Why is Michael treated the way he is by the media?

TheChosenOne

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2011
Messages
2,629
Points
63
I'm getting old and don't remember what thread I was in when Ramona posted a very thought-provoking response about why Michael receives the kind of coverage that he does.

Her response was brilliant! And I felt we needed to start a meaningful discussion, where we can really dissect and analyse what is at the root of this matter (without the histrionics!).

Ramona spoke about the issue of race (which I agree with) but she also spoke about the stupefying level of fame that Michael achieved that changed him from a mortal to a seeming immortal. And I wholeheartedly agree with that assessment. Hope she gets to posts her stuff here.

But I would love to hear the thoughts of others. And once my thoughts are sufficiently coherent, I will add my opinion!
 
In my opinion, Yellow Journalism. The media started to spin him off as weird back in the 80's, and then when the Chandler accusation hit in '93, they struck a goldmine.

One only needs to learn about what happened to Fatty Arbuckle, an American silent film star, to find shocking similarities to what happened to Michael. He was accused of rape and molesting that woman with a Coke bottle (even though it was not true). He was eventually acquitted and the jury even apologized to him, but it was too late.

http://www.returnofkings.com/15838/the-rape-of-fatty-arbuckle

It's even said that Michael felt so much in common with him, he kept a framed picture of him in his house.
 
In part because Michael was such a polarizing figure. For some people to really love something, others have to hate it. It's kind of the nature of things...

The press were bad on Michael in the late 80s, but the witch-hunt that started in 1993 was disgusting. I don't particularly like Madonna, but she summed it up rather well when talking about Michael at the 2009 VMAs:


"...then the witch hunt began, and it seemed like one negative story after another was coming out about Michael. I felt his pain, I know what it's like to walk down the street and feel like the whole world is turned against you. I know what it's like to feel helpless and unable to defend yourself because the roar of the lynch mob is so loud you feel like your voice can never be heard.

But I had a childhood, and I was allowed to make mistakes and find my own way in the world without the glare of the spotlight.

When I first heard that Michael had died, I was in London, days away from the start of my tour. Michael was going to perform in the same venue as me a week later. All I could think about in this moment was, "I had abandoned him." That we had abandoned him. That we had allowed this magnificent creature who had once set the world on fire to somehow slip through the cracks. While he was trying to build a family and rebuild his career, we were all passing judgement. Most of us had turned our backs on him. In a desperate attempt to hold onto his memory, I went on the internet to watch old clips of him dancing and singing on TV and on stage and I thought, "my God, he was so unique, so original, so rare, and there will never be anyone like him again. He was a king."

But he was also a human being, and alas we are all human beings and sometimes we have to lose things before we can appreciate them..."
 
In my opinion, Yellow Journalism. The media started to spin him off as weird back in the 80's, and then when the Chandler accusation hit in '93, they struck a goldmine.

One only needs to learn about what happened to Fatty Arbuckle, an American silent film star, to find shocking similarities to what happened to Michael. He was accused of rape and molesting that woman with a Coke bottle (even though it was not true). He was eventually acquitted and the jury even apologized to him, but it was too late.

http://www.returnofkings.com/15838/the-rape-of-fatty-arbuckle

It's even said that Michael felt so much in common with him, he kept a framed picture of him in his house.

Of course, when they reported that, they said he had a framed picture of Arbuckle "by his bedside" Funny how they do that.

There are a lot of similarities between Roscoe Arbuckle (he didn't like to be called "fatty") and MJ. The ones that really stand out to me are the facts that they were both immensely liked by the public, were mega-rich (Arbuckle was the highest paid entertainer at the time - the first ever to sign a million dollar contract), and were both accused by a serial accuser who straight up lied about what happened. The prosecutors in the Arbuckle case thought Bambina Maude Delmont's (the accusor) testimony was so poor they didn't put her on the stand.

