Grammys & MJ post 1984 - can someone please explain to me how...

Re: Okay can someone please explain to me how...

The comments she specifically posted mentioned american fans. You will find them in the post you just quoted if you look up.

She quoted my OP, I wasn't talking about his american fans, I was talking about american in general.
 
Re: Okay can someone please explain to me how...

She quoted my OP, I wasn't talking about his american fans, I was talking about american in general.

Apologies!

Yeah it seems that way in fairness. And its not as if Michael didnt notice, what with there being no north american Dangerous or HIStory tour, and opting for the European audience to relaunch his live platform in 09.
 
Re: Okay can someone please explain to me how...

Apologies!

Yeah it seems that way in fairness. And its not as if Michael didnt notice, what with there being no north american Dangerous or HIStory tour, and opting for the European audience to relaunch his live platform in 09.

Yeah that's what I mean, they started to snub him in the mid '80s, although I don't know why, he was loved everywhere else in the world, always found americans to be strange people personally (ducks for cover from all the angry americans about to hurl abuse at me :D)
 
Re: Okay can someone please explain to me how...

Yeah that's what I mean, they started to snub him in the mid '80s, although I don't know why, he was loved everywhere else in the world, always found americans to be strange people personally (ducks for cover from all the angry americans about to hurl abuse at me :D)
On the other hand, I found it strange that he wanted to relaunch in London of all places, when the English tabloid press started all the junk about him in 85/86 in the first place and kept on right up to the end.
Obviously they had a huge audience for that kind of nasty press or it would have died a fast death.
Yes, I am an angry American.
 
Re: Okay can someone please explain to me how...

On the other hand, I found it strange that he wanted to relaunch in London of all places, when the English tabloid press started all the junk about him in 85/86 in the first place and kept on right up to the end.
Obviously they had a huge audience for that kind of nasty press or it would have died a fast death.
Yes, I am an angry American.

English tabloids are beyond the beyond. Their style has been embraced here in Ireland too.
 
Re: Okay can someone please explain to me how...

On the other hand, I found it strange that he wanted to relaunch in London of all places, when the English tabloid press started all the junk about him in 85/86 in the first place and kept on right up to the end.
Obviously they had a huge audience for that kind of nasty press or it would have died a fast death.
Yes, I am an angry American.

True, they did, but he still generally moved loved in the UK than in the US.
 
Re: Okay can someone please explain to me how...

She quoted my OP, I wasn't talking about his american fans, I was talking about american in general.
In general, people in the USA never cared about Michael or any other particular entertainer. Since 1980 there's been over 200 million people in the states and even more today. The biggest selling albums here are either Thriller or The Eagles Greatest Hits 1 and they're currently around 29 million. Those albums probably don't have that much overlap in people owning both. There's too many different kinds of people for there to be a collective taste for the majority of them. Even if you determine what's popular by the mainstream, that really means what is popular with white people. With movies, very few with a cast that is primarily non-white become blockbusters. They're labeled "black movies" or "Chinese movies". Most people don't pay attention to whatever is popular on the radio or the Billboard charts. Garth Brooks was also a big seller here and he probably isn't selling to a lot of same people who bought Dark Side Of The Moon by Pink Floyd or To The Extreme by Vanilla Ice or Metallica albums. Progressive rock, goth music, & heavy metal sell mainly to certain audiences. There's acts who are really popular with certain ethnicities like Selena, Vicente Fernandez, or Juan Luis Guerra. There's a whole separate Latin Grammy show. There's genres more popular in certain areas of the US like zydeco, heartland rock, and Miami Bass. There's been popular acts who had little media and radio attention like the Grateful Dead. They were more popular with concerts than records. Grateful Dead only had 1 Top 40 radio hit and it came in the mid 1980s, when the group originated in the 1960s. BB King became a millionaire performing blues and known in many countries. Blues has never had much Top 40 airplay. Blues influenced acts like Rolling Stones and Eric Clapton got the big sales and airplay.
 
Re: Okay can someone please explain to me how...

