. But in my experience, the missing documents often hold the evidence that could determine a guilty-or-not-guilty verdict. When dealing with prosecuting and defending attorneys trying to control the outcome, it has become amusing to see them react when asked for the docs they have excluded. Rather than scream Mr. Jackson was a wrongfully accused angel victimized by the press or a child-molesting devil who got away with it by means of a good legal team, I would need to see all the docs, first. This includes not only the remainig FBI files, but I would need to read the police department's records and files, the prosecuting attorneys' files, the defending attorneys' files, Mr. Jackson's files, the accusors' files, the DA's files, etc. This includes reading the monetary contracts arranged, memos and notes passed between parties, etc.

    Until then, I am not qualified to give a guilty-or-not-guilty verdict, especially since I was not there when the sleepovers took place. None of us are. That is why I find Deborah Ffrench's lengthy defense of Mr. Jackson disconcerting, inasmuch as I would find it equally disconcerting had she written an article condemning him.

    Reply to this Comment

    Curious, now I know you're an imbecile...
    By SoCalGal on Friday, January 22, 2010 (EST)
    ....merely trolling this blog, looking for a fight, not enlightenment or courteous discourse.

    Good day.

    Reply to this Comment

    SoCalGirl
    By Curious on Friday, January 22, 2010 (EST)
    HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

    SoCalGirl, I love your repeated assessment of my characater, motives, and the continuous label decorations slapped on my head, especially since I don't believe we have ever met. It really does add to the humor of my day.

    If you don't wish to directly answer the questions I originally asked you so that I can better understand you, it's absolutely your choice. I'm disappointed, though, because I genuinely wanted to see your answers. However, I still recommend you read something by Noam Chomsky, in regards to the media. He's a very enlightened thinker and author, and his books could give you a different perspective.

    Reply to this Comment

    You have no intention...
    By SoCalGal on Friday, January 22, 2010 (EST)
    ...of understanding anything but your own drill, over and over and over.

    You apparently are completely out of tune with America's celebrity culture, and apparently are uninterested in understanding it. Your moralistic view of pop culture is about as 1960s as that of Daniel Boorstin, who famously described a celebrity as "a person who is well-known for their well-knownness," and found both celebrities and "pseudo celebrity events" vacuous and inane. The moralizers had, of course, begun declaring the end of civilization as we know it for decades, but civilization has survived them.

    More enlightened views, set forth nicely in Graeme Turner's "Understanding Celebrity" (2004) explain that the decline of the traditional family, changing social relationships and new technology have created "para-social interactions"--meaning interactions occurring across significant social distances with people we do not know, and accounting for our enjoyment of celebrities. As Turner states it: "Among our compensations for the loss of community is an avid attention to the figure of the celebrity and a greater investment in our relations with specific versions of this figure. In effect, we are using celebrity as a means of constructing a new dimension of community through the media."

    However, for me, it's the GRAVE injustice that Michael Jackson suffered--not necessarily Michael Jackson himself--that propels me to seek (1) the professionalization of journalism; (2) the enactment of a prohibition against defaming the dead; and (3) a ratings system to separate serious journalism from medialoid (defined as the infiltration of mainstream media by tabloid journalism).

    For the sake of the rest of the readers of this blog, I have restated my position. If you refuse to accept my answers to your questions, that's your business. At this point, you're merely pounding sand.

    Reply to this Comment

    My, my, my, such harsh words
    By Curious on Friday, January 22, 2010 (EST)
    SoCalGirl, I actually am aware of the celebrity culture in our society and find it alarming. Celebrities are a great way for our collective attention to be distracted from serious political events. For example, when Mr. Jackson's younger sister bared her breast on T.V., the media screamed for her blood. At the same time, Chief Justice Scalia refused to recuse himself from a case to be reviewed the Supreme Court that just so happened to involve his friends. Guess what? The case went in favor of Chief Justice Scalia's friends! But how many people remember that miscarriage of justice and yet can still speak of Ms. Jackson's breast scandal, to this day?

    If what you wrote is, indeed, a word-for-word verbatim quote from Mr. Turner, and if that does sum your reasons for what you have at stake in a celebrity you more than likely never knew, then I want to thank you for at least answering some of the questions I asked you, even though I would like to see direct answers for the rest.

    But it leaves me sad for you. If, as Mr. Turner states, your own "loss of community [creates] an avid attention to the figure of the celebrity and a greater investment in [your] relations with specific versions of this figure[, and] In effect, [you] are using celebrity as a means of constructing a new dimension of community through the media", does this not point out a tragic emptiness in your own life and in anyone else's who believes as you do? Unless you personally knew Mr. Jackson and he let you follow him around in his day-to-day life and he then told you how he felt and if and what he suffered, you don't know. Period. Therefore, all your slamming of the tabloids gives them more power than they actually should have over you.

    By the way, your desire to control how media is delivered deeply concerns me. I definitely recommend you read Mr. Chomsky's work before telling people what they can and cannot write. There is a LOT wrong with what you want. For example, invoking a journalistic rating system is outrageous. A rating system was set up for movies, and sure enough, movies considered controversial - and don't have a large $tudio behind them - often don't get the PG rating that would make them accessible to the public.

    Reply to this Comment

    To Curious
    By symba45 on Saturday, January 23, 2010 (EST)
    The last time I checked in this country you are presumed innocent until proven guilty. I always presume someone is innocent until proven otherwise no matter who it is. Unfortunately we can not always get our hands on every single document so we have to rely on our legal system good or bad. I was one of the fortunate ones who was able to read some opposing views to what the main-stream media was spewing about Jackson in the 1993 case so I knew early on what they were up to. As far as outings or sleepovers as you call them. If I know the person well I would have no problem. It is no different than letting your child go camping with someone you know and they stay in the same camper. When I went to camps during the summer the girls were in one area the boys in the other. The girls had adult female guidance the boys had adult male guidance. They all slept in the same lodge. If you want to think about smaller quarters, think about pitching a tent. Where would campers sleep? In the same tent. That's how I have always seen it. Let's get real here in Michael Jackson's case it was made to look sinister because it was Michael Jackson. It doesn't matter whether you know the person or not this type of yellow journalism needs to stop.
    Tabloids will be tabloids, but we really need to get back to real journalism. Where did the good investigative reporters go? They all seem to be regurgitating the same filth. You can not make any change unless you care and that is not a crime. Good Night Curious.

    Reply to this Comment

    symba45 wrote:
    By SoCalGal on Saturday, January 23, 2010 (EST)
    <<Tabloids will be tabloids, but we really need to get back to real journalism. Where did the good investigative reporters go? They all seem to be regurgitating the same filth. You cannot make any change unless you care and that is not a crime.>>

    Preach it, brutha! For every freedom there is responsibility. If the media won't adhere to its own Code of Ethics, someone will have to do it for them. How free the press is is really up to the media.

    Society of Professional Journalists
    http://www.spj.org/ethicscode.asp

    Reply to this Comment

    To Symba45
    By Curious on Saturday, January 23, 2010 (EST)
    Symba45, what you wrote made for a fascinating read. Yet, I did not say the man was guilty. I said I haven't seen the complete docs and am not entitled to pronounce him guilty or not guilty. Neither are you. As a regulator, I have seen too many innocent people pronounced guilty and too many guilty people pronounced innocent because something was withheld. Therefore, my opinion on Mr. Jackson's innocence or guilt remains neutral.

    Insofar as how Mr. Jackson's case was portrayed, I did not see a different tone used by the media toward him than the tone used by the media toward priests who were also accused of child molestation. Unfortunately, Mr. Jackson was a celebrity, and so he received more publicity than the priests. (I want to add I am truly looking forward to reading the hostile response at my words, so please don't disappoint me.)

    However, since we are on this topic, I challenge how comfortable you would honestly be if a grown man said he wanted your child to spend the night alone with him in his bedroom. It doesn't matter if Mr. Jacson's motives were innocent or sinister. It was just flat-out wrong to have those sleepovers for the following reasons.

    1. People are very particular about their children. Therefore, the more he spent that kind of time alone with other people's children, the sooner the time bomb was likely to go off.

    2. The balance of power between children and adults is never equal. Therefore, what does this say about Mr. Jackson if he preferred to spend time with people he could easily control rather than develop relationships with adults on a more equal status? What does this say about parents who would control their children by putting them into questionable circumstances?

    3. A number of times he publicly proclaimed children as being innocent. If, as he said, children are innocent and adults are not, what does this say about the adults who were in his life? What does this say about him, as an adult?

    I don't know if he truly didn't understand why he shouldn't have sleepovers with children or if he chose to ignore the obvious or if he thought he was above honoring boundaries. I never met him and didn't have the chance to ask him. But his guilt or innocence would not be haunting him, to this day, had those boundaries been honored.

    What intrigues me so much about SoCalGirl and you, which keeps me reading your posts with great interest, is your rabid idol worship. Do I think the media killed Mr. Jackson? No. Do I think the media was unkind to him, overall, because of his odd behavior? Yes. Do I think he fed into it? Yes. Do I think the media is unkind to those who are not heterosexual white privileged men? Yes. Do I think Mr. Jackson was a saint? No. Do I think he was a devil? No. He was human, albeit an obviously troubled man, due to the multiple plastic surgeries and the behavior he publicly defended. But I suspect when he took off his pants, he looked the same as any other man "down there." So, I can't join your cult hero worship.