Both Michael and Arbuckle were unfortunate in the timing of their careers as well. Arbuckle was at his peak during Prohibition when Hollywood was seen as decadent and alcohol soaked - perfect timing for Hearst to cut down the biggest star by implying the crudest behaviour, and Michael around the time of the McMartin pre-school hysteria.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McMartin_preschool_trial
 
Of course, when they reported that, they said he had a framed picture of Arbuckle "by his bedside" Funny how they do that.

There are a lot of similarities between Roscoe Arbuckle (he didn't like to be called "fatty") and MJ. The ones that really stand out to me are the facts that they were both immensely liked by the public, were mega-rich (Arbuckle was the highest paid entertainer at the time - the first ever to sign a million dollar contract), and were both accused by a serial accuser who straight up lied about what happened. The prosecutors in the Arbuckle case thought Bambina Maude Delmont's (the accusor) testimony was so poor they didn't put her on the stand.

Both Michael and Arbuckle were unfortunate in the timing of their careers as well. Arbuckle was at his peak during Prohibition when Hollywood was seen as decadent and alcohol soaked - perfect timing for Hearst to cut down the biggest star by implying the crudest behaviour, and Michael around the time of the McMartin pre-school hysteria.

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

I agree NeeChee. Well said. I'm sure you are right that he didn't like to be called Fatty. It's unfortunate that's how most people today know his name.

But yes, they certainly did share the same fate, didn't they?
 
My Thoughts (Part I)

The media in America and the UK seem to have become fundamentally lazy. One newspaper comes up with a headline and it is picked up by the others without any checking or verifying. It is a worrying trend because there is no way of knowing how many people just see a headline, accept it as fact and form their opinions of that situation or person.

But I digress. Media and celebrity culture do allow to treat famous people as not real, as if their lives are a piece of fiction that we can comment on. The more famous you are, the most unreal you become. With the advent of technology it has become a real Truman Show with Truman being aware that he is being watched and scrutinised by millions.

Michael was incredibly famous. Imagine that there are few places in the world where Michael's name is not known. And Michael never presented himself as ordinary. His music films were certainly not ordinary. When he stepped out for an awards show, he was always properly costumed as a superstar should be. He was indeed larger than life.

Furthermore, Michael had an incredible power and charisma. There was something magnetic about him. People could not stop looking at him. There was just something about him.

When you reach those kinds of heights, it is inevitable that people will either love or loathe you. And journalists are people, just like us, with the same petty jealousies, insecurities and issues. And I feel the main issues with Michael were his race, his image and his power.
 
I just found this article.
It says something about educated persons view on black people.



A Texas appeals court declined to allow a new sentencing hearing Wednesday for an African American death row inmate whose initial hearing featured testimony by a psychologist that blacks are more likely to commit crimes. In 2000, when the psychologist’s comments were first reported, then-Texas Attorney General John Cornyn declared that the state would not stand in the way of a new sentencing. But while Duane Buck has since averted execution, Texas courts have denied several motions to reconsider his case, and he remains on death row.

The exchange came about as follows. Dr. Walter Quijano was testifying about Buck’s future dangerousness — a factor in determining whether a defendant will be sentenced to jail time or death. On cross-examination, the following exchange occurred:

PROSECUTOR: “You have determined that . . . the race factor, black, increases the future dangerousness for various complicated reasons; is that correct?”

Quijano: “Yes.”

The prosecutor again invoked Quijano’s discriminatory testimony during closing argument to suggest that Buck should be sentenced to death. Other Texas inmates have been granted new sentencing hearings because of similar comments by Quijano.

This was not an isolated incident. Other evidence has since emerged showing that the the Harris County District Attorney’s office routinely engaged in racial discrimination. Almost half of the prisoners on Texas death row are from Harris County, and blacks are three times as likely as whites to be sentenced to death in the county during the period of Buck’s sentencing. From the NAACP Legal Defense Fund: “The District Attorney at the time of Mr. Buck’s case admitted that prosecutors routinely struck black jurors from service. Another Harris County District Attorney resigned after racist emails he sent and received on his work computer were discovered. This and other evidence reveals that a longstanding culture of racial bias existed in the Harris County D.A.’s office.”