In general, people in the USA never cared about Michael or any other particular entertainer. Since 1980 there's been over 200 million people in the states and even more today. The biggest selling albums here are either Thriller or The Eagles Greatest Hits 1 and they're currently around 29 million. Those albums probably don't have that much overlap in people owning both. There's too many different kinds of people for there to be a collective taste for the majority of them. Even if you determine what's popular by the mainstream, that really means what is popular with white people. With movies, very few with a cast that is primarily non-white become blockbusters. They're labeled "black movies" or "Chinese movies". Most people don't pay attention to whatever is popular on the radio or the Billboard charts. Garth Brooks was also a big seller here and he probably isn't selling to a lot of same people who bought Dark Side Of The Moon by Pink Floyd or To The Extreme by Vanilla Ice or Metallica albums. Progressive rock, goth music, & heavy metal sell mainly to certain audiences. There's acts who are really popular with certain ethnicities like Selena, Vicente Fernandez, or Juan Luis Guerra. There's a whole separate Latin Grammy show. There's genres more popular in certain areas of the US like zydeco, heartland rock, and Miami Bass. There's been popular acts who had little media and radio attention like the Grateful Dead. They were more popular with concerts than records. Grateful Dead only had 1 Top 40 radio hit and it came in the mid 1980s, when the group originated in the 1960s. BB King became a millionaire performing blues and known in many countries. Blues has never had much Top 40 airplay. Blues influenced acts like Rolling Stones and Eric Clapton got the big sales and airplay.


Never understood the Garth Brooks thing, he's huge here in Ireland too, and the mass hysteria that broke out when he cancelled them concerts was absolutely ludicrous, and his music is dogshit, in my opinion. People here wanted Barack Obama to intervene and they burnt the american flag :rollin:
 
Re: Okay can someone please explain to me how...

I'm 1 of 322 million Americans that loved Michael in the 80s and all the way through 'til now. I'm sure there are millions of others in American society who have cared about him, his family, loved his music/concerts, and appreciated his impact on their lives despite the media and popularity (music award) contests.
 
Re: Okay can someone please explain to me how...

I'm 1 of 322 million Americans that loved Michael in the 80s and all the way through 'til now. I'm sure there are millions of others in American society who have cared about him, his family, loved his music/concerts, and appreciated his impact on their lives despite the media and popularity (music award) contests.

Again, wasn't talking about his american fans?, talking about the country as a whole.
 
Re: jazz

BTW, I think it's so wrong to call Dangerous a NJS album. It's a NJS-influenced album, not a NJS album. I would not lump it together with a Bobby Brown or a Guy album. It's totally different than those. And anyway, were the Grammies ever really big on NJS, even at its peak?
You just answered your own question. :rofl: I mentioned that most NJS acts did not crossover and the album of the year is pretty much safe popular mainstream music like Wilson Phillips, Paul Simon, & Mariah Carey. NJS is too "urban" for that. Even Milli Vanilli, regardless of who's singing, was just dance pop with a little rap in it. They won a Grammy. Acts who are mostly known to the R&B audience is not going to be nominated for album of the year. There's an R&B category. Why do you think that back then R&B acts had to crossover to the pop chart? A lot of them had to become a big hit on the R&B chart before they got Top 40 airplay and then they couldn't be too R&B or funky. The first rap Grammy was given to DJ Jazzy Jeff & The Fresh Prince, who sold a lot and their image had enough general appeal that they got a TV show on a major network. NBC wouldn't have offered a show to the Beastie Boys or Public Enemy. Kid & Play also had a safe image and they got a movie House Party, which became a hit. House Party was originally offered to Jazzy Jeff & Fresh Prince. Nobody ever said the Grammys picked hip or experimental music. It's a popularity contest and always was. Paul Simon thanked Stevie Wonder for not releasing an album one year he won, lol. The awards and performances that are broadcast are the popular mainstream acts. The other awards are given before the TV broadcast and maybe the winners are listed at the bottom of the screen on TV.
 
Re: jazz

You just answered your own question. :rofl: I mentioned that most NJS acts did not crossover and the album of the year is pretty much safe popular mainstream music like Wilson Phillips, Paul Simon, & Mariah Carey. NJS is too "urban" for that. Even Milli Vanilli, regardless of who's singing, was just dance pop with a little rap in it. They won a Grammy. Acts who are mostly known to the R&B audience is not going to be nominated for album of the year. There's an R&B category. Why do you think that back then R&B acts had to crossover to the pop chart? A lot of them had to become a big hit on the R&B chart before they got Top 40 airplay and then they couldn't be too R&B or funky. The first rap Grammy was given to DJ Jazzy Jeff & The Fresh Prince, who sold a lot and their image had enough general appeal that they got a TV show on a major network. NBC wouldn't have offered a show to the Beastie Boys or Public Enemy. Kid & Play also had a safe image and they got a movie House Party, which became a hit. House Party was originally offered to Jazzy Jeff & Fresh Prince. Nobody ever said the Grammys picked hip or experimental music. It's a popularity contest and always was. Paul Simon thanked Stevie Wonder for not releasing an album one year he won, lol. The awards and performances that are broadcast are the popular mainstream acts. The other awards are given before the TV broadcast and maybe the winners are listed at the bottom of the screen on TV.