    Reply to this Comment

    Curious
    By symba45 on Saturday, January 23, 2010 (EST)
    One thing you obviously do not know is that the parents where at his house when their children were there. MJ entertained in his 2 level bedroom along with the parents as well. They didn't just go get in the bed. As Macauley Culkin said, they would fall asleep any where, the theater room or where ever when kids got sleepy. It wasn't just a one on one thing other kids where there as well. I thought you got your information from reliable sources. You are just repeating that same old tabloid trash.

    And If you really read what I wrote I did not say any man or woman for that matter could come up to me and ask for my child to sleep in their bed. That would be stupid and that is not what Michael did. You really do need to try to seek out the truth.
    So you can really stop with all of the one, two, three, bullet points.
    These parents knew that their children loved the idea of hanging out with a superstar. So they gave them that opportunity.

    I am really laughing now at your so called neutrality. Go ahead have the last word.

    Reply to this Comment

    Some regulator Curious
    By symba45 on Saturday, January 23, 2010 (EST)
    P.S. I wouldn't think a regulator would get as involved as what you just wrote. You are an impostor.

    Reply to this Comment

    Busted
    By Deltaquadrant on Saturday, January 23, 2010 (EST)
    Who cares anyway if you're a regulator? Dude, your "highly trained mind" just walked you right into that one.

    You're a hater baby.

    Own it.

    Reply to this Comment

    Ditto
    By SoCalGal on Saturday, January 23, 2010 (EST)
    I think you nailed it, Deltaquadrant.

    Reply to this Comment

    I'm Definitely Laughing, now
    By Curious on Saturday, January 23, 2010 (EST)
    I just love it when people flame each other with name calling. So far, whenever I counter anyone, I am redecorated with more labels. I want to thank you for not disappointing me with the inflammatory comments, after my post! I was eagerly awaiting your response and want to let you know how much I am enjoying all of this!

    Symba45, unless you were actually there, neither you nor I know for a fact if parents were at the house when their children were having sleepovers alone with a grown man and where in the house the parents were located when the sleepovers occurred. And if the parents were there, then perhaps they should have been questioned.

    Insofar as neutrality is concerned, where Mr. Jackson's innocence or guilt is concerned, I am neutral. As a regulator, I haven't read all the documents and am, therefore, unqualified to make that call. Insofar as whether or not it is appropriate for children to have sleepovers with adults are concerned, as a parent, I am not neutral under any circumstances, for the reasons previously posted. Where my opinion of his foes and fans are concerned, as a human being, I am not neutral, since just stating my beliefs about adult-child sleepovers has caused an uproar, complete with the assumption I think Mr. Jackson is guilty and a defense of the aforementioned sleepovers.

    Reply to this Comment

    symba...
    By SoCalGal on Sunday, January 24, 2010 (EST)
    ...check this out. http://www.thesportsinterview.com/mjackson.html

    CY: After ‘93, should he have known better going on the Martin Bashir documentary Living With Michael Jackson and saying it’s ok to share your bed with a child? Don’t you think most people are going to say in some sense well, he kind of set himself up for that?

    CR: “Let me explain to you what was said to me directly from Michael. Michael and I spoke about that. He said, ‘Cory, when I was a kid, I was denied not only a childhood but I was denied love. When I reached out to hug my father, he didn’t hug me back. When I was scared on an airplane, he didn’t put his arm around me and say Michael, don’t worry. It’s going to be ok. When I was scared to go on stage, he said, ‘Get your ass on this stage.’ Not just him, but every other adult around him.

    So he said to me ‘Cory, I will never deny a child love and if it means that I have to be crucified or put in jail for it, then that’s just what they’re gonna have to do.’ When it was time for him to stand trial, the first time he went through it, his advisors told him, ‘Michael, this is not good. Pay this kid off and let’s keep moving.’ Second time he said, ‘You know what? All that did was make me look guilty like I was hiding something. So this time there won’t be any payoffs. I’m going to fight this in court. You’ll see. I’ll be innocent.’

    Reply to this Comment

    SoCalGal
    By symba45 on Sunday, January 24, 2010 (EST)
    Thank you. I have heard that interview before but I didn't remember where to find it.

    Reply to this Comment

    Symba...of course you wouldn't hear this in MSM
    By SoCalGal on Sunday, January 24, 2010 (EST)
    http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/aussie-wade-breaks-silence/story-0-1225740942304

    “Michael Jackson changed the world and, more personally, my life forever. He is the reason I dance, the reason I make music and one of the main reasons I believe in the pure goodness of humankind. He has been a close friend of mine for 20 years. His music, his movement, his personal words of inspiration and encouragement and his unconditional love will live inside of me forever. I will miss him immeasurably, but I know that he is now at peace and enchanting the heavens with a melody and a moonwalk. I love you, Michael.''

    Robson's close relationship at a young age with Jackson and the time he spent at Jackson's Neverland ranch drew controversy and resulted in Robson being called to testify at Jackson's 2005 trial in California. Robson defended Jackson and rejected the allegations against him.

    Reply to this Comment

    SoCalGal and Symba45
    By Deltaquadrant on Sunday, January 24, 2010 (EST)

    Have you see read the new Brett Ratner and Chris Tucker interview - amazing.

    Reply to this Comment

    Deltaquadrant
    By symba45 on Sunday, January 24, 2010 (EST)
    I have not seen this. Where can I find the Brett Ratner and Chris Tucker interview?

    Reply to this Comment

    Wade Robson
    By symba45 on Sunday, January 24, 2010 (EST)
    SoCalGal, No this will get no air time at all.

    Reply to this Comment

    Truly Perplexed, Now, By the God Worship
    By Curious on Monday, January 25, 2010 (EST)
    Those comments are all very interesting. But they sidestep the fact it is inappropriate to have adult-child sleepovers. I have previously stated those reasons they are wrong. I still remain neutral on Mr. Jackson's innocence or guilt because I haven't read the files. But your posts of interviews don't prove anything, except to show how much suffering in his own life could have been avoided, had he gone to therapy to heal his own inner child, and to show how idealizing people can blind others to the real human issues.

    But Symba, SoCalGirl, etc., that you are justifying the sleepovers brings me back to my initial curiosity about what is going on inside your minds. Why do you need to justify this, especially when there are far healthier ways to express love to children? Why do you try to elevate a mere mortal to god status? What is it about your own lives that needs this from somebody you never met? If in the end, it turned out he was guilty, how shattering would this be for you? Would he suddenly become the most evil demon ever to walk the face of the earth? Or would you be able to see he was still human and perhaps just very ill? There seems to be something at stake for you that I don't completely understand, not even after SoCalGirl's quote about the meaning of celebrity in today's society.

    My own very subjective opinion about Mr. Jackson? I think he led a very tragic life, and I wish somebody had cared enough to get him a therapist when he was about 17 or 18 years old. But it is you, the posters here, who are keeping me riveted.

    Reply to this Comment

    Brett Ratner / Chris Tucker Interview
    By SoCalGal on Monday, January 25, 2010 (EST)
    Deltaquadrant, here it is.

    http://www.avclub.com/articles/chris-tucker-and-brett-ratner,14135/

    Pertinent portion:

    AVC: What was kind of your impression of Michael Jackson?

    CT: He's just a normal person. Nice. He's a very kind person, nice. Really shy. Just a lot of fun to be around, because he's just nice.

    AVC: Do you think he's misunderstood?

    CT: Yeah, he's misunderstood, because he's had a different life. He's accomplished so much in his life, and he's so talented. He's just a genius.

    BR: He doesn't really belong on this planet. He's the most important figure in the history of music. He'll be remembered far longer than George Bush will. 200 years from now, people will be talking about Michael Jackson, and no one's going to mention George Bush.

    AVC: I remember growing up, he was the most famous person in the world.

    BR: It's not even that. It's like the people who create something. Mozart is much more famous than Napoleon, for instance. Mozart is creating something that's lasting forever in music. Michael does not even belong. It's like God is channeling through him. Even if he sits here with us, and just sings like three notes, it's like, "Oh my God." It's beyond anything. I've worked with a hundred of the biggest artists in the world, from Madonna to Mariah Carey, and he is just beyond. He's at a whole other level, spiritually. He's got the God spot. Everyone has it, everyone has that God spot, but it's just the way he's in tune with it. He has it. It's right there, and when he starts to sing, God has just opened it up for him. That's why he's not comfortable around people and things, because he's just such a unique—he feels blessed just to be himself. "I can't believe I'm Michael Jackson." [Laughs.] That's what it is, really. He is one of the most unique people. I've spent a lot of time with him, so has Chris. Just sitting in the back of a car, and music playing, and then him, he moves like God is going through him. Not to knock Usher or anybody else, but you see when they're dancing, they're like, "One, two, three, four." He's just like, natural. He's amazing, he really is amazing. He's got a bad rap, but the truth is, he's a child. Michael Jackson never grew up, but that's what makes him so special.

    CT: That's what he says about Brett. "I like Brett, because he's just a kid. He never lost that essence."

    BR: Mike has the mind of a kid, and when you have the mind of a kid, you're smarter than an adult. You see through all the BS. Kids, you know how they are? They just say the truth.
    AVC: There's a sort of purity to it.

    BR: Purity to it. He's a pure person. There's no malicious intent in him at all. He's a kid. That's the true essence of a kid. There's nobody more kid-like than Michael Jackson. People may say, "Oh, he needs to grow up, he's a 40-something-year-old man," but the truth is, that's what makes him special. He sees the world in a different way. He can read the mind of an adult better than an adult can read his mind. That's what makes him so special.

