Controversial MJ Documentary Leaving Neverland [GENERAL DISCUSSION THREAD]

[Staffordshire Bullterrier]

Re: Sundance Festival 2019 - Controversial MJ Documentary "Leaving Neverland"

Vindicatemj.wordpress.com is a Michael Jackson fact-checking site. Sell it as such to the ignorant. There is no shame in sharing facts and documentation! Do not let yourself be bullied by ignorant commentators.

You're very right about that. I'm posting a few pieces every day. If I litter my FB full of all these articles now it's not gonna get viewed.

I'm gonna think of what to write to Dutch network Vpro who's gonna air it in March.

 

[myosotis]

Re: Sundance Festival 2019 - Controversial MJ Documentary "Leaving Neverland"

is Channel 4 part of the BBC though? Because it says in the beginning that it applies to BBC..and doesn't menton Channel 4. So if Channel 4 isn't part of the agreement, they sadly don't have the same rules and guideliines (obviously they don't because they have agreed to show that trash!).

Channel 4 is directly accountable to Ofcom under its licence to broadcast for the content of its programmes (including programme trails). In turn, independent production companies and programme-makers have contractual obligations to comply with the Ofcom Broadcasting Code and the Handbook and to alert commissioning editors to potential issues.

https://www.channel4.com/producers-...reference-up-and-compliance/the-role-of-ofcom

(Channel 4 is a commercial channel. The BBC is paid for via a licensing fee. They are completely different. The BBC started as a 'public service' broadcaster, and maintains the original Charter standards.)

 

[summer]

Re: Sundance Festival 2019 - Controversial MJ Documentary "Leaving Neverland"

I was thinking just drive to their studio outside with 50+ cars, turn the volume up and play TDCAU . And them spam them with emails and evidence.

On a side note, did you watched the media last week in Holland? So much negativity I really hate them.

There is going to be a demonstration in NYC in March in front of HBO offices in Manhattan! hope AS ANY PEOPLE AS POSIIBLE go protest!! We need A LOT OF PEOPLE!!! Please keep spreading the word and those who are in NYC or nearby, please get your family and friends t go so that there wiill be as many people as possible!! https://twitter.com/MJJJusticePrjct/status/1093562599415922688

If HBO wants their future documentaries to be respected and wants people tp believe them, they should reconsider airing this garbage.

Exactly. If they do this now, their OWN reputation will be gone. If they air something as a "documentary" without anyone caring to do any FACT checking...NONE of their the OTHER documentaries they air afterwards will have any say or value because they have lost all credibility. Unless they are intending to become a tabloid channel.

I've been thinking more about this. In the cinema, there is a certain amount of 'peer pressure' not to walk out (eg from people that you went with, or just the matter of feeling stupid as you edge along a line of seated people, trying to get out of the row). I read a report from someone who saw this film at Sundance, who confirmed that viewers were 'feeling sick' walking out, and that she heard 'sounds of retching' from the toilets. (Might not have been due to the film...but maybe it was).

People might watch a film because Michael is in it, but he's not in much of this one. Most of it is about R and S, and hardly anyone knows who the latter is, and not many care about the former. Once the film starts getting to the 'graphic descriptions' at home on TV, who has the incentive to keep watching? Paedophile hunters like Reed, and a few weirdos? I'm not sure how the conversations in the office / workplace will go the next day...'Hey, did you watch that film on TV last night?' 'Hell no!'.

Reed wanted to create something attention-grabbing, but I think he has strayed into areas that most 'normal' people don't want rammed down their throats. People might be prepared to read about this stuff in the news to get their prejudices 'confirmed', and of course the press lap it up. But ordinary folks at home, maybe watching with their teenage kids? Not so much.

Reed might have hoped that his 'ground-breaking' film might have won him an award, but that didn't happen, at least not at Sundance. The press have 'stolen his thunder' about a lot of the story, so why (especially if you are not 'interested' in Michael') watch anyway, as I say unless you are a bit weird.

And who is going to advertise in the breaks? Channel 4 is a commercial channel and relies on money from advertisers. I certainly won't buy any of the products advertised during this film. (No I'm not a weirdo...I will watch because I want to see their faces as they lie, at least for as many minutes as I can stomach it. Which may not be very many).

And there may well be a backlash about the screening from people who were not expecting it to be so graphic, or who got 'drawn in' by the first half hour, and then 'gut punched' by the revolting stories in the rest.