This latest appeal asserted that Buck’s counsel was woefully inadequate, and failed to raise several crucial arguments. (Remarkably, it was Buck’s counsel who brought Quijano on as a witness, although the prosecution used his testimony on cross-examination.) Three dissenting judges agreed with this argument and would have granted Buck a new trial. “The record in this case reveals a chronicle of inadequate representation at every stage of the proceedings, the integrity of which is further called into question by the admission of racist and inflammatory testimony from an expert witness at the punishment phase,” Judge Alcala wrote for the dissent.

The comments of Quijano are remarkably similar to those of federal appeals court judge Edith Jones, who is alleged to have said “racial groups like African-Americans and Hispanics are predisposed to crime,” are “prone to commit acts of violence,” and made similar comments in several Texas death penalty cases she was overseeing. U.S. Supreme Court Justice John Roberts initiated a rare formal ethics review into Jones as a result of the allegations.

Quijano is not the only expert witness whose discredited testimony has been used to sentence multiple Texas inmates to death. Another case making its way through the courts hinged on the testimony of Dr. George Denkowsi, who evaluated sixteen Texas death row inmates before he was formally reprimanded in 2011 and fined $5,500 due to complaints that he used scientifically invalid methods to evaluate these inmates.

Texas has accounted for 40 percent of U.S. executions since the U.S. Supreme Court lifted a moratorium on the punishment in 1976. And even within the state, death sentences and executions are isolated to just a few counties, adding to the argument that race and location are better predictors of death sentences than culpability.

This post was originally published in ThinkProgress



Read more: http://www.care2.com/causes/testimo...be-enough-to-execute-a-man.html#ixzz2lZNnTjmZ
 
I think it's a combination of many factors. His race, his success that generated jealousy, his perceived "weirdness". I also agree that because the media put such labels on him as "bizarre" (and that's just one of the more "mild" labels) they managed to distance him with that from people generally and managed to dehumanize which makes it even easier for people to be cruel and unfair to him.
 
Because the media is full of cruel,soulless,heartless bastards.They never cared about Michael or any other celebrity's well being,they only care(d) about making a buck.
 
Because the media is full of cruel,soulless,heartless bastards.They never cared about Michael or any other celebrity's well being,they only care(d) about making a buck.

The way the media treats Michael goes far beyond just making a buck. The media is doing everything they can to turn the public against Michael and the witch hunt against him continues even after his death.
 
I would say studying the psychology of mankind shows us a lot. Going back to ancient time and how people would gather just to watch someone be humiliated or punished for a crime they committed (or did NOT commit) and the reason that people are driven to enjoy witnessing such things. If it was not for humanity being that way the media would not have a reason to be so grotesque.


Sadly to say, while we often say the media caused the way people view MJ, while I find it in a large way to be true, we can't forget that they supplied for the demand (They were the dealer to this addiction of ugly side of humanity).. They understood that watching someone fall and be humiliated is of large interest - and the more notoriety someone has the more interest to watch.. We as humans have repeated this over and over again with people, and Michael was the first World 'icon' where the whole world could watch fall/humiliate..

There will never be someone in history again (very likely) that will ever have to carry the weight he did with this sad part of our humanity..
 
I would say studying the psychology of mankind shows us a lot. Going back to ancient time and how people would gather just to watch someone be humiliated or punished for a crime they committed (or did NOT commit) and the reason that people are driven to enjoy witnessing such things. If it was not for humanity being that way the media would not have a reason to be so grotesque.


Sadly to say, while we often say the media caused the way people view MJ, while I find it in a large way to be true, we can't forget that they supplied for the demand (They were the dealer to this addiction of ugly side of humanity).. They understood that watching someone fall and be humiliated is of large interest - and the more notoriety someone has the more interest to watch.. We as humans have repeated this over and over again with people, and Michael was the first World 'icon' where the whole world could watch fall/humiliate..

There will never be someone in history again (very likely) that will ever have to carry the weight he did with this sad part of our humanity..