    CT: And he understands that, because that's what he told me about Brett. [Laughs.]

    BR: "Brett's an asshole." "No, Brett's great!" That's what we all have in common. See, that's the thing. Michael loves movies. He loves entertainment. He loves music. We spent all our time with him watching movies. Listening to music. Dancing. Singing. Having fun. Every time Chris would leave the house, we'd be in Miami, and he'd go with Michael Jackson. "Where'd you go?" "Oh, we just went to Barry Gibb's house and we were just singing Bee Gees songs."

    Actually, what happened to Michael Jackson isn't the first time. Read about another public lynching of several innocent people in Manhattan Beach, CA.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McMartin_preschool_trial

    The McMartin preschool trial was a day care sexual abuse case of the 1980s. Members of the McMartin family, who operated a preschool in California, were charged with numerous acts of sexual abuse of children in their care. Accusations were made in 1983. Arrests and the pretrial investigation ran from 1984 to 1987, and the trial ran from 1987 to 1990. After six years of criminal trials, no convictions were obtained, and all charges were dropped in 1990. It was the longest and most expensive criminal trial of its time, and is believed to have contributed to satanic ritual abuse, a moral panic of the 1980s and 1990s.

    Very similar.

    Reply to this Comment

    Curious - you busy posting too
    By Deltaquadrant on Monday, January 25, 2010 (EST)
    If the FBI had evidence about MJ molesting anybody they'da turned it over to the LAPD long time ago. So where is it? Ain't on 16 computers. Wasn't no child porn found in any books either. If there had, MJ woulda got busted for possession. Easy.

    Janet Arviso was so crazed her testimony was exposed as a nothing but lies coz her dates and timeline didn't make sense. And nope, that never got reported. Why?

    And how come nobody normal, nobody you'd want looking after your own kids, or hang out with - ever testifed against MJ? How come they always nasty, low-down, ex-employees, fantasists or wannabe big-shots who beat up on their own kid?


    You wanna know why people are gonna be talking about this for a long, long time Curious? Because this was wrong dude. Ain't nobody saying Mj wasn't different, hell yeah he was different. But he wasn't no child molester.


    And everybody knows it.



    Symba/Solcalgal;
    http://www.avclub.com/articles/chris-tucker-and-brett-ratner,14135


    Reply to this Comment

    Deltaquadrant, it's like explaining...
    By SoCalGal on Monday, January 25, 2010 (EST)
    ....blue to a blind man. Can't be done, so forget about the trolls.

    Tom Sneddon said before cameras that sleeping with a child is not a crime, but that doesn't matter to those who can't think beyond their own existence and who have no mercy. If they want to see evil in sheer genius, they will. If they want to turn a man like Michael Jackson into blood sport, they will. After all, the Romans did it, didn't they?

    http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,1072520,00.html

    It's finally over. Can I be any clearer about my amazed disgust at the amount of ink and TV time this show-trial consumed? At the amount of intellectual house-room it took up? Thank God it's over, how's that? On the night of the verdict, the network news programs devoted a significant percentage of their paltry 30-minute spans first to the verdicts, then to analysis of the verdicts — as though not guilty needs analysis. The cable-news buzzards (Nancy Grace, Larry King, Mercedes Colwin, and Pat Lalama of Celebrity Justice to name just a few of the plumper ones) were all over it. Not-guilty roadkill isn't quite as tasty — or as bloody — as guilty roadkill, but it'll do. It hurts more to see a smart guy like CNN's legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin keeping his eye on the black umbrella. Here's a man in the prime of his creative life and in command of what are clearly prodigious talents, and what he spent over a year doing with them was analyzing the legal struggles of an aging pop star accused of fondling little boys in front of the TV set.

    -----

    So instead of sittin' around talking about the decline of American media and what to do about it, we're still dissecting the actual victim: Michael Jackson.

    Reply to this Comment

    Lunatics
    By Curious on Monday, January 25, 2010 (EST)
    Deltaquadrant, SoCalGirl, and Symba45, those posts are all just opinions, which includes the interviews. The bottom line is we don't know if Mr. Jackson was innocent or guilty unless we have read the files. I don't know that we'll ever know the answer, and at this place in time, it's not the issue.

    ***** Text with personal attacks removed *****

    Reply to this Comment

    FBI files
    By symba45 on Monday, January 25, 2010 (EST)
    Hmm... FBI files would know better than the indiviual himself i.e. Wade Robson. That is interesting.

    Reply to this Comment

    To Symba45
    By Curious on Monday, January 25, 2010 (EST)
    Symba45, the complete FBI files have not been released. As stated before, I only read the files that were released and they proved him neither innocent nor guilty. I have not read the withheld files, the police department's files, the prosecuting and defendings attorneys' files, Mr. Jackson's files, the accusors' files, etc. So, let's get to the real issue.

    What is it about Mr. Jackson you identify with so much that causes such hosility when questioned? I want to understand what is going on inside your mind.

    Reply to this Comment

    Curious
    By symba45 on Monday, January 25, 2010 (EST)
    I have no hostility whatsoever, I already answered your question. Did you forget? I think SoCalGal was right you are just looking for a fight.

    Reply to this Comment

    Let's recap...
    By SoCalGal on Monday, January 25, 2010 (EST)
    Every single accuser was thoroughly discredited.

    One "victim," whose father brought the charge for money, refused to testify.

    Three alleged victims testified under oath that MJ did not abuse them.

    The FBI found nothing.

    Twelve jurors, after reviewing all evidence, acquitted MJ.

    Still, we encounter people who say, "We simply do not know."

    This means, then, that mere accusation, when accompanied by media coverage clearly biased against the accused, is all that's needed to brand a person for life.

    Sad. Really sad. As MJ said, "I can't believe this is happening in America."

    Reply to this Comment

    Curious: you ain't getting no regulating done
    By Deltaquadrant on Monday, January 25, 2010 (EST)
    Understand your own mind Curious before you go trying to understand others.

    I'll say this again. What the FBI files do not reveal would be nothing to do with sexual allegations. Any info about molesting kids would have been turned over.

    Fast.

    That investigation cost millions. If that could have been justified with evidence, why wouldn't they turn it over. The FBI declined to become the primary investigators coz they knew this was Sneddon's baby, and it didn't hold water.

    For the record, Mike didn't pay off the first kid either. If you're the thinker you say you are, I'm sure I don't need to talk you through all that.


    Why do people give a? Like I said before - this wasn't right.

    Now if that ain't an issue for you, cool. But don't make other people wrong coz they disagree with you.


    Btw -what got deleted out of your comment, looks like you got regulated bro.

    Reply to this Comment

    To Symba45
    By Curious on Monday, January 25, 2010 (EST)
    You only partially answered the question, with which I agreed. African-Americans are definitely treated unfairly in the press. But it is the person you, along with the other posters, have portrayed as a god that has me alarmed.

    If you stuck to Tiger Woods, I would remain and am on your band wagon. He has broken no laws. We don't know what arrangement he has with his wife, and it's nobody's business. That is between his wife and himself. Unfair press? Absolutely. With the exception of, perhaps, President Clinton, do white men who get caught with their pants down get this kind of negative press for as lengthy a period of time? No. Does it get the public's eyes off current political issues.? Yes. Is anyone aware the Supreme Court just approved a case in which corporations are now allowed to donate large sums of money for presidential candidates, thereby, controlling the outcome of an election?

    But the person you have chosen to present as a God of Purity is not clear cut. (I suspect he was also very, very human.) Again, as a regulator, until I see the remaining docs, he is neither innocent nor guilty. As a parent, I do not condone adult-child sleepovers, ever, regardless if the adult is Mr. Jackson or a priest. As an adult, I do not condone parents approving those kinds of activities.

    This is why I want to know what else is at stake for you. This is what has kept me persisting with my questions for you - and the others.

    Reply to this Comment

    Deltaquadrant and SoCalGirl
    By Curious on Monday, January 25, 2010 (EST)
    Your comments are merely opinions. I would like you to answer my questions so that I can understand what is going on inside your minds.

    Reply to this Comment

    Been there. Done that.
    By SoCalGal on Monday, January 25, 2010 (EST)
    And I sure don't want to get inside your judgmental, hypocritical, merciless, moralistic, denouncing, cruel, pitiless, heartless, ruthless, unforgiving, severe, unsympathetic, legalistic, barbarous, callous, hard-hearted, harsh, implacable, inexorable and inhumane head.

    Reply to this Comment

    SoCalGirl
    By Curious on Monday, January 25, 2010 (EST)
    Those are interesting adjectives, which are, once again, an opinion.

    Now, please answer my questions. I would like to understand why you have taken the view you have about a celebrity you more than likely don't know. I would like to understand.

    Reply to this Comment

    Here's an adjective for ya...
    By SoCalGal on Monday, January 25, 2010 (EST)
    Inspiring (stimulating or exalting to the spirit)!

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mKtdTJP_GUI

    Reply to this Comment

    How many lunch breaks do regulators get?
    By Deltaquadrant on Tuesday, January 26, 2010 (EST)
    Your answers are the opinions buddy.

    The fact that the FBI and LAPD were unable to prove Mike did anything criminal to children for over a decade - are self-evident proof of his innocence.

    Deny it if you want, but that only proves you're really a hater masquerading as someone neutral.

    People have been telling you what's on their minds, but you ain't listening coz you trying to play mind games.