You still talk as if Dangerous was some hard core NJS album which it was NOT. Or that it did not have mainstream success or a mainstream audience. It did. Hell, it was successful in Europe which was NEVER a big fan of NJS to begin with. But Dangerous was a hit. So I disagree that it was an urban album that didn't cross over and that's the reason why it did not win or was not nominated.

Like I said, I think the explanation is much more simple: there was a strong competition that year. Period. I am not angry that it did not win. I think that it's perfectly justifiable that Eric Clapton's album won. Or it could have been Nevermind by Nirvana or it could have been Achtung Baby by U2. Or Dangerous, for that matter. All justifiable, depending on what taste someone has in music. It happened to be Clapton's album, no big deal. It was simply a very strong year regarding releases with much quality competition. To me it is as simple as that. (I am much more upset about OTW not winning and not even nominated in 1980. LOL.)

Back on the Block simply did not have that kind of strong competition, but even so it did not deserve to win IMO because there were better albums.
 
Re: jazz

You still talk as if Dangerous was some hard core NJS album which it was NOT. Or that it did not have mainstream success or a mainstream audience. It did. Hell, it was successful in Europe which was NEVER a big fan of NJS to begin with. But Dangerous was a hit. So I disagree that it was an urban album that didn't cross over and that's the reason why it did not win or was not nominated.
It does not matter what you or I think. The Grammy voters are generally older people who are less likely to be into NJS or grunge or even listened to it. They've heard of Quincy Jones though. Most of the singles released in the US were the New Jack songs and most the other non-NJS songs either were not singles or they didn't get much airplay. What is popular in Europe does not matter as the Grammys is for music in the US.
 
Re: jazz

It does not matter what you or I think. The Grammy voters are generally older people who are less likely to be into NJS or grunge or even listened to it. They've heard of Quincy Jones though. Most of the singles released in the US were the New Jack songs and most the other non-NJS songs either were not singles or they didn't get much airplay. What is popular in Europe does not matter as the Grammys is for music in the US.

Well, 7 million copies selling is pretty mainstream in the US, I would say. (I brought up Europe to demonstrate that even a continent which did not care for NJS otherwise, liked Dangerous. Not to say its European popularity influenced or should have influenced the Grammys. It was a pop album influenced by NJS, not a hard core NJS album.)

And if Dangerous was "not mainstream enough to be AotY" and that was the reason why it wasn't nominated then how was Back on the Block ever Album of the Year? It was much less mainstream than Dangerous. LOL.
 
Re: jazz

Well, 7 million copies selling is pretty mainstream in the US, I would say. (I brought up Europe to demonstrate that even a continent which did not care for NJS otherwise, liked Dangerous. Not to say its European popularity influenced or should have influenced the Grammys. It was a pop album influenced by NJS, not a hard core NJS album.)

And if Dangerous was "not mainstream enough to be AotY" and that was the reason why it wasn't nominated then how was Back on the Block ever Album of the Year? It was much less mainstream than Dangerous. LOL.
What's your point? Vanilla Ice's To The Extreme sold over 10 million in the US and it was not nominated for album of the year. Quincy is more likely to be listened to by the older voters than Vanilla Ice. They're more likely to listen to Steely Dan (who won) than Eminem. Do you really think the voters, no matter how old they are, actually listen to everything that is nominated in all categories? Jimmy Sturr used to win the polka award every year, lol. Also did Dangerous sell in Europe because it was NJS or because it was a Michael Jackson album and would sell anyway
 
Re: jazz

What's your point? ... Quincy is more likely to be listened to by the older voters than Vanilla Ice.

Well, actually that was my initial point where you now arrived at. LOL. That Quincy basically won with Back on the Block because of who he is not because of what was on his album. And because of the Grammy board having a certain (conservative) taste and bias. LOL.

