Controversial MJ Documentary Leaving Neverland [GENERAL DISCUSSION THREAD]

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

This is not an ordinary person that TSCM, obviously you dont know much about the 2003/2005+ people/fans involved in monstrous pages debunking all the lies and analyzing the court facts and evidence.

TSCM was behind one of the biggest if not the biggest justice project during and after the trial, TSCM has got aloooooot of evidence and great facts.

The MJ Estate should know about those people/fans, somebody should give Taj jackson all the names and twitter account and links to pages and the Estate should literally hire them, pay them for their decades-lasting work for justice, and create the real justice team and then fight

I would suggest it could be even better if there was a real trial with/against Robson and Safechuck, such a trial would be the best way to debunk all the conspiracy, without Michael, but now, it may have been a real massacre for them

Oh but don't get me wrong. It was exactly when the new allegations happened that I started to do my research. I was on here by that time already and through here found the website that had insane amounts of information. I started with Chandler all up to the then current family. It was incredibly eye opening for me. Before all that I had not really bothered much with trying to find facts because I've always believed in the man's innocence. I must have forgotten the names of the people that made the website, it was quite a long time ago too.

But thanks for letting me know. I do recall TSCM being around on MJJC too, am I right?

Just now I watched a few videos by a YouTube channel called The amazing Lucas. This one was about Jussie Smollett and was really good. Let's see if he's gonna cover this trash.
 
Re: Sundance Festival 2019 - Controversial MJ Documentary "Leaving Neverland"

Oh but don't get me wrong. It was exactly when the new allegations happened that I started to do my research. I was on here by that time already and through here found the website that had insane amounts of information. I started with Chandler all up to the then current family. It was incredibly eye opening for me. Before all that I had not really bothered much with trying to find facts because I've always believed in the man's innocence. I must have forgotten the names of the people that made the website, it was quite a long time ago too.

But thanks for letting me know. I do recall TSCM being around on MJJC too, am I right?

Just now I watched a few videos by a YouTube channel called The amazing Lucas. This one was about Jussie Smollett and was really good. Let's see if he's gonna cover this trash.
Clearly those are trolls.
When people ask U why do you care so much, you ask them why do U care to come into a post about someone u know nothing about or the facts of his case? Now, I am ready for this trash to come on out now so we can take it down.
Those fools can say what they want but just because they say they think MJ was guilty does not make it so.
 
Re: Sundance Festival 2019 - Controversial MJ Documentary "Leaving Neverland"

Clearly those are trolls.
When people ask U why do you care so much, you ask them why do U care to come into a post about someone u know nothing about or the facts of his case? Now, I am ready for this trash to come on out now so we can take it down.
Those fools can say what they want but just because they say they think MJ was guilty does not make it so.

Yeah, trolls will always be out there. I'm like Emmanuel Lewis, I just ignored the allegations now because the truth is out there now. That's old news.
 
Re: Sundance Festival 2019 - Controversial MJ Documentary "Leaving Neverland"

This is not an ordinary person that TSCM, obviously you dont know much about the 2003/2005+ people/fans involved in monstrous pages debunking all the lies and analyzing the court facts and evidence.

TSCM was behind one of the biggest if not the biggest justice project during and after the trial, TSCM has got aloooooot of evidence and great facts.

The MJ Estate should know about those people/fans, somebody should give Taj jackson all the names and twitter account and links to pages and the Estate should literally hire them, pay them for their decades-lasting work for justice, and create the real justice team and then fight

I would suggest it could be even better if there was a real trial with/against Robson and Safechuck, such a trial would be the best way to debunk all the conspiracy, without Michael, but now, it may have been a real massacre for them

And the church said amen? TS and ppl like respect should be hired by the estate and taj as their knowledge via court documents is unbeatable. They are fountains of knowledge when it comes to info about all the court cases. Unfortunatly the estate dont seem to care.other than putting out pointless letters. They seemingly cant even be bothered to do the basics like hiring a P.R company to fight the horrendous propaganda been put put by the blue tick brigade on twitter. It wouldnt be so bad if there was not the mountain of evidence showing up all the lies. Yet there is and still the lack of basic action against the propaganda is something to be seen.
 