I agree with this very much. Just look at the history of witch burnings, lynch mobs. It seems to be the dark side of human nature that many people like to bully, hurt and even kill those who they detect to be vulnerable or/and those who they are jealous of. We like to think that in our age and time mankind is more enlightened, but in reality it isn't really. It's still the same old animal, only the methods changed. Now instead of sticks and stones people lynch other people with words - and by such means as the tabloid media. Tabloid media is a bottom feeder that caters for that dark side of human nature and guess what? Tabloids are the most popular papers out there. That should tell us something about human nature.

But you are right tabloid media only provides for that demand. If people would be grossed out by such things as for example what Murray is doing now and would protest then it would not be worth operating tabloids. Instead people buy them and think such stories are fun. Just like Roman people thought gladiator fights were fun or people in the middle ages thought witch burns were fun or those who did lynch mobs thought it was fun. The still animalistic instinct is still there...
 
Michael was an incredible human being and made so many good things and encouraged others to do good to the world through his art.... And yet he was so wronged and stoned/judged by the people and the world. As much as you try give an explanation for this, I'll never be able to understand why Michael, a person who only did good, had to go through so much in this life. :cry: *big sigh*
 
Because the media is full of sensation-seeking bastards! It's true that the media makes people famous but they can also use that fame and destroy you. The tabloids are the most pathetic, horrible, evil thing ever, worse than parasites! It should be illegal to spread so much awful lies about people you don't even know and people who buy such crap should be ashamed of themselves! Michael gave so much to this world, yet he received so much negative publicity. He truly was the most innocent and kind-hearted person whose purpose was to help the poor and give his love to the fans. He was so misunderstood and ahead of his time, I just hope he is in a much better place now!
 
Well Michael was unique in so many ways, he had talent he had the charisma and he had the willingness to CARE for other people than himself what media is trying to phase is the fact he was a monster in which he never were, how can someone be a monster and give millions to charities and care for people and children most of all?

Since he was unique and different it's not interesting anymore, he is not interesting if he is not portrayed as a freak therefore they pint point what he loved the most, children!

And it has to do with the 93 allegations as well that started this whole damn circus really they wanted to make money and went to someone that was humble and caring and sorry to say, naive... He trusted way too many wrong people throughout his lifetime and people wanted money, money and money they didn't care whom they would hurt and how as long as they got piece of that cake... Michael was a kind and loving person who got to stand up from everyone who wanted that piece of fame. Damn tabloids!
 
I belive mostly because people dont understand him.
They dont understand he was performing since 5 yr old,so he didnt have time for childhood.
Thats why MJ is so "childish" , he loves play with children and help them.
They dont understand that so they have to fill headlines with something and they lie about pedophile and allegation.
So mainly because money.
 
I was reading the depositions in the Tom Cruise lawsuit about him abandoning his daughter. It was enlightening to read the working and the machinations of the media, especially the glossy tabloids.

Somebody decides what the story must be about - what the narrative is going to be and they tailor their quotes and inside sources accordingly. There is no room for nuance and context (too confusing, one editor declared). Everything must be black and white. There must be a clear cut victim and a clear cut villain.

Media abuse is not peculiar to Michael. It is just that we feel it more because we are more connected to him. I have seen some vile things written about other celebrities and I have felt nothing because I do not care about them.

But narratives can change. Look at Mandela! For a long time he was condemned as a murderer, a terrorist. But then a tv station in the UK agreed to air a concert in his honour. And it was recognised that they could not possibly air a concert supporting someone they have called a terrorist in the news. Therefore a decision was taken that Mandela would no longer be referred to in that way ... And over time the perception of Mandela changed for the better.

The perception of Michael can and will change, I think. But as long as the reading public is only willing to consume the superficial news that they are fed, we have a long road to tread. A fundamental change needs to be made in HOW the news is made and HOW it is consumed.
 
Media abuse is not peculiar to Michael. It is just that we feel it more because we are more connected to him.

I do not completely agree.