Vanilla Ice's To The Extreme sold over 10 million in the US and it was not nominated for album of the year.

You were the one who brought up sales, mainstream success and chart success as a supposed criteria for being nominated AotY, not me. I simply reflected to that: if it was really a critera then that's not an area where Dangerous is lacking, so that's not a good argument actually. But it doesn't even seem to be a criteria at the Grammys. It was simply you who tried to bring mainstream success and chart success into this talk. Point is Dangerous wasn't some obscure urban record. It was a Number One pop album.
 
Garth

Never understood the Garth Brooks thing, he's huge here in Ireland too, and the mass hysteria that broke out when he cancelled them concerts was absolutely ludicrous, and his music is dogshit, in my opinion. People here wanted Barack Obama to intervene and they burnt the american flag :rollin:
Garth Brooks was different than the usual country act in that he styled his concerts from rock concerts. He said KISS was an influence. I think that helped him get an audience that usually didn't buy country music. Same for Shania Twain, and her music was more pop than traditional country. Not many other country singers wore cornrows, lol. Most country acts before Garth just stood there and sang or played.
 
Re: Okay can someone please explain to me how...

Who mentioned anything about his American fans? We are talking about the media, music executives, people who dictate awards etc. had long since given up on MJ. Even by 1986 the backlash against MJ was gathering momentum.

In his entire solo career he was only the darling of the media from '79 until about 1984, then it got nasty and American society gradually turned against him (it's no coincidence he didn't tour in the US after Bad).

You did, plus the person I quoted in my previous post. You did again in this post I'm quoting. Maybe you were blissfully ignorant of the shabby media treatment he received worldwide, but it isn't just American media that shitted on him (to this day). And so what if he didn't tour the continental US for the HIStory Tour? Mike didn't hate his country or his US fans. He had plenty of opportunities to renounce his citizenship and he didn't.
In case you forgot, it was a jury of his fellow Americans that saw through the bs Sneddon & his crew of idiots tried to railroad Mike with and acquitted him on all charges in '05. If this nation was supposedly hating him, that jury could have convicted him. He was born an American, lived as one, died and buried as one. I won't be silent when someone ignorantly spews lies about my nation and what Mike means to millions of us here. FOH!
 
Re: jazz

Well, actually that was my initial point where you now arrived at. LOL. That Quincy basically won with Back on the Block because of who he is not because of what was on his album. And because of the Grammy board having a certain (conservative) taste and bias. LOL.



You were the one who brought up sales, mainstream success and chart success as a supposed criteria for being nominated AotY, not me. I simply reflected to that: if it was really a critera then that's not an area where Dangerous is lacking, so that's not a good argument actually. But it doesn't even seem to be a criteria at the Grammys. It was simply you who tried to bring mainstream success and chart success into this talk. Point is Dangerous wasn't some obscure urban record. It was a Number One pop album.
I said that NJS was not mainstream enough for album of the year. Mainstream does not necessarily mean the biggest seller, but the type of music known in general by the voters. Metallica sold a lot of albums, but Bon Jovi is more likely to be known by the voters and general public. Metallica primarily sells to a niche audience, even if that audience is millions. Thrash metal in general is not mainstream. The type of music that Wilson Phillips makes is more likely to be nominated for album of the year than Bobby Brown's. Bobby is more likely to be nominated in the R&B category, even though his album crossed over. Hence his album is not mainstream by Grammy criteria, it's R&B. R&B as a genre is not mainstream, even though there are R&B acts who are mainstream and sold a lot, same with country. That's why there's a separate chart for it with many popular acts on R&B radio who didn't get any (or little) Top 40 airplay. So NJS is not mainstream in the same way, even though there's NJS songs that became pop hits. Wilson Phillips are automatically mainstream even if they flopped. They're a pop girl group that can appeal to the adult contemporary audience as well. "Mainstream" does not need to "crossover".
 
Re: Okay can someone please explain to me how...

You did, plus the person I quoted in my previous post. You did again in this post I'm quoting. Maybe you were blissfully ignorant of the shabby media treatment he received worldwide, but it isn't just American media that shitted on him (to this day). And so what if he didn't tour the continental US for the HIStory Tour? Mike didn't hate his country or his US fans. He had plenty of opportunities to renounce his citizenship and he didn't.
In case you forgot, it was a jury of his fellow Americans that saw through the bs Sneddon & his crew of idiots tried to railroad Mike with and acquitted him on all charges in '05. If this nation was supposedly hating him, that jury could have convicted him. He was born an American, lived as one, died and buried as one. I won't be silent when someone ignorantly spews lies about my nation and what Mike means to millions of us here. FOH!