I think Channel 4's advertisers should seriously think again about their reputations. Channel 4 itself has a pretty 'bad' reputation (for screening shocking material) anyway, and won't care, but the advertisers will.

Just so you know.....if you tune in and watch you will be supporting them by giving the ratings. I hope you can cntrol your own curiosity and refrain from watching. There will be enough clips afterwards, i'm sure where you can "see their faces as they are lying". No need to tune in. Watching means support. Keep that in mind. The ratings won't have different categories on why people watched. And the channels won't care. All they care is "HOW MANY WATCHED". And if you watched you will be one of those who gave them ratings. Do you really want that? If not many people tune in, they will make less money and other channels wll be less initerested ini showing it. And the channel that aired it will be less interested to do re-runs and give these clows more air time. If you watch and create ratings then you only help them spread that shit EVEN MORE!!! Please keep that in mind!

YES! Let's stream the sh*t out of the HIStory album (which is basically Michael's rebuttal to allegations of him being a child molester):

AMEN!!!!!!!!!!!!! GO STREAM MJ'S MUSIC!!! GO POST HIS SONGS ON SOCIAL MEDIA!!! GO BUY THEM ON IITUNES!! GO REQUEST HIS SONGS ON RADIO!!!!!!

 

[myosotis]

Re: Sundance Festival 2019 - Controversial MJ Documentary "Leaving Neverland"

Channel 4 will not pull it as they're the ones that wanted it made and payed for it I think.

They may not pull it, but they may have to substantially edit it
a) for home viewing
b) due to OFCOM rules
c) due to advertisers maybe not wanting to pay for advertising time around the film as it stands.

 

[summer]

I’m very behind with this thread so very sorry if a repeat- but just to mention if anyone is complaining to channel 4 in the UK, your letter should refer to the OFCOM code (that channel 4 is meant to comply with). Showing such a one sided documentary is in clear breach of clause 7.9 of the ofcom code. The requirements of fairness have simply not been satisfied. Having taken legal advice, I think this is one of our best avenues for getting the doc pulled from ch4.

see the ofcom code here (particularly clause 7.9):

https://www.ofcom.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0005/100103/broadcast-code-april-2017.pdf

Channel 4 is directly accountable to Ofcom under its licence to broadcast for the content of its programmes (including programme trails). In turn, independent production companies and programme-makers have contractual obligations to comply with the Ofcom Broadcasting Code and the Handbook and to alert commissioning editors to potential issues.

https://www.channel4.com/producers-...reference-up-and-compliance/the-role-of-ofcom

(Channel 4 is a commercial channel. The BBC is paid for via a licensing fee. They are completely different. The BBC started as a 'public service' broadcaster, and maintains the original Charter standards.)

In that case.....GREAT FIND!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! We need to spread this iinfo and get people e-mailing Channel 4 referring to their guidelines!!!!! Do you have an e-mail address? Preferably directly to who ever is responsible of programminig as well as who ever iis in charge of the whole channel!!! LET'S PUT PRESSURE ON THEM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Everyone go tweet that inifo to Taj so that he knows that also and can pass it on to the Estate too!!!!!

 

[myosotis]

Just so you know.....if you tune in and watch you will be supporting them by giving the ratings. I hope you can cntrol your own curiosity and refrain from watching. There will be enough clips afterwards, i'm sure where you can "see their faces as they are lying". No need to tune in. Watching means support. Keep that in mind. The ratings won't have different categories on why people watched. And the channels won't care. All they care is "HOW MANY WATCHED". And if you watched you will be one of those who gave them ratings. Do you really want that? If not many people tune in, they will make less money and other channels wll be less initerested ini showing it. And the channel that aired it will be less interested to do re-runs and give these clows more air time. If you watch and create ratings then you only help them spread that shit EVEN MORE!!! Please keep that in mind!

Just so you know ... I've already replied to you on this. In the UK (I don't think you even live here!), the audience for TV programmes is measured by BARB. In order to have your viewing included in the audience numbers, you either need to have a 'counting' box fitted to your TV or complete regular questionnaires. Both require prior agreement. I have neither. So my, and anyone else's viewing in the UK will NOT be counted, if they have not got an agreement with BARB.


https://www.barb.co.uk/

''In the first part of last month’s BARB Explained, we saw how the meters attached to TV sets, PCs and tablets in panel households enable us to identify who is watching television and which device they are using.

