3T Sues Radar Online for $100 Million Over Sexual Abuse Reports

[redfrog]

One private investigator with direct knowledge of the raids told Radar, “The detectives’ report cites Michael even used sexy photos of his own nephews … in their underwear to excite young boys.”

Could the fact that no private investigator was involved in the raid only members of the SBDS and the DAs office were
instantly prove that their lied?

 

[HIStory]

Could the fact that no private investigator was involved in the raid only members of the SBDS and the DAs office were
instantly prove that their lied?

Well, they do not claim the PI was involved in the raid, only that he has "knowledge about the raid". They are clearly trying to go for a Shield Law defense with this (obviously because they know they are lying and twisting) but I think they made a mistake when they said "The detectives’ report cites...". Radar had the detecitve's report and they could have checked it for themselves, so IMO this is where their Shield Law defense can be beaten in this matter and they can be held responsible for this lie and misrepresentation of the detective's document. And the fact they actively doctored it won't make them look great either.

 

[Bubs]

Well, they do not claim the PI was involved in the raid, only that he has "knowledge about the raid". They are clearly trying to go for a Shield Law defense with this (obviously because they know they are lying and twisting) but I think they made a mistake when they said "The detectives’ report cites...". Radar had the detecitve's report and they could have checked it for themselves, so IMO this is where their Shield Law defense can be beaten in this matter and they can be held responsible for this lie and misrepresentation of the detective's document. And the fact they actively doctored it won't make them look great either.

I hope that bolded bit is mentioned in all media reports.

-------------------------------
"Radar has tried to profit by launching a vicious and unrelenting attack on [Jackson] based on claims that, years ago, he was guilty of sexual abuse, even though, at the time, he was found 'not guilty' of that very charge," Fields writes. "Radar represents its 'reports' as 'new' and based on official 'Detective Reports.' Not only have those Detective Reports been available to the public for many years, Radar has misrepresented what the Reports say."

and Fields kind of says that in his statement. Hopefully it sinks in people's mind when they read about this case.


On different note, whether they win or lose, I love the headlines - Radar sued:clapping:

Celebrities should sue more often, so that would make tabloids to be more careful what they print.
An interesting article
http://www.nytimes.com/1991/01/04/news/how-the-supermarket-tabloids-stay-out-of-court.html

 

[Bubs]

I was searching info regarding that American Media Inc.
Seemingly they don't do too well, and hopefully T3 wins their case and Dr Phil (sued them for 250 million) too, as that should push them over to bankruptcy.
In November 2010, American Media filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection due to nearly $1 billion in debt, and assets of less than $50,000.[3] Its subsidiary, American Media Operations Inc., listed assets of $100 to $500 million and debt of over $1 billion.[4] It exited in December.

American Media Inc owns the worst tabloid rags out there:
National Enquirer
Star
The Globe
National Examiner
RadarOnline.com
Ok!

For people who visits @Radar:
NEW YORK, July 12, 2016 /PRNewswire/ -- American Media, Inc. (AMI) announced that its Celebrity Network flagship site, RadarOnline.com, achieved new traffic highs for the month of June.

The site's 20 million unique visitors and 153 million page views were up 25% and 8%, respectively, over prior year. Even more important, Radar continues to deliver a highly engaged readership – over 3.3 million users returned to RadarOnline.com at least 200 times during June, with more than 13 million returning at least 3 times per day.

AMI Chief Content Officer and RadarOnline.com Editorial Director Dylan Howard said, "RadarOnline.com continues to break the world exclusive stories that our readers can't get anywhere else, and these numbers prove it. It's a testament to our reporters, photo editors, producers and every member of our digital team that RadarOnline.com — and the Celebrity Network as a whole — continue to reach new heights. There's much more to come!"
---------------------------------
First note, their exclusive stories are falsified and invented, so no wonder you cannot get them from anywhere else.
Second note, stay out of their site as you do not do any favours to MJ, only supporting Radar by giving them clicks and keeping them alive.

 

[elusive moonwalker]

Didnt know what claims radar had made against the boys glad to see them doing something,someone has to.even if you dont win its makes them spend money and time defending themselves and hopefully make others think twice.

Dont have much faith as journalists are protected like gods but hopefully they have slipped up enough. see you all in 2025 for the trial ?