    Well laugh it up Curious, coz while you playing your games, you're showing all of us there's nothing going inside your mind worth knowing.


    And dude, you're the one looking for a fight.


    Reply to this Comment

    SoCalGal and Deltaquadrant
    By Curious on Tuesday, January 26, 2010 (EST)
    SoCalGal and Deltaquadrant, those are all interesting remarks, but they are merely opinions. Rather than looking for a fight, I genuinely want my questions answered so that I can understand what is going on inside your minds.

    I do not understand blind idol worship of human beings, and I want to. It could explain what we as a society lack or how we as a society are trying to distact people by means of celebrity, if forming such a strong opinion about a celebrity, you more than likely don't know and whose life details you also more than likely don't know, is so important, it causes an opinion to be this passionate.

    Reply to this Comment

    Love or hate
    By mc on Wednesday, January 27, 2010 (EST)
    I can only say that the way Michael Jackson's name has been smeared in the media is a reflection of the ugliness our society now resembles. Media outlets, without regard to ones rights or reputation, constantly spew their trash as fact, and as long as they use the word "allegedly" it's okay. But people don't hear allegedly. They hear only the trash and are manipulated by the media into believing things that may or may not be true. Just because some uncaring fool wants to sell a magazine or boost their ratings. It's a shame that people are so ready to see the bad in people but are skeptical of any good. I don't know about blind idol worship but a man who spends a great deal of his career and huge chunks of his money to heal this world and save our children is worthy of admiration in my book. If there is any blindness it is the belief that there are no longer people in this world who just want to love others. It's all about hate and, quite frankly, I'm sick of it. When you find one person who wants to love in spite of the hate thrown at them, latch onto them and never let go because those are the people who mean something in this world. It wasn't just Michael Jackson's music that people responded to, it was his heart. A heart that I will never believe allowed him to harm a child.

    Reply to this Comment

    To MC
    By Curious on Wednesday, January 27, 2010 (EST)
    MC, that's a lovely post, with a lot of heartfelt conviction in it. But it is, once again, just an opinion, parroting a lot of the same assumptions I have seen the others demonstrate about a celebrity I suspect you did not know. Can you see how your post can come across as blind idol worship of somebody who was obviously just human?

    Down inside, I want to believe the man was innocent and just terribly misguided. But after reading the documents that were made available, I was disappointed to see they neither proved him innocent nor guilty. As I keep saying, I would have to see the additional documents, I have already mentioned. The posters can continue their attack on the media (and on me), but they're not proving anything.

    This is why I am so uncomfortable with the tone of Deborah Ffrench's article and why I initially queried the author.

    At this point, I am not interested in arguing Mr. Jackson's innocence or guilt. Instead of criticizing the media or giving me your opinion of Mr. Jackson, I need to know what it is inside you that seems to create a need to speak about a celebrity you more than likely never knew, in a way that makes him appear deitized.

    Reply to this Comment

    To MC and others on this thread
    By SoCalGal on Wednesday, January 27, 2010 (EST)
    "Curious" isn't curious. He's a hater. I did a little sleuthing, and I see that Curious follows several Michael Jackson defenders around the Internet to harass them. He's a charter member of Topix, one of the most hatemongering sites on the Internet. He refuses to understand what MC and others have repeatedly said: NO ONE, including Michael Jackson, should be tortured by the media. Like MC, I'm sick of media hate inciters who represent themselves as defenders of a free press. There is forming a backlash against unethical media and its propensity to torture people like Michael Jackson, Tiger Woods and just regular folks like Samantha Geimer and Melinda Duckett who find themselves excoriated by the media's poison pen.

    BTW, we have a particularly cruel hater in the U.S., one Nancy Grace, who herself is coming under the glare of truth. The judge is requiring that Ms. Dis-Grace's deposition be videotaped. She's objecting because she's concerned that the video will be leaked to the media and will portray her in a distorted light. What a hypocrite. Hey, Nancy...live by the sword, die by the sword.

    Reply to this Comment

    nobody knows anything
    By radison on Wednesday, January 27, 2010 (EST)
    according to you, and because we were not there, we don't really know if the parents were present at the time of said sleepovers..... well i guess it's safe to say that we don't know if the said sleepovers took place in the first place.....
    for the same reason WE WERE NOT THERE

    Reply to this Comment

    MJ Article
    By abritton on Wednesday, January 27, 2010 (EST)
    It is an interesting article which raises many interesting points.

    I just pray that the truth will out and MJ can be remembered for who he was and what talent oozed out of him.

    Reply to this Comment

    sleepovers
    By Reader on Wednesday, January 27, 2010 (EST)
    I just want to ask about your opinion: is it appropriate to have sleepovers with children if you are a woman? Haven't we all done that, read fairy tales with friend's children.I remember being a nanny (sleepovers were something usual).And here is a story:
    I remember (right after 1993 MJ case) my friend being accused of child molestation (by his own daughter)after separating from her mother, girl was angry at her father for having new wife and children and her mother having new family of her own. She lived with her father and his new wife -which by the way loved her. After a birth of their first daughter, the older girl started running away. The social workers got involved right away. But this man was in politics so someone saw the opportunity to nail him. It was very sad watching this family emotionaly falling apart. I trusted him and his wife. So one day someone asked me what do I think about all this and my answer was, I know who he is, I know his morals, I think he is 99,9% innocent. I don't know about that 0,1%, I wasn't there. It wasn't the acquital of my friend that made people think he was innocent but postpartum, when girl's mother made suicide leaving note,the girl was lying about molestation and told who was behind it. This girl was a victim and this is what scares me. What about the boys life's (in MJ) The accusers are exploiting their children to become wealthy. That's not a good message to the society.It's not only about MJ it's about all of us, it can happen to everyone.
    Sorry about my grammar.

    Reply to this Comment

    sleep-overs
    By radison on Wednesday, January 27, 2010 (EST)
    i'm afraid that the only way to vindicate MJ 100% would be that the accusers themselves come forward and admit to lying. but here again, some very cynical people out there would say "they were paid to say that stuff" it's a very sad thing what MJ went through and its a sad thing that people refuse to acknowledge the possibility of him being innocent...in my opinion, since he was indeed acquitted of all charges in 2005, the arvizos should be bought to justice and sued for lying, attempting to extort and wasting public time and money...that for me would be a small sense of justice, and maybe a warning to others who are scheming right this minute to do the same thing.

    Reply to this Comment

    Sleepovers
    By Curious on Wednesday, January 27, 2010 (EST)
    SoCalGal, I am laughing at what you posted about me because in reality, I am actually a woman! Strictly for me, the parallel between your fierce defense of Mr. Jackson and your assumption of my gender affirm, even more, the importance of reading all documents before making these sorts of statements. Now I especially want you to answer the many questions I have put to you, given the amount of insults you have thrown in my direction.

    That is my opinion.

    What everyone has posted is definitely interesting. But they are still just opinions that prove neither innocence nor guilt.

    No. I do not believe adult-child sleepovers are ever appropriate, regardless of the adult's gender. The potential for a volatile situation is too extreme. On the one side, it can give opportunty to a child molester the desired access to children. On the other side, if there is potential money at stake, it can give opportunity for a gold digger to make quick money. There is a lot of murky, grey water in between all of that, which includes an angry child getting back at the adult.

    Reply to this Comment

    Curious
    By Deltaquadrant on Wednesday, January 27, 2010 (EST)
    Who cares if you're a guy or a chick.

    You still ain't asking the right questions.

    Reply to this Comment

    To Deltaquadrant
    By Curious on Wednesday, January 27, 2010 (EST)
    Deltaquadrant, the continued negative posts aimed in my direction still don't answer the questions I have specifically for SoCalGal and you. What you are saying about Mr. Jackson, the media, and me are merely opinions.

    I am not interested in your opinions about the aforementioned. I want to know why you are so impassioned about a celebrity you more than likely did not know, it causes a lot of hostile-toned comments when somebody suggests the current information available is incomplete and proves neither innocence nor guilt. What is it inside of SoCalGal and you that has such a huge stake in this?

    Reply to this Comment

    Pointless question
    By symba45 on Wednesday, January 27, 2010 (EST)
    There is nothing you could do with anyone's answers because you are just a regulator. No one needs to help you understand anything. If you want to get into people's minds so badly try getting a new career. You are obviously bored with yours.

    Reply to this Comment

    Curious
    By Deltaquadrant on Wednesday, January 27, 2010 (EST)
    You're the one with the stake Miss Curious.

    You've also been told why people think Mike got a big time raw deal.

    Move on.

    Reply to this Comment

    To Symba45
    By Curious on Wednesday, January 27, 2010 (EST)
    Symba45, people's answers to my questions could help me understand fan mentality. Enjoying somebody's work is one thing. It's the starry-eyed nature of people's posts I don't understand.

    Reply to this Comment

    Analyze this Curious
    By Deltaquadrant on Wednesday, January 27, 2010 (EST)
    You've had your answers. You just don't understand them. Sounds to me like you wanna go round and round the same issue.

    Let me break it down.

    From what I can see from the posts here, people are saying what Mike went through was major enough to have got their interest.

    And serious enough to have kept it.

    Pretty straightforward.

    Ain't you supposed to be the one packing the grey stuff?

    Reply to this Comment

    To Deltaquada**
    By Curious on Wednesday, January 27, 2010 (EST)
    Deltaquadrant, your comments about what I think are an assumption, inasumuch as thinking I was a man was an assumption. I am perfectly aware of what people are saying. But it's not the real issue. None of us knew the man and so we don't know what he really thought and felt. Therefore, everything posted is just an opinion. (If I am wrong and you did know him, please correct me.)