These software meters, together with the device-based census data we collect from PCs, tablets and smartphones, mean we can track viewing regardless of when or how a programme was watched. But there are still some types of viewing that are opaque to us, and this is why we are testing a new technology as a possible solution: router meters.''

https://www.barb.co.uk/barb-explained/the-router-meter-solution/

 

[MJTruth]

Re: Sundance Festival 2019 - Controversial MJ Documentary "Leaving Neverland"

I kinda want to post links to sites like Vindicatemj.wordpress.com on FB but in the past I've had people calling it a MJ fan site, that the name of the site said enough, sigh.

I could however link to the Forbes article, can the Geraldine Hughes piece be found or is that only for sale?

I agree the domain name DOES put people off!

But it's obvious really. Any person who cares enough to create a site like that will be an MJ fan, regardless of what the domain says.
Similarly, the owner of the site MJFACTs is a hater - anybody creating site content like that is a hater regardless of the domain.

Unfortunately MJFacts is a much better domain name than vindicate MJ. also, being a wordpress site doesn't do it any favours either.
If MJ fans want to set up pro-MJ sites then they need to get smarter when they name them.

But it's a stupid argument to discount something based on the domain name IMO.

What do they want, a site called "ComplteleyUnbiasedFactsAboutTheMichaelJacksonAbuseAllegations(honest).com"?

 

[Staffordshire Bullterrier]

Re: Sundance Festival 2019 - Controversial MJ Documentary "Leaving Neverland"

I agree the domain name DOES put people off!

But it's obvious really. Any person who cares enough to create a site like that will be an MJ fan, regardless of what the domain says.
Similarly, the owner of the site MJFACTs is a hater - anybody creating site content like that is a hater regardless of the domain.

Unfortunately MJFacts is a much better domain name than vindicate MJ. also, being a wordpress site doesn't do it any favours either.
If MJ fans want to set up pro-MJ sites then they need to get smarter when they name them.

But it's a stupid argument to discount something based on the domain name IMO.

What do they want, a site called "ComplteleyUnbiasedFactsAboutTheMichaelJacksonAbuseAllegations(honest).com"?

I've honestly never visited that MJ facts said but I absolutely take your word for it and it doesn't deserve my hit neither. Let me guess, that person spreads all the misinformation by tabloids and media in general that twists and turns things their way?

By the way, I had forgotten to read Joe Vogel's Forbes article last week. Just did that now, that is a damn good piece. Not too long but definitely straight to the point. That quote by Rolling Stone was nice to read too, but that was years ago. I wonder if they will still publish decent stuff now.

 

[myosotis]

Re: Sundance Festival 2019 - Controversial MJ Documentary "Leaving Neverland"

Re OFCOM vs Channel 4 Factual Programme Guidelines

Looking at the OFCOM 'Complaint' pages, it seems that it is expected that the complainant will have seen the programme, before making a complaint. (OFCOM will only look at complaints regarding programmes screened 'in the last 20 days' - see reference under Complaints to Channel 4 below.)
The Estate reps. have seen the programme, and one or two others who have tweeted / posted to the fan community, but of course most of us have not. And in any case, the aim of complaints at this stage are to prevent the programme (at least in it's current biased format) from being broadcast.

(I think OFCOM also generally expects that the relevant broadcasting Channel has been contacted first, with the complaints.)

A more (currently) suitable and accessible way for fans to make complaints, may be to contact Channel 4 about its 'Factual Programme Guidelines', and the information that we already have from Reed and Sundance that indicates that these guidelines seem not to have been met.

Here are the Channel 4 Factual Programming Guidelines, specifically on 'Right to Reply' :

Channel 4 Right to Reply

If a programme makes significant allegations against an individual or organisation, those concerned should be given an appropriate and timely opportunity to respond.

Right to reply letters are drafted by the producers with input from the commissioning editor and lawyer. They should include the programme description, transmission date where known, sufficient information to enable those concerned to reply properly and a reasonable deadline for the reply. A right to reply letter will be required in many factual programmes and any exception must be approved by the commissioning editor and lawyer, for example, where those concerned have already issued a public statement addressing the allegations which can be fairly reflected in the programme.