-------------------
In an ideal world, that'd happened to Radar Online too and 3T would donate most of the money to charity
-----------------

The jackson family charity. I bet randys rubbing his hands.

 

[elusive moonwalker]

Good find bubs. At the end of the day these vile rags are all owned by the same people. They are on the edge hopefully this will push them over

 

[8701girl]

They need to sue Murray foremost though

 

[HIStory]

I was searching info regarding that American Media Inc.
Seemingly they don't do too well, and hopefully T3 wins their case and Dr Phil (sued them for 250 million) too, as that should push them over to bankruptcy.
In November 2010, American Media filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection due to nearly $1 billion in debt, and assets of less than $50,000.[3] Its subsidiary, American Media Operations Inc., listed assets of $100 to $500 million and debt of over $1 billion.[4] It exited in December.

American Media Inc owns the worst tabloid rags out there:
National Enquirer
Star
The Globe
National Examiner
RadarOnline.com
Ok!

For people who visits @Radar:
NEW YORK, July 12, 2016 /PRNewswire/ -- American Media, Inc. (AMI) announced that its Celebrity Network flagship site, RadarOnline.com, achieved new traffic highs for the month of June.

The site's 20 million unique visitors and 153 million page views were up 25% and 8%, respectively, over prior year. Even more important, Radar continues to deliver a highly engaged readership – over 3.3 million users returned to RadarOnline.com at least 200 times during June, with more than 13 million returning at least 3 times per day.

AMI Chief Content Officer and RadarOnline.com Editorial Director Dylan Howard said, "RadarOnline.com continues to break the world exclusive stories that our readers can't get anywhere else, and these numbers prove it. It's a testament to our reporters, photo editors, producers and every member of our digital team that RadarOnline.com — and the Celebrity Network as a whole — continue to reach new heights. There's much more to come!"
---------------------------------
First note, their exclusive stories are falsified and invented, so no wonder you cannot get them from anywhere else.
Second note, stay out of their site as you do not do any favours to MJ, only supporting Radar by giving them clicks and keeping them alive.

This could actually now be used by 3T to prove their false stories about MJ (no doubt, that was their big "story" in the month of June) helped generate them a huge income rise so it should justify a high monetary punishment.

 

[Bubs]

This could actually now be used by 3T to prove their false stories about MJ (no doubt, that was their big "story" in the month of June) helped generate them a huge income rise so it should justify a high monetary punishment.

Unfortunately the increase to Radar site was probably fans doings

I'm seeing lots of fans tweeting to Paris to launch her individual lawsuit against Radar - that would be the icing of the cake:yes:


Btw, Buzzfeed has slightly different statement from AMI than the one LA Times posted:
---------------------
Radar’s parent company, AMI, released statement to BuzzFeed News in response to the lawsuit:
It’s curious and revealing that plaintiffs have not attached the Radar article to their complaint. The article does NOT accuse Michael Jackson of molesting his nephews, nor does it accuse them of accepting a bribe.
The Radar article clearly states that detectives reported that Michael Jackson may have used photos of his nephews “to excite young boys.” This theory was, in fact, presented by the prosecution during Michael Jackson’s 2005 criminal trial.

Radar looks forward to correcting plaintiffs’ misstatements in a court of law.
--------------------------

 

[HIStoric]

I'm seeing lots of fans tweeting to Paris to launch her individual lawsuit against Radar - that would be the icing of the cake:yes:

Sure, but honestly I don't think that should be put on Paris. She's only 18, she shouldn't have to be involved in legal lawsuits regarding her father. That's what Michael's Estate is for.

 

[HIStoric]

Radar doesn't have 100 million.

I'm sure Hulk Hogan will barely see any of the money he won from Gauker.

Gawker have some money to their name, so he'll likely see at least some. While I can't speak on his behalf, if I was in his position, I'd be pretty happy with the fact that publication was completely shut down as a result.

 

[Bubs]

Sure, but honestly I don't think that should be put on Paris. She's only 18, she shouldn't have to be involved in legal lawsuits regarding her father. That's what Michael's Estate is for.