    Now, please answer the many questions I have levied toward you. I can repost them if you want me to. Or if you don't want to answer them, then don't and stop responding. But the mildly entertaining assessment of me - a person you clearly don't know - isn't going to bully me into silence. It's just going to make me persist even more in questioning you.

    Reply to this Comment

    You ain't a regulator here.
    By Deltaquadrant on Wednesday, January 27, 2010 (EST)
    Again, you have been answered. People haven't come here in response to you, but to this article. Your attempt to control the flow here is your issue - not mine. Therefore whether or not I post here is my decision.

    And if I choose to answer a question you put to someone else. Again, my decision. This is a public post and remains outside the control of any one person.

    QUESTION: If all anyone's stating here is opinion, why do care what the answers are?

    It is your questions which are the bullying tactic, but you mistakingly think everyone here is too stupid to notice.

    Definiton of curiosity. A willingness to learn.

    Not deal in cheap, passive aggression.

    Reply to this Comment

    Miss Curious...
    By SoCalGal on Wednesday, January 27, 2010 (EST)
    ....would win no medals for effective debate. She has been consistently inserting a red herring (any diversion intended to distract attention from the main issue) into the conversation. She insists her blogmates are rabidly defending Michael Jackson when what we're really doing is criticizing the infiltration of tabloid journalism into mainstream media, thereby denying citizens of their constitutional rights and contributing to their destruction.

    Anyway, I'm done with Miss Curious, who really isn't curious about anything except how long she can prattle on without saying anything. I recognize her from the Topix board. Ugh. Curious = 'round 'n 'round like the music.

    Reply to this Comment

    SoCalGal, SYMBA45
    By Deltaquadrant on Wednesday, January 27, 2010 (EST)
    Agreed.

    Motion for the floor?
    No more airtime.

    So.

    Who's got their 3-D specs yet?

    Reply to this Comment

    On and On
    By Curious on Wednesday, January 27, 2010 (EST)
    Deltaquadrant, once again, your post assumes what I am thinking. I'm enjoying your responses, quite a bit! Let's see, because I said the FBI files that were released (which I have read) did not prove Mr. Jackson's innocence or guilt, in spite of Ms Ffrench's article, I am accused of being a hater. Because I want to understand the meaning of what motivates serious fandom that allows no room for an alternative opinions, when I am flamed after my first post, I'm supposedly not understanding what people are posting. Oh, and I am decorated with "bro," "dude", and "he", before knowing what gender I am. Please continue! I love being amused!

    SoCalGirl, you're the one fan who intrigues me the most because I think you need to read something by Noam Chomsky before droning about the tabloid media and the laws you want to establish to further control it. This could help you understand the purpose of the media a little better. That's my opinion. Even though Symba45 didn't fully answer my questions, he/she at least gave a valid reason why he/she has the sensitivity about media perceptions.

    Let the games continue!



    Reply to this Comment

    Curious
    By MichaelPureSoul on Wednesday, January 27, 2010 (EST)
    I do not know if you are just curious or what, but it is just plain and simple compassion and love that can drive certain people to want to do something or not. I know of people that are not Michael Jackson fans, never were, and yet now feel compassion for what happened to this man. Money is the root of all evil, he was the most famous and very rich superstar, he was brought down for that, forget the accusations and all that, he loved GOD and he manifested it in everything he did, he was also brought down for that, the evil in this world played it's role.

    Reply to this Comment

    3 D specs
    By symba45 on Thursday, January 28, 2010 (EST)
    I will be going for mine this week. Also still waiting for my This Is It DVD to be delivered. Can't wait to see it again.

    Reply to this Comment

    To MichaelPureLove
    By Curious on Thursday, January 28, 2010 (EST)
    MichaelPureSoul, please forgive me because I think you are very sincere about what you posted. But it is still an opinion that neither proves Mr. Jackson is innocent nor guilty. Yet, since you showed the courtesy by not decorating me with adjectives or "you-are" statements, I will go into more of an explanation of what has me so bewildered. I am hoping this helps you understand how I am looking at this. If it doesn't, please feel free to ask me questions. I'll be happy to answer them.

    The people I know in my day-to-day life do think Mr. Jackson was harshly treated by the press, which is an opinion I definitely share. He was a successful black man, which is automatically going to make him a target in white America. But people also think Mr. Jackson often fed into it and was definitely mentally ill, which did not help. (Those are just opinions, mind you.) There was also a shared disappointment the files that got released did not prove him innocent or guilty. The files did raise a lot of unanswered questions, which only the rest of the documents could answer.

    If, as you say, it is compassion and love that is driving people with the posts they wrote, at the end of Deborah Ffrench's article, can you see how it comes across as blind idol worship when the same people react with a lot of hostility toward somebody who does not post comments with the exact same tone? Can you see how it comes across equally disconcerting when yet others post about how demonic Mr. Jackson supposedly was? People are people. To turn them into either saints or sinners strips the multifaceted complexity of being human. That's what makes me so uncomfortable.

    If people acknowledged Mr. Jackson was just human, albeit extraordinarily talented, and then mentioned even though they don't know what really happened, they still felt sorry for him because of the harsh treatment he received by the press, that would be understandable. To me, it would show they looked at him as one human being to another. But it's the malicious remarks toward others who suggest he was neither a god nor a devil, in addition to pointing out the fact we don't have the full story, that leave me wondering what those same people internally need from a celebrity they more than likely never knew. It also shows, once again, an inability to see others whose opinions are different as equally human.

    The press is already controlled by a handful of corporations. The silly law suggested by SoCalGal isn't going to change anything. The issues behind the current arrangement of the corporate media with our government successfully sidesteps the real world issues, which is why I suggest reading something by Noam Chomsky. The best we can do, at this point in time, is to not patronize those sources, such as Fox (non)News, along with their sponsors, and to seek alternative press for the real news. Money does talk, in the long run.

    I would be less persistent if I saw a balance in people's comments. And by balance, I mean an acknowledgment that yes, Mr. Jackson was unfairly treated by the press, but that yes, he was also human and did some good things and probably some mediocre things and some bad things, as humans do, and since we will never really know what happened, it's best to let it alone.

    Reply to this Comment

    3- D cometh..
    By Deltaquadrant on Thursday, January 28, 2010 (EST)
    Got 'em today!

    Always been slightly underwhelmed by the 3-D experience. But I'm willing to give it a go.

    Excited about The Grammy's. Wonder what Gaga and Michael would have put together?

    The mind boggles.

    Reply to this Comment

    And curious..
    By Deltaquadrant on Thursday, January 28, 2010 (EST)
    I don't want to be rude or anything, just trying to move us all along. We were all going round in circles and it was starting to degenerate into people feeling attacked and called out. I see a lot of that on the web and juts feel its unnecessary. We're all intelligent people here and I think we can do better than that.

    I guess I feel I have answered your questions and a lot of other people have, but you still seem to see us all as starry-eyed fans for thinking Mike got a ferociously raw deal.

    The man suffered. Period. And I think it was wrong.

    I don't think enough questions were asked about the backgrounds and motivations of the accusers in 1993 or 2005, and from what Mesereau says in his interview with Deborah Kunesh, the reporting in the media and on Court TV in particular, bore no relation to what was actually happening in court.

    I think that irresponsible, and when something as important as a man being possibly being deprived of his liberty for 20 years is at stake - downright criminal.

    I agree with Ms Ffrench in that respect, that waht happened to Mike says a lot about where we are going and where we are headed. If that means regulation, I'm probably not the head to sort that mess out - but I think it starts with a recognition that some kind of controls are needed.

    And not just in the media. Laurie Levinson and a lot of other legal commentators said there were major breaches in prosecutorial conduct during the 05 trial.

    Saying that though, the jury didn't convict, on all 10 charges and all 4 misdemeanours - so maybe there's hope.


    How the medi

    Reply to this Comment

    There WILL be controls...
    By SoCalGal on Thursday, January 28, 2010 (EST)
    ...because the media has abused its power. Controls always happen when a freedom is abused. There are no less than 17 non-profit organizations in the U.S. whose sole purpose is to place controls on the media. The death of Michael Jackson has called forth, in unprecedented numbers, VOTERS who agree that media--tabloid and mainstream alike--needs to be controlled. They refuse to adhere to their own code of ethics, so someone's going to do it for them.

    There is no evidence that Michael Jackson was a pedophile. U.S. laws don't require that an accused prove he DIDN'T do something--which, of course, is impossible to prove. The FBI’s recent disclosure of their ten-year effort to confirm this accusation found no evidence of criminal wrongdoing. Many searches of his homes, his possessions, 16 computers and his life found no evidence of criminal wrongdoing. A jury of his peers found him not guilty of any criminal wrongdoing in his interactions with children.

    But mercy was not shown to Michael Jackson in his lifetime. We would like to correct this injustice for the sake of his memory and for his children. However, ours is more than a Michael Jackson project, because there are countless other deceased public and private figures who are regularly defamed. I ran a quick Lexis Nexis search of “defamation of the dead.” It produced over 1,000 law journal articles that have addressed how those still living (heirs of the deceased) can be hurt by these attacks but have no legal remedy.

    We feel strongly that the time has come to consider a law prohibiting defamation of the dead. We’re now in the process of seeking a California legislator to champion this effort. Once California has such a law on the books, the rest of the country may follow.