The timing of a right to reply will depend on the nature and seriousness of the allegations, the extent to which they are already in the public domain and the ability of those concerned to respond. It is worth remembering that the timing of responses may affect the content of press releases and trailers to publicise your programme.
It is a matter of editorial judgement whether the right to reply letter offers the individual or organisation an interview in the programme or asks for a statement in response to the allegations.

The programme should fairly represent the substance of the individual or organisations response but it is not normally necessary, in the interests of fairness, to reproduce a response in its entirety.

Where an individual or organisation withdraws their proposed response or only provides a response marked not for publication, there is still an obligation to ensure that material facts have not been presented, disregarded or omitted in a way that is unfair. In these circumstances the programme should explain the reasons for the absence of a contribution, and reflect any material facts in relation to the position of those concerned, if it would be unfair not to do so.

Where an individual or organisation chooses to make no comment or refuses to give an interview, the programme should make their reasons clear, if it would be unfair not to do so.

Letters from individuals or organisations or from their lawyers or PR representatives marked confidential and not for publication, should not be disclosed to any third parties outside the production without the express agreement of your commissioning editor and lawyer.

If the right to reply is dependent on a single source or evidence provided by a source who has a personal interest in the story e.g the alleged victim of the subject of the investigation, then right to reply letters should not be issued until satisfactory corroborative evidence has been obtained to verify the claim.



Here is a relevant extract from the Channel 4 Guidelines on 'Fact Checking' :
Fact Checking

It is important that production teams do not adopt a 'groupthink' approach to a story and that they review, challenge and are suitably sceptical of all evidence and contributors motives.

All allegations and the facts upon which they are based should be thoroughly researched, corroborated and double-checked.

https://www.channel4.com/producers-handbook/c4-guidelines/factual-programme-guidelines

I think the Estate should have been given a 'right to reply' and should be making initial complaints to Channel for regarding breaches of their own guidelines.

http://www.complaintsnumbers.co.uk/numbers/channel-4

Making A Complaint
You can complain to Channel 4 on 0843 254 9025. Lines are open Monday - Friday 9.00am - 9.00pm, Saturday/Sunday 10.00am - 7.00pm and on public holidays 10.00am - 6.00pm.

The telephone number and the general complaints section is accessible through the 'Contact Us' section of the website. In the '4 Viewers' part you can also contact Channel 4 via an online form and there is a postal correspondence option.

If your complaint is not resolved to your satisfaction, it is possible to contact various regulators and watchdog organisations:

Ofcom are the industry regulator and their website (address below) provides full information on how to complain. They can only act on programmes already broadcast within the previous 20 days

 

[MJTruth]

Just so you know ... I've already replied to you on this. In the UK (I don't think you even live here!), the audience for TV programmes is measured by BARB. In order to have your viewing included in the audience numbers, you either need to have a 'counting' box fitted to your TV or complete regular questionnaires. Both require prior agreement. I have neither. So my, and anyone else's viewing in the UK will NOT be counted, if they have not got an agreement with BARB.


https://www.barb.co.uk/

''In the first part of last month’s BARB Explained, we saw how the meters attached to TV sets, PCs and tablets in panel households enable us to identify who is watching television and which device they are using.

These software meters, together with the device-based census data we collect from PCs, tablets and smartphones, mean we can track viewing regardless of when or how a programme was watched. But there are still some types of viewing that are opaque to us, and this is why we are testing a new technology as a possible solution: router meters.''

https://www.barb.co.uk/barb-explained/the-router-meter-solution/

The major providers of streaming and on demand services have very accurate figures of who has watched anything on those services and so BARB do not need to install boxes for them.
Even if BARB aren't measuring streams using the providers' data then it's still a good idea for people to avoid watching anything if they don't want to add to the ratings. Be sure that the providers DO monitor their viewing figures for streaming/on demand and they DO use those statistics to help inform what they want to show in the future.

SO if I don't have a BARB box (I don't) and I watch something on Virgin, Sky, BBC iplayer etc. They DO know about it. It DOES count toward their own internal stats. It does influence what they show again (repeat) later, it does affect what they commission. Short story, if you don't want to encourage more of the same content, don't watch it on those services in the first place.

Find some other way to view it that can't be counted. Or don't watch it at all.

