MeggyKateGutermuth
Proud Member
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2011
- Messages
- 51
- Points
- 0
Hey guys! As you know, and I'm not gonna try to hide this, I'm new here. I've been here maybe a week or two? But you guys are so wonderful and great and honest and I'm proud to be a member of this community, very proud! So thanks to all of you for being my friend. In my daily life I don't have many people I can talk to about Michael or my disgust at everything coming out in the investigation because people in my family and a lot of my friends are the kind of people who buy a lot of media's ramblings and they don't care to see Michael as we do. So I'm very thankful to you guys for letting me vent my frustrations and voice how wonderful Michael was in his life and all the humanitarian efforts he accomplished. He reminds me of Princess Diana in that way and together, they'll always be very special in my heart. Anywhoo, I complete digress from what I wanna say here...
Like most of you, I've grown to be completely disgusted at the media's perspectives and coverage of Michael Jackson and his death investigation. I'm dissapointed at the lack of objectivity from the media, how things the family members have said have been twisted around, how they still view Michael as an alleged child molester with a history of drug abuse, how they have created a "dark side" of Michael that they believe may explain his death, all these things, you guys know the list, it goes on and on endlessly and everyday it's something new or something recycled. Needless to say, like most of you, I'm not surprised. I can't speak as a viewer of other countries' media coverage on his death, but I can speak as a viewer of the American media, and as a former Journalism major, that they have done anything BUT their job as reporters.
As you can probably tell, I have a big mouth and when there is an injustice, I'm not afraid to speak. If I have something to say, I say it. I try to say it right. And as my frustrations have built up, it's led me to realize something I really want to do. I want to write a balanced, argumentative essay, and send it in to the media. You guys have posted yourselves where you can send things you want to say, and I want to do this, and do it right. I don't want to be opinionated or even say that I am myself a fan. Though I am, it's important that there is not a bias. If there were, they could dismiss it completely from the get-go without passing that one early sentence: "I'm a fan of Michael Jackson." That is also doing something that is done everyday in the media that has no place in reporting: it expresses personal opinion. So, just the facts, just the facts.
So here are some ideas I have for this article/editorial/essay whatever...lol
- I want to be balanced. I don't want to report from my personal perspective because that promotes a bias. I want to use factual information (documents, for example, that are in the public domain, recorded interviews, etc) and cite my sources (I've been in college for 2 years, I know about MLA formatting, and I have a book on it)
As far as what I wanna write about...as I said, I'm contemplating making this an arguementative essay, and some things I would like to research/discuss are:
- Fans perspectives of Michael's death and investigation vs. the Media's viewpoints, common things the media seem to say each and every time Michael is discussed;
- The most common Media reports vs. the things that do not make it to television/media airwaves (i.e.: Michael's humanitarian work, all the things he did for children at Neverland that are never discussed, and any other ideas you guys may suggest)
- The Media's use of anonymous "sources" vs. how much factual evidence there actually is (which obviously isn't much); Why or why should we not believe the Media's hype over these "sources"? How/are they/why are they just as trustworthy as the factual evidence that we have documentation of?
- The journalists publishing these reports: How are they credible? What about their reputations? Why or why do they not matter when they report to the media? What is their history in reporting? Have they lied or had false information or have they been truthful in their reporting of other things or other previous Michael Jackson issues? Why or why should we not believe them?
- The questions people (in the media, LAPD/DEA officials, family members, etc) aren't asking:
...Ian Halperin (and I'm sure you can say others, in my research I will find other people) : How did he (or they) know what they did? (i.e. his predicition of Michael passing away within 6 months) Why aren't things like this being investigated?
...Why aren't some of the people that have been involved in the investigation given a gag order (where they cannot discuss the case in the media because of it's importanace to the case)?
...The home movies/private footage/photos: Who is selling them, and why? Whose permission/authority allowed this distribution of these personal items to the Media?
...AEG's responses to all of these questions/claims by family members/attorneys/media: Why is there a pattern of "pleading the fifth" (always claiming innocence)?
...Michael Jackson's own credibility: His own reputation for telling the truth to the media. For what reasons did the media deny his credibility (when he was alive) when they report on his life?
...The whole Jackson family credibility: Why are their responses to the media's accusations questioned? For what reason(s) are they or aren't they credible? What evidence does the Media have against them to put them in a dishonest light?
...Joe Jackson: his credibility. i.e. He claims that Omar Bhatti is Michael's "lovechild". Why should we believe him? What is his credibility history? What/how many other things in the past has he said that Michael himself has verified to be true?