The estate cannot sue in any grounds, but Paris can sue because of the articles Radar have written about Paris herself.
I don't think she will, but it was a delicious thought that she too slap Radar with lawsuit

 

[michaeljackson&lisamarie]

Keeping the faith and praying that 3t win this.

 

[HIStory]

Btw, Buzzed has slightly different statement from AMI than the one LA Times posted:
---------------------
Radar’s parent company, AMI, released statement to BuzzFeed News in response to the lawsuit:
It’s curious and revealing that plaintiffs have not attached the Radar article to their complaint. The article does NOT accuse Michael Jackson of molesting his nephews, nor does it accuse them of accepting a bribe.
The Radar article clearly states that detectives reported that Michael Jackson may have used photos of his nephews “to excite young boys.” This theory was, in fact, presented by the prosecution during Michael Jackson’s 2005 criminal trial.

Radar looks forward to correcting plaintiffs’ misstatements in a court of law.
--------------------------

Here is the original RO article. What exactly does it do then if it does not suggest that MJ molested his nephews? Can they explain to me what exactly does this article mean if the suggestion in it is not that, among others, he molested his nephews? Surely a lot of people came away with that conclusion from reading this article, which was surely also its goal.

New claims relatives told cops he liked 'prepubescent' boys.


Michael Jackson‘s sordid secret life of creepy porn and perverted art was no secret to his family, RadarOnline.com has learned. According to an insider, his own relatives were grilled during the past investigation into child molestation claims against him — and there were even claims he had exposed some of them to his sick fetishes!

As Radar reported, Santa Barbara Police Detectives raided Jackson’s Neverland Ranch in 2003, looking for any trace of evidence to support child abuse allegations. Jackson was later cleared.

But in the process of digging into his dirty double life, cops interviewed two of the late “Beat It” singer’s family members about his creepy secrets, a source claimed, and authorities even worried that he may have victimized his own relatives!

One private investigator with direct knowledge of the raids told Radar, “The detectives’ report cites Michael even used sexy photos of his own nephews … in their underwear to excite young boys.”

Jackson had always taken a special interest in his nephews, the source claimed, even writing a letter to their late mother which warned her to “please read this article about child molestation and please read it to [your son] … it brings out how even your own relatives can be molesters of children, even uncles or aunts molesting nephews or nieces. Please read. Love MJ.”

The boys always denied they had been abused. But according to the source, when it came time to ask the family about these and other concerns, detectives were met with resistance.
Said the insider, “Jackson’s people got wind of it and Jackson spirited the relative off to an island. Well, when that person returned, Jackson had also purchased them a brand new car, which we understood, along with the trip, was to shut them up.”

Nevertheless, the source said the individual’s behavior still seemed to suggest that something was amiss in the Jackson home.

The individual “was home alone and invited two detectives in, offered refreshments and also offered that they would be unwilling to talk bad about Michael,” the source said.
“It was odd that this person wasn’t upset with the visit, and wasn’t upset that the detectives told them what they had suspected happened with Michael and this person never gave a real denial,” the source claimed.

Another family member was also interviewed but flatly denied any wrongdoing by the “Dangerous” singer, said the insider.
Still, the authorities continued their investigation, and flew to Las Vegas to meet with another close Jackson family member.
Said the source, “What he told us was eye-opening. He told us that Jackson had for years tried to hide his predilection for prepubescent boys. However, he said Jackson had also been addicted to all kinds of drugs and often was too screwed up to even realize that others were witnessing his touching little boys, caressing little boys and doing other untoward things.”

“This family member said he feared that there were several young relatives, including his own son, who may have been victims,” the source claimed. “He also told us that Katherine Jackson, more than anyone else, knew about her son’s activities with boys but was too embarrassed to do anything about it. He told us that Katherine implied that Hollywood turned Jackson gay, which had nothing to do with his being a pedophile.” Jackson had always insisted he was straight.

According to the source, the family member declined to testify at trial, however, telling investigators and friends that he’d be ostracized from the family or even killed if he did so.
Latoya Jackson had previously made her own bombshell claims that her brother was indeed a pedophile and that she and her mother had uncovered letters and canceled checks that Jackson paid to victims’ families.

However, she repeatedly refused to speak with law enforcement, which didn’t stop prosecutors from seriously considering calling her as a hostile witness during Jackson’s 2005 molestation trial — in which he ultimately was found not guilty.