Last edited:
Re: Sundance Festival 2019 - Controversial MJ Documentary "Leaving Neverland"

I still dont understand why taj needs our money to fund his documentary surely they have enough money for it
 
I think the media are beeing paid then they keep saying ”watch the film” and ”look into their enes”. The only way to get away with this is to make it all about emotions and to draw the attention away from any kind of facts.
 
La74;4241701 said:
I think the media are beeing paid then they keep saying ”watch the film” and ”look into their enes”. The only way to get away with this is to make it all about emotions and to draw the attention away from any kind of facts.

Of course, the so called-media will say anything, just for clicks and views. "Look into their rehearsed eyes"! I bet the two idiots couldn`t stop laughing between takes. They don`t want people debunking their lies before the doc airs, they would lose views and money from advertising.

On another note: funniest thing I`ve read today was that Bubbles was in such a state, that he wanted to commit suicide. Man, the bullsh*t these people print!! It gets me thinking that, maybe, there are more brainless people out there than I have imagined.
 
Re: Sundance Festival 2019 - Controversial MJ Documentary "Leaving Neverland"

I still dont understand why taj needs our money to fund his documentary surely they have enough money for it

When did the jacksons ever pay for anything. Even janet wouldnt pay for her own mothers toliet roll when she stayed with her. Instead billing the estate
 
La74;4241701 said:
I think the media are beeing paid then they keep saying ”watch the film” and ”look into their enes”. The only way to get away with this is to make it all about emotions and to draw the attention away from any kind of facts.
I agree. Look, it is the same media outlets who trash MJ. Someone is being paid to do this trash.
 
Re: Sundance Festival 2019 - Controversial MJ Documentary "Leaving Neverland"

Uk media etc getting viewing now. BBC radio five afternoon presenter tweeting at the viewing anouncing interview on his show with reed. has retweeted vogul article in past weeks. No doubt now getting brainwashed.

But that should not always happen, if this person retweeted that article by Vogel it should mean he/she knows about both W&S now. More so about Robson compared to Safechuck, he/she would need to read the estate letter for more on Safechuck. But also retweeting something indicates that this person thinks highly of it.

This director isn't some kind of magician that can just change the mind of this person just like that. This person should stay objective and take everything he/she has read and knows now into account.

Let's hope this person will.

Yeah I get you on that. But the fact that this media person retweeted it hopefully means something. Maybe the mind of this person isn't so easy to sway and will actually ask some very tough questions to Reed, you never know.

At the same time I doubt it too. On the other hand never say never I guess. Because again, look at how quickly people turned on Jussie Smollett now, now that seems to be mostly thanks to the police who clearly informed the media about their updates on the investigation. And MJ won't get that, we won't get that. We can only hope to have at least ONE objective journalist who isn't so easy to fool.

The person you are referring to is Nihal Arthanayake. He appeared on the Jeremy Vine show a day or two before the Sundance premier and was very clear that he considered Robson and Safechuck as victims and that MJ is a paedophile. when a lady caller phoned in and mentioned the acquittal he stated that MJ paid the boy off. when she corrected him he spoke over her and told her that MJ DID pay the boy off. Of course we all know he factually wrong because the settlement was paid to Chandler, AND even if the discussion was about Chandler he would STILL be wrong because the payment didn't prevent MJ going to trial. Nihal Arthanayake is not an ally in any sense.

I contacted him via Twitter and refused to respond. He also had a spat on Twitter with Charles Thomson last night.

Don't hound him over the Vine show now because that's in the past. It's done.