 

[MJTruth]

Re: Sundance Festival 2019 - Controversial MJ Documentary "Leaving Neverland"

deleted

 

[myosotis]

The major providers of streaming and on demand services have very accurate figures of who has watched anything on those services and so BARB do not need to install boxes for them.
Even if BARB aren't measuring streams using the providers' data then it's still a good idea for people to avoid watching anything if they don't want to add to the ratings. Be sure that the providers DO monitor their viewing figures for streaming/on demand and they DO use those statistics to help inform what they want to show in the future.

SO if I don't have a BARB box (I don't) and I watch something on Virgin, Sky, BBC iplayer etc. They DO know about it. It DOES count toward their own internal stats. It does influence what they show again (repeat) later, it does affect what they commission. Short story, if you don't want to encourage more of the same content, don't watch it on those services in the first place.

Find some other way to view it that can't be counted. Or don't watch it at all.

I have never used streaming or 'on demand' services.

BARB say that they attach 'router meters' to count streaming services. These meters are also for BARB panel members:

''But there are still some types of viewing that are opaque to us, and this is why we are testing a new technology as a possible solution: router meters.

Router meters are attached to the broadband routers in panel homes. They solely track streaming activity on the services that BARB is interested in – regardless of whether these services are BARB-reported – by any member of the household on any device. Naturally, this has to be with panel members’ agreement.'

https://www.barb.co.uk/barb-explained/the-router-meter-solution/

 

[MJTruth]

Re: Sundance Festival 2019 - Controversial MJ Documentary "Leaving Neverland"

Ofcom is a "toothless tiger".

Many, many biased and non-factual shows have been broadcast in the past without any action being taken by ofcom.

I know because I have complained and received incredibly weak responses from them.
Even if I pasted extracts from their own code and told them which parts of the show clearly violate the code they ignore it.

If an "expert" in the show says something that is a statement of "fact" but is wrong, then Ofcom are likely to justify it by saying it is a matter of the person's opinion.

By all means, complain as much as you like (and so will I!!), but don't expect them to do anything.

Ofcom are as pointless as IPSO.

either they have no power or no interest in properly enforcing their own rules.

 

[KOPV]

Re: Sundance Festival 2019 - Controversial MJ Documentary "Leaving Neverland"

I honestly don't think that many people really wanna take four hours of his lifetime and watch this horrible, disturbing hard to endure mokemetary!
I mean when you are not an MJ fan, a jounalist, an MJ hater or someone who already strongly belives MJ is guilty belived whould you wanna watch it?
The more sucessful we are before the mokentary aired to convince people that wade robson is not credible, a liar and MJ is innocent and a good humantarian the less people will watch this and it maybe will be a flop at the end.

It is being advertised as a two part special on channel 4, I am not sure how they are planning the HBO airing. I didnt see any details yet.

People will watch, this director brilliantly planned this, brilliantly evil that is..

* kept.it a secret until the very last minute
* the PR around therapists waiting outside due to the nature of the film
* having the fake victims present and available for q&a


His demise will be his own narccisim.. that 5 min interview he gave.. it's a manifesto of how to build a lie and make people believe it.. he cant ignore the 'intellegence' it takes to trick people and he brags about it.

He explains how to build a story, what to do so people believe the story and so on.. people writing fiction do that. And narcistic people on that level cant help but to show off there crimes.

 

[MJTruth]

Re: Sundance Festival 2019 - Controversial MJ Documentary "Leaving Neverland"

From the Ofcom website

Ofcom isn't a censor and we don't have the powers to approve programmes before they are broadcast on TV or radio services or shown on video on demand services.

However, broadcasters and on-demand service providers must make sure their programmes don't break our rules. If you are concerned about a programme which has not yet been shown on a television, radio or on demand service then you should contact the relevant broadcaster or service provider.

Ofcom CANNOT stop a show being broadcast before it is shown. So if you want to complain about the show BEFORE it is broadcast you should not contact ofcom. You MUST contact Channel 4.

IF you contact channel 4 you MUST:

• Quote the relevant parts of the code that they will break if they broadcast it (be specific).
• Clearly state your rationale.
• Stick to your point, don't wander off track at all.

If you complain to Channel 4 Do NOT go off on a pro-MJ fan rant!

 

[MJTruth]

Re: Sundance Festival 2019 - Controversial MJ Documentary "Leaving Neverland"

In fact I think this forum needs a sticky dedicated to provide the information about how fans can help by complaining to TV channels ahead of broadcast, and complaining to regulators AFTER it's broadcast.