“We thought, she had made some serious public allegations in the past against Jackson and having her on the stand, under oath, may have been a game changer. However, we thought it could ultimately undermine us too,” the law enforcement source said.

Radar's claim that they only repeated the police report when they claimed that MJ used those photos to excite young boys is clearly a false statement (yet again) by Radar Online, since that's not what the police report claims. I showed that earlier in this thread. And it is also a false statement by Radar that "This theory was, in fact, presented by the prosecution during Michael Jackson’s 2005 criminal trial." No, it wasn't. This theory was never raised by the prosecution at the trial. Nor were the photos even introduced to the trial. Nor did any accuser ever claim that MJ used these photos to excite them.

Since they put the other salacious claims in the mouth of an anonymous source (the classic Shield Law trick by rags like this) they might expect to be protected by the Shield Law, however if 3T asked for a correction and Radar refused to publish it then it may prove malice on Radar's part (and also the fact that Radar actively doctored the police document) with that Bert Fields can already do something.

That letter they cite was written by MJ to 3T's mother Dee Dee, so the claim is clearly about 3T. The "Why" photoshoot is also about 3T. Even if Radar does not name them in the article it is clear it is about them. Maybe Auggie too who might join the lawsuit later. I think so because of this:

“This family member said he feared that there were several young relatives, including his own son, who may have been victims,” the source claimed.

Radar's "source" reeks of Stacy Brown and family member he would hide behind conveniently may be Nathaniel Brown, Rebbie's husband since he is dead and cannot deny it. In that case Auggie should come out and deny it as well. But the main bulk of the article is clearly referring to 3T.

Here is MJ's letter to Dee Dee. Yeah, right sounds like something a child molester would write. It actually sounds just the opposite. And knowing since that Taj was molested by another relative that's maybe why MJ wrote it.

 

[la_cienega]

The "journalist" behind the second story alleging MJ molested his nephews is obviously Stacy Brown.

I'm wondering if people can maybe tweet this link documenting Stacy's lies to 3T?

https://youtoobrutus.wordpress.com/...-new-york-post-man-behind-the-mask-bob-jones/

I'm sure knowing Stacy personally he must have masses amounts of dirt on him but that right there is a whole compendium of all his public lies about MJ and I would love if it could finally be used against him in court.

 

[Bubs]

Here is the original RO article. What exactly does it do then if it does not suggest that MJ molested his nephews? Can they explain to me what exactly does this article mean if the suggestion in it is not that, among others, he molested his nephews? Surely a lot of people came away with that conclusion from reading this article, which was surely also its goal.



Radar's claim that they only repeated the police report when they claimed that MJ used those photos to excite young boys is clearly a false statement (yet again) by Radar Online, since that's not what the police report claims. I showed that earlier in this thread.

Since they put the other salacious claims in the mouth of an anonymous source (the classic Shield Law trick by rags like this) they might expect to be protected by the Shield Law, however if 3T asked for a correction and Radar refused to publish it then it may prove malice on Radar's part (and also the fact that Radar actively doctored the police document) with that Bert Fields can already do something.

Radar quotes the invisible,anonymous and ever so evading source = invented source.

Bert Fields wouldn't have taken the case unless he saw there is something to work with.
I seem to remember there was a case (UK?) that reporter was on stand and he said when tabloids are using "source close to or similar" there is no source at all, it was invented to give credibility to article.

Bert Fields has been on this road before as he represented Tom Cruise in similar case:
Tabloid Editors Not Required To Reveal Tom Cruise Story Sources

November 26, 2013 | 5:55pm EST

Editors of the magazines at the center of Tom Cruise’s latest libel battle will not have to reveal the identity of the anonymous sources quoted in stories suggesting the movie star is a bad father.
The Mission: Impossible actor is suing In Touch and Life & Style magazines for $50 million after bosses published cover articles that led readers to believe Cruise had abandoned his daughter Suri following his divorce from Katie Holmes last year.
Cruise’s legal team, led by longtime attorney Bert Fields, wanted Bauer Publishing executives to give up their anonymous insiders, but Judge Jacqueline Chooljian refused to grant the request during a hearing in Los Angeles on Tuesday.
However, Judge Chooljian did order Bauer bosses to enter their so-called sources into the record, so no “surprise” witnesses could be brought forward at trial.