    "...it's best to let it alone" indeed.

    No.

    Reply to this Comment

    SoCalGal
    By Deltaquadrant on Thursday, January 28, 2010 (EST)
    You got a point.

    Sounds like a lifetimes's work though.

    Reply to this Comment

    Defamation of the Dead?
    By Curious on Thursday, January 28, 2010 (EST)
    SoCalGal, I'm going to be very blunt and use decorative labels, along with a "you are" statement.

    Prohibiting defamation of the dead? Hitler is dead. Stalin is dead. Do you not want anything written about them that is regarded as defamation? What you propose is ridiculous and ignorant. Educate yourself, first, starting with history lessons. If you are actually educated, then this proposed law makes you look even worse. You're coming across as an uneducated, rabidly blind fan. That is my opinion.

    Everything else Deltaquadrant and you post are just opinions about somebody I seriously doubt you knew. Period.

    Flame away.

    Reply to this Comment

    Michael's Trial
    By symba45 on Thursday, January 28, 2010 (EST)
    He was acquitted of all charges and that is a fact not an opinion. Whether that proves his guilt or innocence to you does not matter. There are some that have actually watched the trial which was available after his death. And there were those who actually looked up the court documents. There are many views that are not taken blindly.

    Reply to this Comment

    Symba45 (I'm Losing Patience, Quickly)
    By Curious on Thursday, January 28, 2010 (EST)
    In regards to what you posted, did those people see the unreleased FBI files? Did they see the police files in their entirety? Did those people see the prosecuring attorneys' files? Did they see the defending attorneys' files? Did they see Mr. Jackson's personal files? Did they see the accusors' files? Did they see any memos or notes send privately to the DA that nobody was originally supposed to see? Did they see any receipts of monetary exchange, on anyone's part? And since we're on the subject of why Jordan Chandler did not testify, in 1993, did they ask him, personally, why he did not testify? People could be right. He may have lied, by encouragement of his father, and didn't want to face Mr. Jackson in court. But other speculations are that the contract was set up, stating the family would have to return the money if they talked. Or, the child was in love with Mr. Jackson, did not think what they did was wrong, was angry at being dragged into this by his father, and refused to cooperate any further. Or, it was decided the minor had been through enough and should not be forced to testify. This is all speculation. As a regulator, I would have to see all documentation for myself, and at least I accept the reality I will more than likely never know the truth.

    The bottom line is we don't know the truth. And in my opinion, every time I get flamed for commenting we will probably never know the truth, unless we got ahold of every single piece of documentation, only convinces me people are rabid fans. If you just want to say Mr. Jackson was treated harshly by the press, I won't say another word. But flaming back that he was innocent just proves my suspicions about Deltaquadrant, SoCalGal, and you.

    Reply to this Comment

    History has shown...
    By SoCalGal on Thursday, January 28, 2010 (EST)
    ...that defamation of one's ancestors causes real injury.

    Though most rules in modern defamation law defy mechanical application, the centuries-old rule against liability for defamation of dead people kicks in automatically. ... Our society views reputation as valuable and thus provides a civil action to redress people for defamatory falsehoods that damage their reputations. ... Today, of course, many jurisdictions allow plaintiffs to recover for these torts. ... Without engaging in theoretical gymnastics, the law could recognize that defamation-of-the-dead causes actual injury to living persons. ... If courts cannot identify the outrageous qualities that will give rise to a cause of action for emotional distress caused by defamation of the dead, it is unlikely that plaintiffs will be able to rely on the infliction of emotional distress analysis to provide an equitable and consistent means of seeking redress for their trauma. ... As Professors Prosser and Keeton (Texas Law Review) have pointed out, the crux of the tort is interference with a prospective advantage. ... For example, the New York proposal could provide that a plaintiff may bring a declaratory judgment action for libel or slander for statements made within five years of the decedent's death and that any such action must be commenced within one year of the publication of the statement.

    We're goin' for it, Deltaquadrant, however long it takes. We'll start with CA, where the new anti-paparazzi law was just passed. There are a lot of people in CA who have a stake in their reputation--dead or alive. Then we'll pick off the remaining 49 states...one by one. This is what happens when media abuses its privileges.

    Reply to this Comment

    How could I have missed this...
    By SoCalGal on Thursday, January 28, 2010 (EST)
    Curious wrote: If you just want to say Mr. Jackson was treated harshly by the press, I won't say another word.

    Mr. Jackson was treated harshly by the press.

    Byeeee...

    Reply to this Comment

    Opinion, Shminion
    By Deltaquadrant on Thursday, January 28, 2010 (EST)
    I asked you a question Lady Curious, which you ignored.

    If you're convinced all that people are stating
    here is opinion, why do you need answers?

    For the record.

    MJ's innocence is now widely accepted as fact.

    Must have been all the welfare liars, dead-beat dads and hynoptic drugs that did it?

    Btw people, my 3-D's do seriously strange things to my tropical fish collection!

    Reply to this Comment

    Deltaquadrant reports...
    By SoCalGal on Thursday, January 28, 2010 (EST)
    Btw people, my 3-D's do seriously strange things to my tropical fish collection!

    Awww...poor fishies.

    The alleged victims themselves could come forward, as have other young people (male and female) and say, "Michael Jackson never touched me inappropriately," and people like Curious would STILL say, "We really don't know." This means, effectively, that disreputable people need only to accuse you and you're branded for life by the media, who will, because they have no ethics, continue to report you as guilty because that's what sells newspaper.

    Something is very wrong with this system.

    Reply to this Comment

    To SoCalGal and Deltaqudrant
    By Curious on Thursday, January 28, 2010 (EST)
    SoCalGal, does this mean the ancestors of Hitler and Stalin should be protected from anything negative said about their relatives because it might hurt them? Outlawing defamation of the dead is outrageous, along with the rest of what you propose! Passing a law such as the one with which you are obsessed would only give the government the leverage to silence any reporter who reveals an ugly secret about our government we ought to know about! Please tell me you are not this stupid. (My opinion.)

    Deltaquadrant, did you speak to these people yourself about whether or not they really were sexually abused, and are the remarks you stated what they personally told you? All you're doing is writing your opinion and convincing me you're a blind, rabid fan. Ultimately, we don't know what really happened or didn't happen.

    In answer to your question, originally, after reading Deborah Ffrench's article, I posted a query to her because something didn't feel right, especially since I have actually read the FBI files that were released. What I got were vile responses from others, complete with name calling and assumptions of what I think. This is why I want to know why people so caught up in fandom, anytime somebody posts something even the slightest bit dischordant, it is met with post after post of hostile remarks.

    By the way, do either one of you keep a poster of Mr. Jackson tacked on the ceiling above your bed, for "those moments?"

    Reply to this Comment

    Postscript
    By Curious on Thursday, January 28, 2010 (EST)
    P.S. Perhaps if people cared less about image and reputation and just got on with the business of living, the tabloid media would have nothing to do and those reporters would have to find another profession.

    Reply to this Comment

    Trying doing some reading of your own, Curious.
    By SoCalGal on Thursday, January 28, 2010 (EST)
    There are (literally) hundreds of law journal articles about the human pain and suffering caused by lack of laws against defamation of the dead--incidences that involve not only celebrities!

    Yes, even Stalin and Hitler's (S/H) heirs could conceivably be protected from LIBEL committed against S/H. If, for example, S/H were accused of cannibalism under a full moon, their heirs could sue for libel. S/H heirs would have to prove damages, of course, and that's the way it should be. The press must always, always, ALWAYS print only the truth, in an unbiased manner, not just what sells more of their newspapers.

    The anti-paparazzi law was passed in California against an avalanche of protest by the media crying, "Our rights! Our rights! Ohmigod, our First Amendment rights!" Nonetheless, it passed and--get this--it took only EIGHT MONTHS of lobbying to get it passed! That's why there's much more than a snowball's chance in hell that a law against defamation of the dead will one day be passed.

    If the media can't be trusted to work in integrity, with ethics, to tell the truth and not undermine a citizen's constitutional rights by printing lies under color of the First Amendment, well, someone's got to compel them to do so. Newspapers are vulnerable right now...they don't have a lot of discretionary funds to resist. Michael Jackson advocates, on the other hand, number in the multi-millions.

    Curious is a funny one--(just my opinion, of course). I guess the Law of Stick 'n Stones suits it better.

    Reply to this Comment

    Jordan Chandler
    By symba45 on Friday, January 29, 2010 (EST)
    If you truly read the released files he said he was not going to testify, because he had already done his part.

    Reply to this Comment

    symba45
    By symba45 on Friday, January 29, 2010 (EST)
    You have your opinion everyone else has theirs. Even if you got your hands on everything you want, in the end whatever you decide it would still be your opinion. You are not changing any one else's opinion. Calling someone a rabid fan means nothing. It is simply your opinion.

    Reply to this Comment

    Da Regulator
    By SoCalGal on Friday, January 29, 2010 (EST)
    Sounds like if someone doesn't agree with Da Regulator's opinion, they're a "rabid fan." Hmmphf.

    Reply to this Comment

    To Symba45: re: Jordan Chandler
    By Curious on Friday, January 29, 2010 (EST)
    Symba45, when I read the released FBI files, Jordan Chandler was not the named witness, who refused to testify. Therefore, what you posted is just an opinion (and an assumption).