While other celebrities get bashed, misquoted, lied on etc. by the media as well I don't think any other celebrity is treated the way Michael was. With Michael they took it to a whole another level. Let's not forget that in Michael's case it was slander of the worst kind! He was criminalized. And no, the media did not just report on the allegations - but they created a large portion of them! Provably they paid out millions of dollars to people to come up with stories. Those people were then the backbone of the prosecution's "prior bad acts" case in 2005! So you can factually show how the media actually helped to create a lot of those allegations! And there were also others who were paid to lie and that still keeps happening over and over again (see the fake FBI files article by the Sunday People this year for which I'm sure Paul Barresi was handsomely paid). So while I feel sorry for Tom Cruise if he was lied on (I don't know what's his case was about), but I think Michael's treatment by the media is pretty much unprecedented. Or you will have to go back to someone like Roscoe Arbuckle ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roscoe_Arbuckle ).
 
When I was young I had dreams of being a journalist. I wanted nothing more in my life than to make money off my craft of writing. I was even a reporter for my high school paper for 3 years. I even went to journalism camps at a University and attended journalism conventions.

But a the same time I am a Michael fan. I was pretty young during the 2005 trial (I was 12 or 13). I didn't completely understand what was going on, I only saw what the media harped on 24/7 for weeks on end. I remember sitting in front of the TV as the not guilty verdicts were read. I remember my father screaming at the TV, "WHAT? THEY AREN'T GOING TO CONVICT THE MOLESTER?" I stayed quiet but I couldn't help but feel this wasn't right.

When I got older, I did more research on my own. I couldn't believe the massive amounts of crap the media had made up. What once seemed like a dream career to me was forever tarnished. I could never be a part of something that would attack any other human being in such a fashion. I would not continue the trend. I would not be like them.

Even today I look at the news media and it makes me sick. They seem to put celebrities up on a pedestal just to wait for the moment they fall to they can broadcast it around the world in 1080p. Print media is not much better. Every time I see a tabloid paper I just want to chuck them all into a firey pit.

I never understood why the media goes after celebrities so. Are they suddenly not human because lots of people know who they are? It's all a game to the media machine, and it will continue to be a game until there is a way to stand up and stop it.
 
^ There are good and genuine journalists still but a large portion of the media is pretty much corrupted. And it's not only about Michael. In politics, in economics, in social issues - there are biases, agendas and lies, lies and lies to serve agendas and manipulate the masses. And to be honest a lot of that manipulation is successful because a lot of people do not have the time or incentive to check out whether what they are fed with is true or not. And the media takes advantage of it and they brainwash and manipulate people. Malcolm X said it well:

“The media's the most powerful entity on earth. They have the power to make the innocent guilty and to make the guilty innocent, and that's power. Because they control the minds of the masses.”

One has to ask: if Michael was guilty then why did the media have to pay out large amounts of money to create "victims" and "witnesses"? Why is it that those so called "witnesses" never came out, never went to authorities, but when the media promised them to "remember" things they all of a sudden "remembered" things they never even mentioned before?

This is just so typical of the corrupt ways the media treated Michael:

No matter who testifies next in Michael Jackson's alleged "prior acts" of sexual abuse mini-trial, the prosecution will have to deal with the fact that only one boy will show up to say he was molested many years ago by the pop star.
Now comes Robert Newt, 30, long a "Holy Grail" for The National Enquirer from its investigation into Jackson circa 1993.
Newt and his twin brother Ronald Newt Jr. (now deceased) were aspiring performers and spent two weeks as guests in the Jackson family home in Encino, Calif., around 1985. They were about 11 years old. This all occurred before Neverland was completed. Michael, Janet Jackson and LaToya Jackson were all there, as well as the Jackson parents.
Fast-forward to December 1993. The National Enquirer, desperate to get a scoop that Jackson has abused children, heard that the Newt kids once spent time with Jackson.
The tabloid offered the Newts' father, Ronald Newt Sr., $200,000 to say that something happened between his kids and Jackson.
Newt, a San Francisco "character" and filmmaker whose past includes pimping and jail time, considered the offer.
A contract was drawn up, signed by Enquirer editor David Perel. Enquirer reporter Jim Mitteager, who is also now deceased, met with Newt and his son at the Marriott hotel in downtown San Francisco.
It seemed that all systems were go. But the Newts declined the offer at the last minute.
Ron Newt Sr., to whom $200,000 would have seemed like the world on a silver platter, wrote "No good sucker" where his signature was supposed to go. The reason: Nothing ever happened between Jackson and the Newt boys.
Indeed, no kids, no matter how much money was dangled by the tabloids, ever showed up to trade stories of Jackson malfeasance for big lumps of cash after the first scandal broke in 1993.
"Maybe there aren't any other kids," a current Enquirer editor conceded.
I met Bobby Newt yesterday near the office where he works as a mortgage broker in suburban Los Angeles.
Just as his dad promised me a few days earlier, he's a good-looking kid. He's half black and half Chinese.
Robert and his twin brother were likely very cute kids. They have the same features as other boys advertised as alleged Neverland "victims." But all Bobby Newt remembers of his encounter with Jackson is good times.
And all he remembers about the man from The National Enquirer is that he wanted Bobby, then 18, to lie.
"He said, 'Say he grabbed you on the butt. Say he grabbed you and touched you in any kind of way,'" Newt said. "He told us he took all these people down. Now he was going to take Michael down. That he would really destroy him. He told us he took all these other famous people down. All the major people that had scandals against them. He said, 'We take these people down. That's what we do.'"
Prior to Bobby's meeting with Mitteager, Bobby's father met with him and brought along an intermediary, San Francisco politician, businessman and fellow jailbird Charlie Walker.
Walker is infamous in San Francisco circles for being "hooked up" to anything interesting cooking on the West Coast.
"My dad said these dudes are offering this money to take Michael Jackson down. And the guy [Mitteager] said, 'Say he touched you. All you have to do is say it. But you might have to take the stand. You might have to go on 'Oprah' in front of all these people. You have to be prepared for this thing. Just say it. And we'll give you money,'" Newt said.
Two pieces of evidence confirm the Newts' story. One is the actual contract proffered by the Enquirer and signed by Perel, who declined to comment for this story.
The contract, written as a letter, says it's an agreement between the tabloid and the Newts for their exclusive story regarding "your relationship with and knowledge of Michael Jackson, and his sexuality, your knowledge of Michael Jackson's sexual contact and attempts at sexual contact with Robert Newt and others."
Mitteager expected them to sign, even though it was completely untrue and there was, in fact, no story.
He knew you were lying, I reminded Bobby Newt.
"Exactly! And he didn't care! He was like, 'Just say it and we'll give you the money.' And I was like, 'He [Jackson] never touched me!" Newt said. "He [Mitteager] was really fishing and really digging. Think about it — most people you say it to, 'We'll give you this money,' even [if it's not true]. And they'd take it."
Bobby Newt recalled more details of the 30-minute meeting with The National Enquirer's reporter:
"He was trying to coach me — if I decided to take the money, what would happen. He said 'You know, it's going to be a huge scandal. You'll probably have a lot of people not liking you. You're going to be famous!' But to me, you'd be ruined. And the truth is Michael didn't do anything even close to trying to molest us."
Ironically, the second piece of evidence also backs up the Newts' story. Unbeknownst to them, they were taped by Mitteager.
I told you last week that Mitteager did more surreptitious taping than Richard Nixon. When he died, the tapes were left to Hollywood investigator Paul Barresi. His dozens of hours of tapes include a conversation between Mitteager, Ron Newt Sr. and Charlie Walker.
When I read some of the transcript back to Newt the other day, he was shocked.
"I said all that," he observed, surprised to have his memory prodded some 12 years later.
Back in the mid-'80s, Ron Newt Sr. put his three sons together as a singing group much as Joseph Jackson did. He called them The Newtrons.
After much pushing, he got the attention of Joe Jackson, who agreed to manage the group. Joe Jackson got the Newtrons a showcase at the Roxy in West Hollywood.
Michael showed up and loved them. The result was a two-week stay for the boys at the Encino house on Hayvenhurst Ave., where they were supposed to work on their music.
"We would see Michael in passing. We didn't see him, maybe, because he was working on an album. We saw him downstairs in the kitchen and we talked to him," he said.
The Newtrons eventually got a record contract and recorded the Jackson 5 hit "I Want You Back" at Hayvenhurst. They also spent the night at Tito Jackson's house. But nothing about what Bobby Newt hears now about himself or others makes sense.
"I don't know what to believe. He had prime time with me and my brother in the guest room for two weeks," he said. "And he didn't try anything."