Here is the link how Tom C case ended
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/tom-cruise-settles-50-million-667313

 

[HIStoric]

The estate cannot sue in any grounds, but Paris can sue because of the articles Radar have written about Paris herself.
I don't think she will, but it was a delicious thought that she too slap Radar with lawsuit

Ah ok, my bad! Maybe they could on her behalf? Not sure how that'd work

 

[HIStory]

The "journalist" behind the second story alleging MJ molested his nephews is obviously Stacy Brown.

I'm wondering if people can maybe tweet this link documenting Stacy's lies to 3T?

https://youtoobrutus.wordpress.com/...-new-york-post-man-behind-the-mask-bob-jones/

Done.

Bert Fields has been on this road before as he represented Tom Cruise in similar case:
Tabloid Editors Not Required To Reveal Tom Cruise Story Sources

November 26, 2013 | 5:55pm EST

Editors of the magazines at the center of Tom Cruise’s latest libel battle will not have to reveal the identity of the anonymous sources quoted in stories suggesting the movie star is a bad father.
The Mission: Impossible actor is suing In Touch and Life & Style magazines for $50 million after bosses published cover articles that led readers to believe Cruise had abandoned his daughter Suri following his divorce from Katie Holmes last year.
Cruise’s legal team, led by longtime attorney Bert Fields, wanted Bauer Publishing executives to give up their anonymous insiders, but Judge Jacqueline Chooljian refused to grant the request during a hearing in Los Angeles on Tuesday.
However, Judge Chooljian did order Bauer bosses to enter their so-called sources into the record, so no “surprise” witnesses could be brought forward at trial.

Here is the link how Tom C case ended
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/tom-cruise-settles-50-million-667313

So that case ended in a settlement.

As a public figure, Cruise needed to demonstrate malice in order to prevail. And to get there, his side probed Bauer's possible ties to Nazis -- first detailed in an investigation by TheWrap -- and how the media company might have an interest in destroying the world's most famous Scientologist. (The actor was later ordered to pay the other side's reasonable legal fees in connection with this issue.)

Like I said earlier, here I think in 3T's case there is a case against Radar to prove malice. Doctoring a document to make it look worse than it is is pretty much malice. Refusing to publish a correction by the men who they claimed to be victims also proves malice, IMO. And even if the Court cannot force them to reveal their source, they made claims about a document that weren't true even though they had said documents and they knew what they claimed was not in them.

 

[Snow White luvs Peter Pan]

What a shame the story about the nephews' lawsuit against RO is not plastered all over social media like the "child pornography finding" bullshit. The truth doesn't sell, it doesn't generate clickbaits and traffic. SMH :no:

 

[Bubs]

I have been thinking this lawsuit, and something doesn't add up:scratch:

Here we have relatively unknown MJ nephews and they decides to sue Radar for 100 million for valid reason.
Then we have Tom Cruise, international movie star sues tabloid for 50 million for as valid reason as 3T.
Why 100 million?

Something is going on behind the scenes, but I don't know what is it.

 

[ivy]

So that case ended in a settlement.

it did and it's not really a good example of a successful case IMO. In that case they claimed he abandoned his kid and he sued them. That case went through discovery and settled right before summary judgment. and it turns out that Tom indeed rarely saw his kid. I believe tabloid apologized if it sounded like he cut all ties. However their story was at least half true. So hard to say if Tom would have won if it went to trial. Hence a confidential settlement probably was a better choice.

Doctoring a document to make it look worse than it is is pretty much malice.

What do you mean by doctoring? Added in pictures? censoring the photos etc? While blocking on the pictures seems to be Radar's doing, I'm not sure if the rest of the additions are theirs. I still suspect Robson/Safechuck lawyers.

 

[LindavG]

I have been thinking this lawsuit, and something doesn't add up:scratch:

Here we have relatively unknown MJ nephews and they decides to sue Radar for 100 million for valid reason.
Then we have Tom Cruise, international movie star sues tabloid for 50 million for as valid reason as 3T.
Why 100 million?

Something is going on behind the scenes, but I don't know what is it.

What do you mean? There is no fixed amount for these things. And IMO the allegations about 3T were a lot more serious.

