Bringing Brighter Days
Proud Member
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2015
- Messages
- 631
- Points
- 0
What are the best books about Michael Jackson?
I just came across one that may be a doozy.....
I just came across one that may be a doozy.....
What was it?What are the best books about Michael Jackson?
I just came across one that may be a doozy.....
I'm a bit off topic here, but I have a question: There was another thread that listed a lot of MJ-related books in pdf format. I didn't bookmark that page at the time and now I don't seem to be able to find it anymore. Does anybody know what I'm talking about and could post that thread or webpage in here again?
I had no idea Jetzi was still around! Wow. That's kind of awesome lol
Why do some fans keep recomending The Magic and the Madness if it's filled with tabloid crap and innuendo regarding Jordan Chandler (Evan himself was his source)? Interviewing Michael in the 70's doesn't make Taraborelli an MJ expert and with every edition, he changed the details of stories that were supposed to be the same.
respect77;4092425 said:The Magic and the Madness did a lot of harm to Michael. So when a book is filled with lies and half-truths how are you going to decide what is "your truth" from it? It's all subjective. Haters use The Magic and the Madness too, only they decide that to them different parts of it "ring true" than to fans. Exactly because it masquerades as some objective book it is very dangerous. It is not objective by any means. It's tabloid and it's written in a deceiving way. For example Taraborelli deliberately did not tell that for much of the Chandler parts his source was Evan. How is that fair and objective? I mean it's OK that he would hear both parties. BOTH. But then the ethical thing to do is to say this claim comes from Evan Chandler. So that then the reader can evaluate the source's bias and agenda. Instead he presented those stories as if they were established facts, not telling who his actual source was. I find it horrifying how myths and lies out of the Taraborelli book are often referred to, even by fans, as facts of Michael's life.
I think you may be thinking of this http://jetzi-mjvideo.com
Have his arguments (or at least some of them) ever been officially refuted?
The Magic and the Madness did a lot of harm to Michael. So when a book is filled with lies and half-truths how are you going to decide what is "your truth" from it? It's all subjective. Haters use The Magic and the Madness too, only they decide that to them different parts of it "ring true" than to fans. Exactly because it masquerades as some objective book it is very dangerous. It is not objective by any means. It's tabloid and it's written in a deceiving way. For example Taraborelli deliberately did not tell that for much of the Chandler parts his source was Evan. How is that fair and objective? I mean it's OK that he would hear both parties. BOTH. But then the ethical thing to do is to say this claim comes from Evan Chandler. So that then the reader can evaluate the source's bias and agenda. Instead he presented those stories as if they were established facts, not telling who his actual source was. I find it horrifying how myths and lies out of the Taraborelli book are often referred to, even by fans, as facts of Michael's life.
Well it sheds light into MJ's thinking in the late 70s when he admitted that he never wanted to have his own kids, but would be happy to adopt.
"Sheds light into MJ's thinking"? This statement is way too strong for this book. The only thing that "shdes light into MJ's thinking" is MJ's words you hear coming out from his mouth or at least from someone that you know for a fact has spent a lot of time with him. Taraborelli's alleged conversation with MJ are mostly fabricated (and when I say mostly fabricated I mean either they didn't happen with Taraborelli in the room or they didn't happen at all and MJ is being misquoted) so don't even start with "MJ admitted this and that" unless you heard him "admitting" this stuff.
Michael always said he would like to adopt children but he also said he wanted children of his own one day in his early interviews and in his later interviews he said he did have his own children but still would like to adopt "one from each continent". Even if he did say that in his teens, which I don't believe is true plus I've never heard of it - why is it called an admission and why is it quoted here as if it's some sort of proof to anything?
You have just demonstrated how this book is nothing more than a tabloid in disguise of a biography book.
Robinson: How many children would you like to have?
Michael: 20. Adopted. All races.
Michael did say in at least one interview towards the end of the 70s that he would like to adopt. I think that's where Taraborelli took that from, not through some exclusive access to Michael or his inner circle.
respect77;4092444 said:It's up to him to prove any claim he provides without giving a source or evidence. It's also up to him to provide evidence of how he can quote alleged conversations verbatim when he was not in the room. Taraborelli presenting Evan Chandler's claims as if they were facts will not make those claims official truth, just because they are in a book. They are still just the claims of one biased party.
mj_frenzy;4092453 said:They lent credibility to his book by not (officially) refuting any of his claims…
respect77;4092454 said:Who are "they"?
mj_frenzy;4092455 said:MJ’s closest environment (family members, counsels, etc.).
They never address any ugly rumour or claim, but that does not mean those claims are true. It's very difficult to fight journalists. Michael sued Victor Guiterrez and won a lawsuit against him, yet nothing changed, the media still quoted that guy on MJ as if he was an expert.