http://www.foxnews.com/story/2005/04/07/former-proteacutegeacute-vouches-for-*****/

And no one even bats an eyelid. If it's about MJ apparently anything is acceptable for most people.
 
Last edited:
i agree the media is dirty.but,Why is Michael treated the way he is by the media?
i think there was also some parts of michael's done.
after been his fan for many years, i know how clever/kind/talent michael was.
although the media was, and is always dirty, but it also could,and can be controled by money and power.
this theory is not a secret. michael couldn't unknow.
and as a famous, rich and powerful man in music industry, he have met many powerful man in his life.(we all know)

by his fame in 80's, i think maybe he also thought he wanted to be a great man at very first. no matter what the media said, his fans' number was definitely "huge" . his fans would like to believe in him.
after so many wrong stories, michael still be nice. then one day truth be told, people would know how great this man was!!(that's how people feel after his death now )
but, then out of control, michael was been ill-treated by the media.

on the second hand,
in fact,such inteligent as michael, not everyone could understand. (that why someone said he was a man in other plant)
so i think maybe michael didn't hope the whole world could understand him. he just walked his own way.
 
MJ was targeted by harpies from hell (the tabs and the mainstream media followed their lead). It was and still is unprecedented, as Respect said above. I agree the media actually made the 03-05 allegations happen (as well as being way ahead of any civil or criminal investigation in 93-94).

Someone needs to uncover the whole Victor Gutierrez role as well in being Diane Dimond's "best and most reliable source" and in aiding Maureen Orth and her hit pieces, and in helping Chandlers and Feldman craft their lies and thus fatten up their bogus civil suit, which they had no evidence for. He was a free-lance journalist, aka a broker looking to link up paid sources and the tabs. He contacted Blance Francia and other Neverland ex-employees.He worked for Bashir and other UK tabloid media types.

MJ said it best--"You'll do anything for money"--but there was and still is a desire for fame and a bunch of self-righteous, hypocritical moralizing, meanness, and bullying.

Apparently in VG's case, he believed in the decriminalization of Man-Boy love (sex between men and underage boys) and his organization NAMBLA (North American Man Boy Love Assoc) wanted MJ as their poster boy to aid them in their decriminalization campaign (VG presented this man-boy love scenario in his book MJWML). It's possible that VG's takedown of MJ was at least partially funded by NAMBLA members.
 
^ Yes, it's mind boggling how a lot of the media (not only Dimond) used a guy as their "best source" on MJ, when Gutierrez shamelessly advocates pedophilia in his book and in interviews and his agenda could not be clearer when you read the things he had written and said. Either the media is that lazy that they do not background check their sources and they just embrace anyone who slanders MJ or some know damn well what's VG agenda is and they are supportive of him exactly because of that. I can imagine that at least in some instances that was the case. VG was hired to co-produce TV "documentaries" on MJ by channels like NBC and none of the channels' executives found his views in his book odd and unacceptable? And much of the allegations against MJ can be traced back to this guy.

By the way, in his home country Chile Gutierrez was involved in another scandal where he falsely accused politicians of child molestation and on another instance he was even jailed for 61 days for lying about Cecilia Bolocco, former Miss Universe and ex-wife of Argentinean president Carlos Menem. Yet, in the US he's embraced as some reliable source. Despite of the fact that a court ordered him to pay MJ $2.7 million for lying on him. None of that matters to the media. If someone is willing to slander MJ they immediately give that person a platform, no matter how discredited he is.
 