    If I read all documents I have mentioned and they showed Mr. Jackson was innocent, I would actually be relieved and feel especially sorry for him. My opinion of Mr. Jackson is that his life was a tragedy on epic scale, beginning with his ambitious and greedy father, who exploited his children, regardless of the impact this could have on their minds and lives. That is my strong opinion on that. (Please correct me if my opinion about his father is wrong.)

    If I read all the documents and learned Mr. Jackson was actually guilty, I would still feel sorry for him and condemn his family for not getting him to therapy when it was obvious he was emotionally breaking down. I would also hope the children involved were seeking therapy. But I would still buy his music. That is my strong opinion on that.

    But to me, a fan is blindly rabid when I state I have read the released files, that the files neither proved Mr. Jackson innocent nor guilty, and his supporters begin screaming for my blood. Now, had I been Minx, who wrote something appalling accusatory that is just as much a mere opinion as yours, I could understand the outrage. But flaming somebody who said it would be best for all files to be read, first, convinces me those who posted the ugly comments for my benefit, are indeed, blindly rabid fans, who seem to think Mr. Jackson is the new Messiah.

    Reply to this Comment

    To SoCalGal about her proposed law
    By Curious on Friday, January 29, 2010 (EST)
    My Dearest, Darling SoCalGal,

    It is a rare occasion upon which I encounter somebody who gives new meaning to the word "idiot."

    Now, according to my research, the word seems to have first appeared around the 13th or 14th century and means "person so mentally deficient as to be incapable of ordinary reasoning." Now there is some debate as to whether the word "idiot" is from the french "idiote", which means "uneducated or ignorant person" or the latin "idiota", which means "ordinary person, layman" or the greek "idiotes", which means "layman, person lacking professional skill." But the word is used to imply an ignorant, foolish, or stupid person.

    This is how I look upon somebody who would want to pass a ridiculous law, as a knee-jerk reaction to something he or she doesn't like, without first researching the history of how and why corporations bought the media in order to control available information, the relationship between the government and the media, why corporations like tabloid media spread around, and the overall impact such a proposed law would have on honest journalism, as part of the fall out from that law.

    You are said person! And I would now like to defame your ancestors by saying I wish I could go back in time and give the original patriarch a vasectomy so that your family line would never have happened.

    In particular, I want to express my extreme gratitude to you for being idiotic enough to mention the desire to pass this law so that I can warn people to fight it and protect our own freedom of expression, which is being chipped away on a daily basis, by our Congress and our Supreme Court.

    Thank you for being who you are! If it were not for idiots, the world might be a little less entertaining.

    Lovingly Yours,
    Miss Curious

    P.S. Remind me to send you a bottle of lube so that you can best "enjoy" yourself when you lie in your bed, look at at the ceiling, and see Mr. Jackon's face on the poster. But do tell me if the poster is of the pre-surgery Mr. Jackson or the post-surgery Mr. Jackson.

    Reply to this Comment

    Asked and answered
    By SoCalGal on Friday, January 29, 2010 (EST)
    Despite several people patiently explaining to you that the issue isn't about Michael Jackson per se but about the media psychologically torturing a human being (who happens to be Michael Jackson) over a period of years, you persist in hanging your hat on allegations that were proven, time and time again, to be false.

    Several young men who knew Michael Jackson testified under oath that he did nothing inappropriate. That you refuse to take them at their word says you're more rabid than the most rabid Michael Jackson fan.

    In the case of the FBI reports, you appear incapable of understanding that they found NOTHING on which to take further action. Again, more rabid than the most rabid Michael Jackson fan.

    In the United States, a person is innocent before they are accused. Upon exoneration, they return to their innocent status, not merely not guilty. Therefore, Michael Jackson was innocent, no matter what you think about the matter. I know that NOT thinking about the allegations is like not thinking about pink elephants, but you must use the good brain God gave you, Curious, and put aside your illogical thinking. If you cannot do that, then I'm going to put a dunce cap on you, because that's exactly what you are. And that's a fact, not merely my opinion.

    In the meantime, we'll work toward an anti-defamation of the dead law, because that's the right thing to do.

    Reply to this Comment

    To SoCalGal
    By Curious on Friday, January 29, 2010 (EST)
    SoCalGal, that is just your opinion.

    I'm going to stoop to more name calling and "you are" statements by saying, you are a fool. Every time you open your mouth, I am more and more convinced of this.

    P.S. What is your favorite brand of lube? I want to be sure I get the right kind to you.

    Reply to this Comment

    Ad hominem attacks, eh?
    By SoCalGal on Friday, January 29, 2010 (EST)
    Fools always resort to them when they've lost the argument.

    Reply to this Comment

    Here's some questions for ya
    By Deltaquadrant on Friday, January 29, 2010 (EST)
    How can anyone respect your opinion now after your comment to SoCalGal?

    How dare you bring that kind of crap to a discussion you yourself claim you have no stake in?

    Consider yourself excused.

    Reply to this Comment

    No respect Curious
    By Deltaquadrant on Friday, January 29, 2010 (EST)
    My post above is directed to Curious.

    Btw, the lack of control and respect for others you have shown tells all of us you are not only lacking real intelligence but self-respect.


    Reply to this Comment

    We already know
    By Stefan on Sunday, January 31, 2010 (EST)
    All over the net, I see this kind of debate raging about Michael Jackson. It starts off well with people wanting to ask questions and find out the truth, then it all falls apart when people who have already made up their mind become more and more violent with their words because they have lost the argument.

    Millions of people know Michael was innocent, and we didn't need the FBI files to tell us that. This article I think will be the first of many I hope, because the truth needs to come out. I will recommend it to everyone I know. I live in Denmark and there are many people there who are absolutely disgusted by the way Michael was treated by the media and Tom Sneddon.

    My sister worked for Michael Jackson's company when he was on tour during History, and she said he was so kind and gentle to everyone. She said he visited children in hospital before nearly every show and made sure thousands of sick children had tickets to the show. I don't know any other artist who has done this throughout their career.

    When I was much younger I always wondered America treated Michael the way they did. Now I'm older I think I know. When animals step near a light, they are either afraid of it or they run to it.


    I think human beings are the same.


    R.I.P

    MJ.

    Reply to this Comment

    America damages its image abroad
    By SoCalGal on Monday, February 01, 2010 (EST)
    Stefan wrote: I live in Denmark and there are many people there who are absolutely disgusted by the way Michael was treated by the media and Tom Sneddon.

    I wish American media would understand the damage they did to America’s image throughout the world when they destroyed him. I saw this quote:

    Michael Jackson was found not guilty and he was driven from his art and his country by a mob of ignorant fools called Americans.
    ~Jose from Argentina, on a YouTube comment blog

    That's about the size of it.

    Reply to this Comment

    Let By-lines be By-gones
    By Stephen on Wednesday, February 03, 2010 (EST)
    "Is it time to ask who really killed Michael Jackson: Doctor Murray or the media? This by-line is used as a 'grabber' - a sensationalist line meant to pull a reader in to read the rest, but it's not what the article itself asks.

    The article stands on its own.

    As Ms Ffrench explains, for over 15 years the media slowly destroyed Michael Jackson's career and reputation. The issue is not whether Conrad Murray was culpable. It is about how the media played a very large role in setting the stage for the existence of a Conrad Murray in Michael Jackson's life.

    If not for the lies and constant attacks by the media that took a grave toll on Michael Jackson, there would have been no need for the dubious 'services' of someone like Murray.

    The sad part is, even if Murray goes down for a maximum sentence it will never erase the torment Jackson suffered at the hands of the media - and it won't bring him back either.

    Reply to this Comment

    People like you
    By onikoti on Sunday, February 07, 2010 (EST)
    Ms.Ffrench,

    I just want to spell a big "thank you" for your
    article.I do not have your advanced languange skills to expess my thoughts on the matter,but what you wrote down is EXACTLY what I and thousands of people around the world are thinking.And that speaks volumes for someone who
    has passed away almost 8 months ago..
    So keep up with your good work because people like you,A.Jones,T.Meserreau,and few others that I don't know of,are our voice.Or..the voice that simple people like me would like to hear more often.Don't give up Ms.Ffrench..Don't you ever dare to give up because then we 'll be left speechless..Thank you.

    Reply to this Comment

    MICHAEL JACKSON - Shocking Truth in the FBI Files
    By MJ Victory on Sunday, February 07, 2010 (EST)
    Dear Ms. Ffrench - You are an amazing writer, with the most crystal clear mind in conveying the dramatic fallout of this tragedy. Your article struck an emotional chord, which forces us to stop and think about the systematic public "stoning" that Michael endured for the better part of his adult life. It's a horrible reality to be confronted face on with the ugly side of human nature. Michael was not the victim of a psychotic killer who jumped out of the bushes and plunged a knife in his heart. He was the victim of another kind of psychopathic behavior - driven by greed, opportunity, jealousy and ingorance: TOXIC media! Mainstream media has lowered the bar and joined the ranks of the tabloid media, whose only focus is to be first with a story - even if it means feeding an ignorant public a feast of lies and innuendo to slander an innocent person. Appearances can be deceiving as we listened and watched an array of well groomed, educated and "respectable" journalists perpetuate a vicious campaign of slander through biased reporting.