It wouldn't have even come to a trial had it been in another country, yet America badly wanted to see him sent down and put on their farcical circus anyway. That's all I'll say.
 
Re: Okay can someone please explain to me how...

It wouldn't have even come to a trial had it been in another country, yet America badly wanted to see him sent down and put on their farcical circus anyway. That's all I'll say.

That's some bs and you know it! No country worth its salt would brush aside investigating child molestation charges and I wouldn't want them to. Get your head out of Mike-Stan mode and think, ffs! I don't care who the accused is; celebrity should never be a free pass from adhering to the same laws as every other citizen. The fact remains Mike didn't hate his homeland and paint everyone in it with the same brush. He was very specific with naming the people that wronged him and it was worldwide.


It wouldn't have even come to a trial had it been in another country, yet America badly wanted to see him sent down and put on their farcical circus anyway. That's all I'll say.
 
Re: Okay can someone please explain to me how...

That's some bs and you know it! No country worth its salt would brush aside investigating child molestation charges and I wouldn't want them to. Get your head out of Mike-Stan mode and think, ffs! I don't care who the accused is; celebrity should never be a free pass from adhering to the same laws as every other citizen. The fact remains Mike didn't hate his homeland and paint everyone in it with the same brush. He was very specific with naming the people that wronged him and it was worldwide.

They put on a trial with absolutely NO proof, or anything resembling proof, just for the point of humiliating the man because america didn't 'get' Michael Jackson.

The general consensus in the life and times of MJ is that America began a backlash against him in the mid '80s and by 1993 they washed their hands off him.
 
Re: Okay can someone please explain to me how...

That's some bs and you know it! No country worth its salt would brush aside investigating child molestation charges and I wouldn't want them to. Get your head out of Mike-Stan mode and think, ffs! I don't care who the accused is; celebrity should never be a free pass from adhering to the same laws as every other citizen.

I don't think anyone says he should not have been prosecuted. But you have to admit that some aspects of how he was treated by the authorities were extremely problematic.

For example I am not sure he would have been indicted if it was anyone else but MJ. The charges were so incredibly weak. Also when you look at that search and arrest warrant, it's ridiculous. It's full of contradictions, big contradictions in itself. How on Earth could anyone be arrested and searched based on such a document? To issue a search warrant you have to have a probable cause. The word of one person usually is NOT considered a probable cause. And in this case they just had the word of one person, nothing else. And even that word had many, many problematic self-contradictions from the very beginning.

Then the strip search in 1993 which served nothing but to humiliate him. I never heard this being a general practice in child molestation cases and it weren't even the Chandlers who suggested it, it was the DA who insisted on it! Even though, the LA deputy DA formerly admitted in a private conversation with the Chandlers' lawyer that it doesn't really matter what comes out of it because vitiligo spots are subject to changes so whatever Jordan says about that it doesn't prove anything. So they knew that it was basically useless and still pushed through with the strip search. Why? Just to humiliate MJ?

Then the Judge being totally against MJ when his lawyers fought for the criminal proceedings being brought against the civil. And you can't tell me it's not a fair request to have the criminal case ahead of the civil in such a serious matter. Civil lawsuits are only about money. Why is that so urgent that for that Michael's right for a fair criminal trial had to be compromised?

I'm not US bashing but it was far from being a fair process IMO. We are lucky that the jury was eventually a fair and level-headed one.

Also, I think a big problem is that in the US you can get money with false child abuse allegations. In many European countries child abuse allegations are criminal matter, period, and you cannot use child molestation allegations for trying to cash in. And without the prospect of money I am sure neither allegations against MJ would have happened, since they were all about money.
 
Re: Okay can someone please explain to me how...

Lyrics from They Don't Care About Us

They're throwing me in a class with a bad name
I can't believe this is the land from which I came
 
Re: Okay can someone please explain to me how...

^^There were a pile of civil rights injustices against Michael by the DAs and judges in the Chandler case that I think most Americans did not know or realize.
I've learned about them really in the last six years-and it made me vomit when I first read it. I think if we had known the truth, there would have been a major outcry.
The NAACP and ACLU should have jumped right on it.
This is just another example of greed, envy and racism that followed Michael in every aspect of his life-personal and professional.