 

[HIStory]

I have been thinking this lawsuit, and something doesn't add up:scratch:

Here we have relatively unknown MJ nephews and they decides to sue Radar for 100 million for valid reason.
Then we have Tom Cruise, international movie star sues tabloid for 50 million for as valid reason as 3T.
Why 100 million?

Something is going on behind the scenes, but I don't know what is it.

Who knows why the sum, but in Tom Cruise's case they "only" claimed he was a bad father. In 3T's case, however, these are much more serious and damaging allegations. They accuse MJ of a crime and they accuse certain family members of his (including the alleged victims themselves) covering-up for it and/or turning a blind eye.

What do you mean by doctoring? Added in pictures? censoring the photos etc? While blocking on the pictures seems to be Radar's doing, I'm not sure if the rest of the additions are theirs. I still suspect Robson/Safechuck lawyers.

Yes, the added pics. That's pretty malicious because it was done to make the document look more damaging than it was. They also referred to the added pics in their articles (eg. the reference to the Jon Benet Ramsey pic) and even after the photographer came out and said that it is impossible for his pic to have been found in 2003 because it wasn't even created until 2008, even then RO did not actually post a public retraction or apology. They just quietly deleted the pics from their doc and uploaded their new version (which was still not the original doc from 2004, BTW, there were still some additions left in - eg. about Precocet), without saying a word to their readers. They never actually admitted the falsehoods in their report. Which is clearly, deliberately and maliciously misleading their readers because a lot more people read just the articles than check out the PDF, especially after a couple of days or a week after their sensationalist story was first published and it already made its rounds and did the damage. So the lack of public correction or apology when they clearly knew they were in the wrong, may prove malice as well.

If Radar is going to claim they got the docs this way they will have to tell from whom. Maybe they will hide behind the Shield Law there, but we will see if that can be beaten in this case. I say that because this is clearly a doctored document. Someone doctored it. So it's not just a claim that someone made, but there is a doctored document. So let's see what will happen. Maybe it will be revealed who gave them to RO. Even if the source will remain anyonymous under the Shield Law and RO will blame it all on them, it was at the very least negligent from RO not to check out the veracity of the document. If we could see, for example, the 2016 dates on the added, printed pages they should have seen them too. And like I said, they were actually warned that this was not the original document. The police came out and made a statement about it I think only a day or two after RO published the document. They said there are additions that weren't in their original document. Some media reported it, did RO? Did they report Zonen's comment? Did they report the comment by the photographer of the Ramsey photo? Did they make a public correction of their original claims after they realized the added photos did not come from the books that were confiscated? Did they make a public apology when 3T asked them to? If none of that happened, there is a malicious intent there IMO that could be visible to a Court. Instead of corrections RO was busy running more damaging and false articles about MJ that week. What is that if not malice?

And they made some more claims that are malicious and misrepresenting the document. For example, the document does not claim that MJ used Precocet to suppress his sex drive for young boys. Did they ever correct that story? Even if the added pages did not come from RO, after they realized that some of the additions were not in the original, did they ask their source to clarify what else was added and what else they should remove (eg. the added internet articles about Precocet)? In fact, since there was a printed date on them, a 2016 date, so they should have realized themselves if they had done due dilligence that they could not have belonged to the original document.

I am glad this is happening because at least this is trying something. We will see how far it can go, but if there are always only excuses as to why it won't work and if they never even try then they will never know. I guess Fields wouldn't have taken a case that he thought was completely hopeless from a legal POV.

 

[KOPV]

I hope 3T wins just to teach Radar and others a lesson..

 

[Snow White luvs Peter Pan]

I don't think RO have 100 million dollars but their asses deserve to be sued and exposed. What they did to Michael turning his vast art book collection into child pornography and accusing him of sexually abusing his nephews is absolutely abhorrent and despicable. This smear campaign against reached such point of extremism that it's ridiculous and uncalled for.

 

[elusive moonwalker]

Guardian broadsheet paper in the uk are reporting it. Whether anyone else is ???

