Latest on MJJC

Isn't it just hypocrit as hell?

Staffordshire Bullterrier

Proud Member
Joined
Jan 17, 2004
Messages
5,603
Points
113
Ok if this is the wrong forum, please move it to the apropriate one , but since it's about Michael but also the album....

My bro told me today about this newspaper called Spits. I remember many many bullshit stories from them, when the good man was still alive. They simply copied every nonsense story from whatever source they could get it from. Now these vultures are acting like huge hypocrits. My bro told me that the cover of the paper was fully the cover of the Michael album.

Why is it always that a person has to die before these idiots start to do that? What is this? I truly don't understand this messed up world.
 
It might be a paid advert
companies sometimes pay newspapers and mags to use their products/stories as covers.
 
@ AnnieRUOkay89 I was just about to post the exact same thing...

Im not only thinking of the rags that wrote trash about him and "friends" that turned their backs on him..but now all of a sudden respects him... Thats the sad reality and it hurts.. where was all this love and respect for this beautiful man when he was alive??? sigh
 
All he got to see was painful and horrible nonsense written on the frontpage, that's all he got to see when he received the paper every morning, basically. Even plenty of papers managed to talk shit on him when he was doing tours and everybody was ectstatic, they'd always find something to complain about or simply make up. I remember that thread on another forum, it was for producers and engineers, those people worked with Michael in the studio. And i remember reading one of them saying that he and Michael were working on something on a certain day and they had the tv or radio on, and they claimed that at that exact moment MJ was somewhere with a little boy. And Michael then said 'See,...this is what i have to deal with practically every day' ...sickening, just sickening.

And now it's nothing but praise. Well...after they were done talking nonsense about if he was the father of his kids or not. Right after his death...just unbelieveable.
 
Staffordshire Bullterrier said:
All he got to see was painful and horrible nonsense written on the frontpage, that's all he got to see when he received the paper every morning, basically. Even plenty of papers managed to talk shit on him when he was doing tours and everybody was ectstatic, they'd always find something to complain about or simply make up. I remember that thread on another forum, it was for producers and engineers, those people worked with Michael in the studio. And i remember reading one of them saying that he and Michael were working on something on a certain day and they had the tv or radio on, and they claimed that at that exact moment MJ was somewhere with a little boy. And Michael then said 'See,...this is what i have to deal with practically every day' ...sickening, just sickening.

And now it's nothing but praise. Well...after they were done talking nonsense about if he was the father of his kids or not. Right after his death...just unbelieveable.
Click to expand...

I read about that on that same board.....Breaks my heart everytime :(
 
I saw it too, it was just a paid advert, nothing unusual about that. Actually I was glad to see MJ was getting some good promotion (for those who don't know, Spits is one of those free newspapers people read on the train, it is read by many thousands of people). There was also quite a positive review of the Michael album, basically the article was about whether Michael's music was getting exploited by releasing unfinished stuff and the conclusion was that it was not, because there were some really good songs on the new album that the world deserved to hear, even though it wasn't as good as his classic albums... oh and that Will.I.Am should shut up and stop criticizing the release lol.
 
LindavG said:
I saw it too, it was just a paid advert, nothing unusual about that. Actually I was glad to see MJ was getting some good promotion (for those who don't know, Spits is one of those free newspapers people read on the train, it is read by many thousands of people). There was also quite a positive review of the Michael album, basically the article was about whether Michael's music was getting exploited by releasing unfinished stuff and the conclusion was that it was not, because there were some really good songs on the new album that the world deserved to hear, even though it wasn't as good as his classic albums... oh and that Will.I.Am should shut up and stop criticizing the release lol.
Click to expand...

I think that's good they said that.
To the OP, I completely understand, and I feel that way too. It's very upsetting that they were so mean and hateful when he was alive. There are celebrities who are that way too. When he was alive, and he needed them, they were nowhere to be found. Now, they come out of the woodwork, saying how much they cared for him. :smilerolleyes:
I'd still prefer it all to be positive now, but it is definitely hypocritical.
 
death should not be vendication. that should be seen when the person is alive. Michael did nothing wrong and because of 2 greedy ass familys he got tagged. He should have gotten the justice he deserved when he was alive not now when hes dead and cant say "I Told You So". Just my opinion.
 
Staffordshire Bullterrier said:
Ok if this is the wrong forum, please move it to the apropriate one , but since it's about Michael but also the album....

My bro told me today about this newspaper called Spits. I remember many many bullshit stories from them, when the good man was still alive. They simply copied every nonsense story from whatever source they could get it from. Now these vultures are acting like huge hypocrits. My bro told me that the cover of the paper was fully the cover of the Michael album.

Why is it always that a person has to die before these idiots start to do that? What is this? I truly don't understand this messed up world.
Click to expand...


As a journalist myself - and I don't apologize for bad journalism, which MJ was subjected to - I must point out that there are several things at play here.

1. The editors could be different now than they were back then.

2. It's a lot more difficult to speak ill of the dead than of the living.

3. MJ can no longer be called weird because he's passed. So now people will focus solely on the artist. And even the harshest critics of his lifestyle won't deny his genius.

4. MJ having a new album out is top news. So they are treating it as such regardless of what other opinions its writers expressed in the past. One has nothing to do with the other.

Would you prefer the paper remain negative?

Essentially, MJ was too different for people to relate to. It was far too easy to poke fun at his differences than to sit back and try to appreciate him for all that he was - and is.
 
Staffordshire Bullterrier;3127710 said:
Ok if this is the wrong forum, please move it to the apropriate one , but since it's about Michael but also the album....

My bro told me today about this newspaper called Spits. I remember many many bullshit stories from them, when the good man was still alive. They simply copied every nonsense story from whatever source they could get it from. Now these vultures are acting like huge hypocrits. My bro told me that the cover of the paper was fully the cover of the Michael album.

Why is it always that a person has to die before these idiots start to do that? What is this? I truly don't understand this messed up world.
Click to expand...

I know what your saying. Espessialy that Albert Verlinden dude makes me puge.
He always bashed MJ when he was alive, Mj couldnt do anything good.

When he died, überspamprostitue Mr. A.(nnoying) Verlinden thaught is would be nice to make a tv programm about MJ and later some theater shows.... I dislike this guy, I really do.
 
I found some pictures of the advert.
Many people were reading this free newspaper and "Michael" was everywhere!
1179193531_4_Ww4X.jpeg


1179190815_4_QySh.jpeg
 
What also bothers me are the "overly positive" reviews of the new album? Of course, it's nice to read good reviews. But, some reviewers said something like, it's beneficial to the album if Michael is not here "second guessing" himself, it's better when Michael's collaborators have a more equal standing. These reviewers hint that Michael was not the creative driving force of his music or he was the one who prevented his music from reaching its full potential. Becasue of Michael's absence, these reviewers believe the new album sounds better.

To me, these overly positive reviews seem to downplay the talents and genius of Michael Jackson. May be I read between the lines too much, but the media is still trying to bring down Michael's accomplishment.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top