The Arvizo case came forward because of the premise of a credible accuser and supposedly credible witnesses. Obviously garbage and the (normal American) jury realized that. You have to remember that Sneddon is not representing every DA out there.
Just like the Cosby case now. The LA DA is not pursuing criminal charges. The PA DA is with only 3 wks to go on the statute of limitations. All political posturing.

And yes, racism is alive and well here in America. It reared its ugly head when Obama was elected. The majority of us are not like that and abhore it.

Again, who started this fire and frantically fanned the flames of this? The British tabloids. I've unfortunately watched several documentaries I missed the first time around and had no idea that the press was this bad at the time-all produced by ITV.
What is that?
BBC is the classy network and ITV is the trashy one??
 
Last edited:
Re: Okay can someone please explain to me how...

^^There were a pile of civil rights injustices against Michael by the DAs and judges in the Chandler case that I think most Americans did not know or realize.
I've learned about them really in the last six years-and it made me vomit when I first read it. I think if we had known the truth, there would have been a major outcry.
The NAACP and ACLU should have jumped right on it.
This is just another example of greed, envy and racism that followed Michael in every aspect of his life-personal and professional.

The Arvizo case came forward because of the premise of a credible accuser and supposedly credible witnesses. Obviously garbage and the (normal American) jury realized that. You have to remember that Sneddon is not representing every DA out there.
Just like the Cosby case now. The LA DA is not pursuing criminal charges. The PA DA is with only 3 wks to go on the statute of limitations. All political posturing.

And yes, racism is alive and well here in America. It reared its ugly head when Obama was elected. The majority of us are not like that and abhore it.

Again, who started this fire and frantically fanned the flames of this? The British tabloids. I've unfortunately watched several documentaries I missed the first time around and had no idea that it was the press was this bad-all produced by ITV.
What is that?
BBC is the classy network and ITV is the trashy one??



This post. I also feel that they were feeding of the frenzy of the 'satanic panic' scarce back then. Just look at the various public cases of "child abuse" back then. It seems that the some of the DA's tacticts came straight out of the playbook of many of these cases.
 
Last edited:
Re: Okay can someone please explain to me how...

@Respect77
Hey do you have that article about undeserving grammy wins? I was searching the internet but i only found one by complex and it talked about the song rather than the album.
 
Re: Okay can someone please explain to me how...

Again, who started this fire and frantically fanned the flames of this? The British tabloids. I've unfortunately watched several documentaries I missed the first time around and had no idea that it was the press was this bad-all produced by ITV.
What is that?
BBC is the classy network and ITV is the trashy one??

Yes, the British media is horrible as well when it comes to MJ. Not only tabloids but broadsheets as well and the TVs with their slanderous "documentaries". However, it seemed to affect MJ's popularity with the general public less in the UK. At least he still had #1 singles in the late 90s in the UK and of course it's no coincidence that This Is It was in the UK rather than the US.
 
Re: Okay can someone please explain to me how...

@Respect77
Hey do you have that article about undeserving grammy wins? I was searching the internet but i only found one by complex and it talked about the song rather than the album.

It was a couple of years ago I read that article and I didn't save it. I don't remember where it was, sorry.
 
Re: Okay can someone please explain to me how...

Yes, the British media is horrible as well when it comes to MJ. Not only tabloids but broadsheets as well and the TVs with their slanderous "documentaries". However, it seemed to affect MJ's popularity with the general public less in the UK. At least he still had #1 singles in the late 90s in the UK and of course it's no coincidence that This Is It was in the UK rather than the US.
It's possible that the English are so used to it that they know better. I remember learning about the British tabloid press in High school in the 70's. The problem in America is that the mainstream news realized there was an appetite for salacious news with the new 24 hour news channels and they went where the money was. We hadn't become accustomed to a difference.

Also Midwestcowboy is correct. Most of us in the latter half of the baby boom generation (and in Michael's generation) were getting married in the 80s and having babies and they were little kids in the 90s. Heaven forbid anything happened to them and suddenly we were hearing about child kidnappings, murders, rapes-our worse nightmare.
Hearing that stuff on mainstream news, which was still a hugely respected industry, was enough to freak anyone out.
 
Back
Top