 

[Bubs]

This article mentions Radar removing pages from the original pdf file that they put up
"However, since the publication, the original PDF file of the report linked from the article (archived here by Scribd user Andrade Catrinoiu), “mj-docs.pdf,” was deleted, and replaced with a new version “mj-docs-signed.pdf,” which is 27 pages shorter. "

http://lawnewz.com/high-profile/mic...ile-100-defamation-suit-against-radar-online/


@Respect, earlier you posted the article that caused T3 to sue Radar
"New claims relatives told cops he liked 'prepubescent' boys."

The article above link mentions that lawsuit was because of this article Radar posted
“EXCLUSIVE” and titled “***** Betrayed! Sex Perv Singer’s Family Turned Against Him In Abuse Probe.”

I didn't read any of Radar's articles so I have no idea. I need to read the lawsuit myself.

 

[redfrog]

For people who visits @Radar:
NEW YORK, July 12, 2016 /PRNewswire/ -- American Media, Inc. (AMI) announced that its Celebrity Network flagship site, RadarOnline.com, achieved new traffic highs for the month of June..

I guess this has nothing to do with their lies about MJ, right?

It's not the fans who fuel this business. It's the general public and haters who for sick perverted reasons like to think about MJ
as a pervert. This is why these kind of stories sell. This is why Court TV's ratings went up during the trial.

 

[Bubs]

I guess this has nothing to do with their lies about MJ, right?

It's not the fans who fuel this business. It's the general public and haters who for sick perverted reasons like to think about MJ
as a pervert. This is why these kind of stories sell. This is why Court TV's ratings went up during the trial.

When there is a demand, there will be supplier. If Radar writes MJ is an angel in disguise, they wouldn't get a single click from fans, but if they write MJ is devil, fans falling over themselves running over there to defend Michael. If I remember correctly, you yourself wanted fans to go on these sites to defend Michael against the haters, but what do you really win? Nothing, but those sites wins clicks, and they see bad articles of MJ sells, so the vicious circle continues.


"The site's 20 million unique visitors and 153 million page views were up 25% and 8%, respectively, over prior year. Even more important, Radar continues to deliver a highly engaged readership – over 3.3 million users returned to RadarOnline.com at least 200 times during June, with more than 13 million returning at least 3 times per day."

Now tell me, what amount of those returning 3.3 million users were your visits:cheeky:

All the fairness, I do believe there are plenty of people who clicks those sites because the shocking headlines and out of curiosity, so I don't really blame fans - that much

 

[HIStory]

@Respect, earlier you posted the article that caused T3 to sue Radar
"New claims relatives told cops he liked 'prepubescent' boys."

The article above link mentions that lawsuit was because of this article Radar posted
“EXCLUSIVE” and titled “***** Betrayed! Sex Perv Singer’s Family Turned Against Him In Abuse Probe.”

I didn't read any of Radar's articles so I have no idea. I need to read the lawsuit myself.

Same article. The “EXCLUSIVE” and titled “***** Betrayed! Sex Perv Singer’s Family Turned Against Him In Abuse Probe.” is its main title and the "New claims relatives told cops he liked 'prepubescent' boys." is the smaller title.

Now, you forced me to click on RO because of this. I took the article from the Wade Robson thread where it was posted when it was published so that fans do not go on Radar, but now I had to go to Radar to check this out.

When there is a demand, there will be supplier. If Radar writes MJ is an angel in disguise, they wouldn't get a single click from fans, but if they write MJ is devil, fans falling over themselves running over there to defend Michael. If I remember correctly, you yourself wanted fans to go on these sites to defend Michael against the haters, but what do you really win? Nothing, but those sites wins clicks, and they see bad articles of MJ sells, so the vicious circle continues.


"The site's 20 million unique visitors and 153 million page views were up 25% and 8%, respectively, over prior year. Even more important, Radar continues to deliver a highly engaged readership – over 3.3 million users returned to RadarOnline.com at least 200 times during June, with more than 13 million returning at least 3 times per day."

Now tell me, what amount of those returning 3.3 million users were your visits:cheeky:

All the fairness, I do believe there are plenty of people who clicks those sites because the shocking headlines and out of curiosity, so I don't really blame fans - that much

Fans shouldn't click on it, agree, but I think you are blaming it too much on fans. This was a lot bigger story than what the fandom is capable of generating. It was not because of fans but because other media made it viral and the general public bit on it. IMO it would have been just as viral if no fan had ever clicked on it.