    What we witnessed with Michael is not all that different from ancient Rome when a man was thrown into the arena to fight off hungry lions with their bare hands. He does what he can to fend off the attacks - only to be defeated and killed to the delight of spectators! The thirst for innocent blood is the same today, and in the case of Michael Jackson, the media vultures found him an easy target and spent years picking him apart. The toxic media's venomous attacks on Michael's character and reputation set the stage for a gradual deterioration of Michael's physical and emotional health, robbing him of nearly twenty years of quality life. Before it was over, Michael's spirit and heart would be broken - for all the world to see, which simply made Dr. Murray's job that much easier, and the "spectactors" got more than they bargained for (or maybe not) - they got his life!

    As I write this, Michael's angelic voice is singing "Someone Put Your Hand Out" ("when you say we will dance til the light of day - it's just like the children running with joy - when we pray will you promise me you'll always stay - it's because I'm needing that someone") - a sweet example of the hope and purity of love that ruled Michael's heart. The grief continues, and instead of healing, the pain increases with every thought and memory of the cruelty that was inflicted on this extraordinarily generous, kind and gentle soul. Michael had the power to move mountains and bring people together by opening his heart and sharing his message of love, but it wasn't enough to save him. All it took to destroy this angel of goodness was a "poison pen" - a harmless keyboard in the hands of a vicious media.

    Michael Jackson was the embodiment of the best humanity has to offer, and it was the darker side of humanity that eventually caused his death - with mainstream media leading the charge. He was a tragic sacrifice that shocked and awakened our sensibilities like no one before him. We must demand a return to a higher standard of ethics in journalism by embracing a fair and balanced approach to reporting. It may seem like a novel idea...it's called telling the TRUTH! The media should hang their heads in shame for calling themselves professionals when they have taken such a huge step back in its collective conscience. Raising the bar will hold journalists accountable, to ensure that other public figures are spared the same victimization the world witnessed with Michael Jackson, one of the most beautiful human beings ever to have graced this earth.

    Those of us who painfully mourn Michael's death have a deeper understanding of the impact of his loss to the world. We have seen the killing of innocence, and we all died on June 25, 2009 when a piece of our heart went with him.

    Thank you so much!

    Reply to this Comment

    Michael...
    By okaretta on Monday, February 08, 2010 (EST)
    I did a summary of the FBI files a few weeks ago:
    http://gatorgirl277.blogspot.com/2009/12/summary-of-michael-jacksons-fbi-files.html

    Thank you for pointing this out.

    I firmly believe Michael had children with him for two main reasons. One, most adults either kissed his arse or acted like lunatics around him. Adults could not be genuine with him, for whatever reasons. Children saw Michael as "Mike" not as a "god" and Michael knew this. Had he stayed in the adult world, he would have been very, very lonely. Second, I believe he thought by setting boundaries with children he feared being hated by them. He at one point said he hated his father and felt "nothing" at the thought of him being dead due to the beatings he took a a child. Michael did not even spank his children for fear of them hating him for it (this is on tape, BTW). He took this concept to the extreme. However, with his own children he did set boundaries and rules. However, children that were not his set the rules. They wanted to say with him in his two-story bedroom, not the other way around.

    Also, as far as Michael and medications are concerned--just look at what the man went through. He did suffer from lupus and accidents from tours. He also had understandable anxiety from stress in life. Medications like benzodiazepines and pain narcotics by nature will cause dependence and addiction. There are many factors that come into play that I cannot go into now. But I will say two things: Michael was not a child molester nor was he a "junkie". He was an incredible soul with incredible talent.

    Reply to this Comment

    LET'S ALL THIS / LET'S REALLY ALL DO THIS.
    By Stephen on Sunday, March 07, 2010 (EST)
    Hi,

    The message below relates to the huge effort going on all over the world right now to encourage mainstream media outlets to cover the Jennifer Batten story.

    People are being asked to call selected Hotline numbers simply to make People Magazine, TMZ, and Rolling Stone, aware of the Jennifer Batten story and create a buzz on it.

    Basically you would be calling the Hotline to say "Hi, I've got a story. Jennifer Batten has publicly called out Gene Simmons and said that the things he accused Michael of are totally false. I think this is an important and big story and I'd love to see your site/publication cover it."

    We also thousands of people to leave articulate comments about the article at the Huffington Post. Please leave comments underneath Charles Thomson's article using normal names NOT fan names. It doesn't have to be your own name, just not a fan name. e.g "mjsloveiseternal" etc.

    We are asking you to do this so that your comment is taken seriously. Fan names are great for fan sites but not for serious publications.

    We want to make sure Charles Thomson's article counts. Because it does count.


    Charles Thomson believes the truth about Michael Jackson is being suppressed.

    We have waited a long time for the media to hear us.

    One journalist has.

    But he is only one man.

    If we do not support his efforts effectively we will have no-one to blame.

    But ourselves.

    By making the Thomson article the most commented article in Huff Post history - we create a story in itself.

    When you comment there, please use normal names - not e.g 'mj'sloveiseternal' etc. Save those sort of names for fan sites where you are talking to those who already know the truth.

    Huffington Post, one of the most widely read online topical blog sites, reaches millions of people daily.

    Help dispel the popular media-driven misconceptions about Michael Jackson's supporters, and add your clear, informed, well-spaced comments underneath Thomson's article at HP.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/charles-thomson/michael-jackson-its-time_b_482176.html

    It will take more than comments, though, to get the Batten story into the mainstream media.

    Call People Magazine Hotline Number:
    212 - 522 - 6699 (001) If outside US.

    Call TMZ Hotline:
    888 - 847 - 9869

    Call Rolling Stone:
    212- 484 - 1616

    Leave a message at these numbers saying the hot story is: Jennifer Batten has gone on record saying that Gene Simmons' recent accusations about Michael Jackson are totally false.

    Add that if they cover the Jennifer Batten story, it would dramatically increase hits and traffic to their site.

    Do not expect to reach a person at the end of the hotline. Just leave the message.

    It's a phone call.

    Please make it.


    "It starts with us. Us. Or else it'll never be done." Michael Jackson (This Is It.)

    Reply to this Comment

    PASSING ON LATEST UPDATE FOLKS!
    By Deltaquadrant on Wednesday, March 10, 2010 (EST)
    The Hotline calling part of the worldwide initiative to get the Batten story picked up by major media outlets is now over. The story is now convieniently considered 'old' and most likely will not now be given coverage.

    It was, however, important that the attempt was made.

    Clearly the mainstream media has no intention of publicizing the Batten story - but we are not defeated. There is nothing to stop people from posting excerpts from the Batten interview on the general web, to get the story out there ourselves.

    Please could we all now focus our dedicated energy on raising general awareness about Charles Thomson, and urge as many people as possible to head to the Huffington Post blog to leave cogent, well-spaced comment there.


    Charles Thomson believes the truth about Michael Jackson is being suppressed.

    We have waited a long time for the media to hear us.

    One journalist has.

    But he is only one man.

    If we do not support his efforts effectively we will have no-one to blame.

    But ourselves.

    Our focus is now on making Charles Thomson's blog at the Huffington Post the most commented article in Huff Post history.

    When you comment there please use 'normal' names e.g not mj'sloveiseternal etc. Save that for fan sites where you are talking to those who already know the truth.

    Huffington Post, one of the most widely read online blog sites, reaches millions of people daily.

    Help dispel the popular media-driven misconceptions about Michael Jackson's supporters - and add your cogent, informed, well-spaced comments underneath Thomson's article at Huff Post.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/charles-thomson/michael-jackson-its-time_b...


    "It starts with us. Us. Or else it'll never be done." Michael Jackson (This Is It.)

    Reply to this Comment

    MJ FBI Files
    By SSSS on Sunday, March 14, 2010 (EST)
    Thank you very much! But it is kind of too late to write the truth. Where were you in 2005,2006, 2007, 2008, 2009? With or without these files, it was obvious that those trashes were after money. Pedophile would not openly invite ill children to his house along with parents and molest.How stupid could SBPD and prosecutors be!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    Now, suddenly the prosecution cannot prove that Murrey commited homicide not involuntary manslaughter and that he is not the only one doc. Screw this low class, incompetent officials. Must be totaly changed!!!!! Cannot value its national treasure - Michael Joe Jackson!

    Reply to this Comment

    Do you have evidence of malice aforethought?
    By SoCalGal on Saturday, March 27, 2010 (EST)
    An absolute requirement for murder one or two is evidence of "malice aforethought." That is, the prosecution must PROVE, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendant acted with criminal intent which PRECEDES a crime, especially murder. The District Attorney obviously doesn't believe he can prove this; therefore, he charged Murray with the highest crime he could reasonably be expected to prove.

    Furthermore, the defendant is a physician. If medical personnel were faced with criminal prosecution for every act of malpractice, however gross, they committed, who would endure the lengthY and expensive years of training? No one.

    Think, people. This is a case of gross medical malpractice and wrongful death, not murder. The Jackson family is lucky an indictment was even filed, let alone a murder indictment. Had the DA filed murder one or two, Murray would absolutely get off scot free. He may, however, face four years in prison for involuntary manslaughter--the highest crime for which he could reasonably be charged.

    Reply to this Comment

    Michael Jackson: The shocking truth in the FBI files
    By UnoU1it on Monday, April 19, 2010 (EST)
    It's about time journalists started telling the truth. Michael was hurt by all the media lies and it is refreshing to see someone finally start taking a stand besides Mr. Thomson!

    Reply to this Comment

    Add Your Comment



    Sawf News on mobile
    Victoria's Secret
    Victoria's Secret Fashion Show 2009
    Section Headlines
    Celebrity News
    Celebrity Slideshows
    Privacy