^ Yes, it's mind boggling how a lot of the media (not only Dimond) used a guy as their "best source" on MJ, when Gutierrez shamelessly advocates pedophilia in his book and in interviews and his agenda could not be clearer when you read the things he had written and said. Either the media is that lazy that they do not background check their sources and they just embrace anyone who slanders MJ or some know damn well what's VG agenda is and they are supportive of him exactly because of that. I can imagine that at least in some instances that was the case. VG was hired to co-produce TV "documentaries" on MJ by channels like NBC and none of the channels' executives found his views in his book odd and unacceptable? And much of the allegations against MJ can be traced back to this guy.

By the way, in his home country Chile Gutierrez was involved in another scandal where he falsely accused politicians of child molestation and on another instance he was even jailed for 61 days for lying about Cecilia Bolocco, former Miss Universe and ex-wife of Argentinean president Carlos Menem. Yet, in the US he's embraced as some reliable source. Despite of the fact that a court ordered him to pay MJ $2.7 million for lying on him. None of that matters to the media. If someone is willing to slander MJ they immediately give that person a platform, no matter how discredited he is.

In VG's MJWML he thanks NAMBLA--so how clear can it be? Bunch of freakin media hypocrites.
 
I love threads like this, its always so interesting reading everyone's post. There's so many factors that go into why Michael is so mistreated by the media, I'm not even sure I can capture them all. But like everyone has said his race, power, talent, charisma, influence, status, behavior... I mean the list goes on and on. It all just makes me very sad because he was a genuinely good person, and he really didn't deserve it.
 
People blame the media but its actually the public that buy it and read it. People love gossip and they love to read negative things about successful people.
 
People blame the media but its actually the public that buy it and read it. People love gossip and they love to read negative things about successful people.

That's true too. Tabloids are always the biggest selling papers, gossip blogs are very popular. As sad as it is but people just love to hate - especially those who are more successful than they are. Tabloids just cater to that "need".
 
To be blunt, he was a black man that refused to play by the rules of stereotypes; "they" don't like that and make it paramount to remind you of your "proper place" when you get out of the proverbial line. The fact that he acquired the ATV catalog and became worth more than it was thought a black entertainer should/would be capable of elevated him from nuisance to threat. Not only was he a highly visible black man that wasn't doing what it was thought black men should say/do, he was also wealthy with a certain amount of power because of that wealth. That kind of a threat isn't allowed to wander unchecked for too long... :unsure:
 
To be blunt, he was a black man that refused to play by the rules of stereotypes; "they" don't like that and make it paramount to remind you of your "proper place" when you get out of the proverbial line. The fact that he acquired the ATV catalog and became worth more than it was thought a black entertainer should/would be capable of elevated him from nuisance to threat. Not only was he a highly visible black man that wasn't doing what it was thought black men should say/do, he was also wealthy with a certain amount of power because of that wealth. That kind of a threat isn't allowed to wander unchecked for too long... :unsure:

I notice that a lot of people in the media love MJ from the Off The Wall era. Probably because while he was still very successful back then he was still ''in his place'' as a black entertainer
 
Just found this thread while I was doing a search for something else and wanted to get this discussion going again, in light of the last manufactured scandal.

I agree that it was about Michael not "knowing his place" as a black man. I think that it is also about the media being filled with people who have some serious psychological issues (I know it sounds harsh and does not apply to them all). And recently I entertained the thought that Michael had become an object of white female desire and how much of an issue that may have been.

Finally, it had to be frustrating that after everything they say or print about Michael, he was still loved and adored. Have you guys seen the footage of Michael at the World Music Awards in 2006 and during his time in London when he announced the O2 performances in 2009? It was like 1984 all over again. This man whose career was over 35 years old and who had been through a brutal trial in court and in public opinion. By all rights, he should not have been received the way he was. But you could feel the love that he received. That would have galled a lot of people in the media. It would be like "Why. Won't. He. Stay. Down! Damnit!!!" LOL.
 
Back
Top