 

[dam2040]

Re: Sundance Festival 2019 - Controversial MJ Documentary "Leaving Neverland"

Michael Jackson's Boys was allowed to air, as OFCOM told me because the trial was a US issue.

 

[KOPV]

Re: Sundance Festival 2019 - Controversial MJ Documentary "Leaving Neverland"

I'm going to second and third what MJTRUTH said about do not rant.. in any setting with Michael right now. Coming off as overzealous fans only gives people reason to ignore every fact you actually say. It litterally triggers the brain to shut down and only spot out the 'crazy' obsession.

Only works against the reasoning of writing in the first place

 

[MJTruth]

Re: Sundance Festival 2019 - Controversial MJ Documentary "Leaving Neverland"

I'd hope the MJ Estate's people are all over this, but here are some interesting extracts from Channel 4's "Factual Programme Guidelines"

I'd argue that this program ISN'T factual ( ), but let's assume Channel 4 considers that it is intended to be factual, these guidelines should apply.

Channel 4 wishes to ensure that the methods independent production companies employ when making all factual programmes are in accordance not only with our regulatory obligations but the highest standards of journalistic practice.

Does the high standard of journalistic practice allow a one-sided documentary like this to be made with no representation from the pro-MJ camp??

Viewer Trust

The Viewer Trust Guidelines set out the rules and procedures designed to promote best practice in ensuring that viewer trust is maintained. It should be read and followed by all producers working on factual programmes.


Channel 4 has a bond of trust with its audience and a duty to ensure that viewers are not deceived or misled by our programmes. Ofcom will not hesitate to impose the most serious sanctions, including substantial fines, for failure to ensure that programmes are accurate and truthful or where viewer trust is breached.


The editing process will inevitably condense events which have occurred over a period of time this must not be at the expense of distorting reality and misleading viewers. The truth must not be sacrificed for the sake of a more entertaining programme if this means cheating the viewer. It is never acceptable to represent something as having happened that did not. If it is claimed or suggested that footage is actuality, then that is what it should be; if it is not, then that must be made clear to viewers

I'd argue that such a one-sided documentary, where even the director has admitted to only looking at one side of the story does NOTHING to support viewer trust. It is propoganda, not a serious documentary. It DOES distort reality and it DOES mislead viewers. The truth HAS been sacrificed and the viewer IS being cheated.

Interviews and Pieces to Camera
Any pieces to camera which include serious allegations or disputed facts should be approved by the commissioning editor and lawyer before they are recorded.

Fact Checking

All allegations and the facts upon which they are based should be thoroughly researched, corroborated and double-checked.

We KNOW Dan Reed DID NOT do this.

It is important that production teams do not adopt a 'groupthink' approach to a story and that they review, challenge and are suitably sceptical of all evidence and contributors motives.

We KNOW Dan Reed DID NOT do this.

Where a programme deals with major matter of controversy e.g. significant legislation currently passing through parliament, Channel 4 must ensure that justice is done to a full range of significant views and perspectives.

I'd say this show is controversial, wouldn't you? so I'd expect them to do SOMETHING to balance out the narrative, although it may only be limited to a rebuttal statement at the beginning / end from the MJ Estate.



The complication with all of this is of course the fact that the allegations are being made against Michael Jackson and he is no longer here. So, for example, does the right to reply mentioned previously apply at all? If MJ was alive then sure, but does the MJ Estate have right to reply? nobody's suggesting they did anything wrong.

 

[KOPV]

Re: Sundance Festival 2019 - Controversial MJ Documentary "Leaving Neverland"

As obvious the BS is to us, the average person would eat this drama filled documentary up.

People dont generally do the type.of research we have.. we watch a movie, maybe pull up some YouTube videos after and make up our opinions. Once our brains make sense of it, we move on..

That is the problem! We just dont do that with Michael because we care more.. but if this was another film claimed to be based on real events, wed have less reason to question it..

How many people growing up thought Texas chainsaw massacre was a true story? Lol.. a lot.. all because it was inspired by!

There has to be a rebuttle.. I wish the estate would really finance the project taj is working on. They could over see it if theyd want.. 150 k in the estates eyes is nothing.

PS I dont think the estate should publically have any ties to the documentary aside from pointing it out. If anyone knows they funded it or anything, people would use that to discredit the film.