Again, these are just rough ideas and I plan to do a ton of research. It doesn't seem like Michael's place in the media is going anywhere anytime soon, it's a new headline everyday, so I'm not rushing to get this out there. I want to take my time and do this right, even if it means taking a month or two to write it, so be it. I want to have my facts together and write a balanced article asking all the right questions.
If you guys have any suggestions/ideas or questions that should be asked or ideas for things/people I should research, I would be most grateful for all of your input.
Thanks to all my friends here for your support and to anyone who has anything to add. Sorry for such a lengthly post. I talk too much, lol
Like most of you, I've grown to be completely disgusted at the media's perspectives and coverage of Michael Jackson and his death investigation. I'm dissapointed at the lack of objectivity from the media, how things the family members have said have been twisted around, how they still view Michael as an alleged child molester with a history of drug abuse, how they have created a "dark side" of Michael that they believe may explain his death, all these things, you guys know the list, it goes on and on endlessly and everyday it's something new or something recycled. Needless to say, like most of you, I'm not surprised. I can't speak as a viewer of other countries' media coverage on his death, but I can speak as a viewer of the American media, and as a former Journalism major, that they have done anything BUT their job as reporters.
As you can probably tell, I have a big mouth and when there is an injustice, I'm not afraid to speak. If I have something to say, I say it. I try to say it right. And as my frustrations have built up, it's led me to realize something I really want to do. I want to write a balanced, argumentative essay, and send it in to the media. You guys have posted yourselves where you can send things you want to say, and I want to do this, and do it right. I don't want to be opinionated or even say that I am myself a fan. Though I am, it's important that there is not a bias. If there were, they could dismiss it completely from the get-go without passing that one early sentence: "I'm a fan of Michael Jackson." That is also doing something that is done everyday in the media that has no place in reporting: it expresses personal opinion. So, just the facts, just the facts.
So here are some ideas I have for this article/editorial/essay whatever...lol
- I want to be balanced. I don't want to report from my personal perspective because that promotes a bias. I want to use factual information (documents, for example, that are in the public domain, recorded interviews, etc) and cite my sources (I've been in college for 2 years, I know about MLA formatting, and I have a book on it)
As far as what I wanna write about...as I said, I'm contemplating making this an arguementative essay, and some things I would like to research/discuss are:
- Fans perspectives of Michael's death and investigation vs. the Media's viewpoints, common things the media seem to say each and every time Michael is discussed;
- The most common Media reports vs. the things that do not make it to television/media airwaves (i.e.: Michael's humanitarian work, all the things he did for children at Neverland that are never discussed, and any other ideas you guys may suggest)
- The Media's use of anonymous "sources" vs. how much factual evidence there actually is (which obviously isn't much); Why or why should we not believe the Media's hype over these "sources"? How/are they/why are they just as trustworthy as the factual evidence that we have documentation of?
- The journalists publishing these reports: How are they credible? What about their reputations? Why or why do they not matter when they report to the media? What is their history in reporting? Have they lied or had false information or have they been truthful in their reporting of other things or other previous Michael Jackson issues? Why or why should we not believe them?
- The questions people (in the media, LAPD/DEA officials, family members, etc) aren't asking:
...Ian Halperin (and I'm sure you can say others, in my research I will find other people) : How did he (or they) know what they did? (i.e. his predicition of Michael passing away within 6 months) Why aren't things like this being investigated?
...Why aren't some of the people that have been involved in the investigation given a gag order (where they cannot discuss the case in the media because of it's importanace to the case)?
...The home movies/private footage/photos: Who is selling them, and why? Whose permission/authority allowed this distribution of these personal items to the Media?
...AEG's responses to all of these questions/claims by family members/attorneys/media: Why is there a pattern of "pleading the fifth" (always claiming innocence)?
...Michael Jackson's own credibility: His own reputation for telling the truth to the media. For what reasons did the media deny his credibility (when he was alive) when they report on his life?
...The whole Jackson family credibility: Why are their responses to the media's accusations questioned? For what reason(s) are they or aren't they credible? What evidence does the Media have against them to put them in a dishonest light?
...Joe Jackson: his credibility. i.e. He claims that Omar Bhatti is Michael's "lovechild". Why should we believe him? What is his credibility history? What/how many other things in the past has he said that Michael himself has verified to be true?
Again, these are just rough ideas and I plan to do a ton of research. It doesn't seem like Michael's place in the media is going anywhere anytime soon, it's a new headline everyday, so I'm not rushing to get this out there. I want to take my time and do this right, even if it means taking a month or two to write it, so be it. I want to have my facts together and write a balanced article asking all the right questions.
If you guys have any suggestions/ideas or questions that should be asked or ideas for things/people I should research, I would be most grateful for all of your input.
Thanks to all my friends here for your support and to anyone who has anything to add. Sorry for such a lengthly post. I talk too much, lol