Hey maybe... just thinking

 

[AmitLal92]

Re: Sundance Festival 2019 - Controversial MJ Documentary "Leaving Neverland"

Keep emailing HBO & Channel 4 folks. Stick to the facts!

 

[Dudex]

Re: Sundance Festival 2019 - Controversial MJ Documentary "Leaving Neverland"

hasn't HBO already reconsidered to broadcast it?

 

[terrell]

Re: Sundance Festival 2019 - Controversial MJ Documentary "Leaving Neverland"

Wait, what? I don't want to get too happy just yet but this I didn't expect at all!

Hopefully vpro in Holland follows suit too, but I doubt it. It seems the rights have already been sold so vpro can just go ahead.

No, because facts are also starting to spread about these guys. Some people keep talking about MJ, NO, when this air, these guys will be examine as well. Sorry but this is no one for all IF it blows up. This will be far more examine. Look at what we are finding about with the National Equire. It is now being revealed how that paper blackmail people.

 

[KOPV]

Re: Sundance Festival 2019 - Controversial MJ Documentary "Leaving Neverland"

HBO reconsidering to documentary would be news to me.

 

[terrell]

Re: Sundance Festival 2019 - Controversial MJ Documentary "Leaving Neverland"

HBO reconsidering to documentary would be news to me.

Youm know how bad HBO will look if all the info we know on these two proven liars and HBO banked on them. HBO will look real bad.

 

[KOPV]

Re: Sundance Festival 2019 - Controversial MJ Documentary "Leaving Neverland"

I dont think hbo cares, theyd also probably be open to airing a rebuttle if it were presented.. they want the paycheck.

If the discovery and animal planet channels can air 'Mermaids: The bodies found" than HBO could air anything and present as fact.

 

[Staffordshire Bullterrier]

Re: Sundance Festival 2019 - Controversial MJ Documentary "Leaving Neverland"

No, because facts are also starting to spread about these guys. Some people keep talking about MJ, NO, when this air, these guys will be examine as well. Sorry but this is no one for all IF it blows up. This will be far more examine. Look at what we are finding about with the National Equire. It is now being revealed how that paper blackmail people.

That's true. But if HBO decides to not air it, you won't see me complain. On one hand it would be best if this is over as soon as possible. On the other hand it would be great if these two, or I should say three guys get fully examined and who knows, maybe they even could get a punishment of some kind. Wade for example is now lying, while he spoke the truth under oath. Isn't what he's doing against some rules?

I didn't know that about National Enquirer, but they were trash anyway, weren't they?

HBO reconsidering to documentary would be news to me.

According to this site it could happen. I didn't see other sites reporting on it but that's not really surprising, seeing how they are trashing MJ at every chance they get.

https://www.showbiz411.com/2019/02/...el-jackson-documentary-after-estate-complains

I do wonder what his source is and I hope so much it's true. Apparently HBO's documentary division is well respected. Well if that's the case they should know better when something is trash and when something is worth it.

 

[SmoothGangsta]

Re: Sundance Festival 2019 - Controversial MJ Documentary "Leaving Neverland"

The listing is apparently missing? I'm not really sure if that's what this means.

https://twitter.com/NeverlandFacts/status/1093637961248268288?s=19

 

[ILoveHIStory]

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="sk"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">MJ Family let’s Shut Down this Attack on MJ. Please Click see more and the link and learn about the project. <a href="https://twitter.com/tajjackson3?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@tajjackson3</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/IamKelleyParker?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@IamKelleyParker</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/jermjackson5?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@jermjackson5</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/michaeljackson?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@michaeljackson</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/ParisJackson?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@ParisJackson</a> <a href="https://t.co/aKXTfVNnJE">https://t.co/aKXTfVNnJE</a> <a href="https://t.co/91zsq2pOU6">pic.twitter.com/91zsq2pOU6</a></p>&mdash; KISHANTHA DE SILVA (@kishanthamj) <a href="https://twitter.com/kishanthamj/status/1093872292558450689?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">8. februára 2019</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

 

[terrell]

Re: Sundance Festival 2019 - Controversial MJ Documentary "Leaving Neverland"

Keep emailing HBO & Channel 4 folks. Stick to the facts!

Now that we know this maybe the case. start sending all video, reports, documents, etc of wade and james. We are the public too and we can call out these lies.