He NOW claims to be seeking an objective opinion, and yes he has been tweeting Vogel so just in case he has changed, no need to aggrivate him further, just politely submit questions and facts.
Having said that, I don't trust him at all. I hope I'm wrong and he has actually changed his thinking, but I think if you listen to his show on BBC Radio 5 live you'll find him kissing Dan Reed's ass.

I have contacted the BBC and told them that they should be including an expert on the Robson/Safechuck civil case to provide a balanced coverage of the allegations within the documentary but I doubt they'll respond or ensure an expert is present. SO I recommend that people DO listen to the BBC Radio 5 interview and they contact the show relentlessly with appropriate questions and facts to put to Dan Reed.

Dan is NOT well prepared for challenge based on the interviews he has given so far and any informed MJ fan could easily expose his documentary as the one-sided propoganda piece that it is. BUT we need to be actively engaged to do that. No good avoiding it and moaning when they trash MJ yet again.
 
Last edited:
Re: Sundance Festival 2019 - Controversial MJ Documentary "Leaving Neverland"

Looks like they will be showing the documentary here in australia soon! i am beyond mad right now :angry: :angry:
 
Re: Sundance Festival 2019 - Controversial MJ Documentary "Leaving Neverland"

The person you are referring to is Nihal Arthanayake. He appeared on the Jeremy Vine show a day or two before the Sundance premier and was very clear that he considered Robson and Safechuck as victims and that MJ is a paedophile. when a lady caller phoned in and mentioned the acquittal he stated that MJ paid the boy off. when she corrected him he spoke over her and told her that MJ DID pay the boy off. Of course we all know he factually wrong because the settlement was paid to Chandler, AND even if the discussion was about Chandler he would STILL be wrong because the payment didn't prevent MJ going to trial. Nihal Arthanayake is not an ally in any sense.

I contacted him via Twitter and refused to respond. He also had a spat on Twitter with Charles Thomson last night.

Don't hound him over the Vine show now because that's in the past. It's done.

He NOW claims to be seeking an objective opinion, and yes he has been tweeting Vogel so just in case he has changed, no need to aggrivate him further, just politely submit questions and facts.
Having said that, I don't trust him at all. I hope I'm wrong and he has actually changed his thinking, but I think if you listen to his show on BBC Radio 5 live you'll find him kissing Dan Reed's ass.

I have contacted the BBC and told them that they should be including an expert on the Robson/Safechuck civil case to provide a balanced coverage of the allegations within the documentary but I doubt they'll respond or ensure an expert is present. SO I recommend that people DO listen to the BBC Radio 5 interview and they contact the show relentlessly with appropriate questions and facts to put to Dan Reed.

Dan is NOT well prepared for challenge based on the interviews he has given so far and any informed MJ fan could easily expose his documentary as the one-sided propoganda piece that it is. BUT we need to be actively engaged to do that. No good avoiding it and moaning when they trash MJ yet again.

Definitely sounds like a person we should be wary of then. He may have spoken with Vogel and retweeted his article but who's to say Dan Reed won't convince him in the interview? I've never seen anything of Dan Reed, no interview, nothing. But what if he's really good at steering the interview away from tough questions? Something like...the interviewer brings up the fact Robson has a history of lying, then Reed will simply refer to his moc and say a "expert" said this is normal for a victim of such things.

We need some programs on TV that bring experts and have them analyze the whole thing and also cover all the facts no media source has spoken about at all. Only then MJ's legacy stands a real chance. It wouldn't surprise me one bit if the majority of media will go with "these guys have been through something unthinkable, it's normal in these cases that they will first double down on lies until they just break and have to come out."

With any other celebrity really I wouldn't be surprised that they would do some actual research and report on that but it's MJ and through all these years I think we've learned we just can't ever trust the media when it's about him. Maybe I'm too negative now, I really really hope so.
 
Someone asked 'Where is the Estate PR for Michael?' (I can't find the post right now, my apologies).

Well, this article (below) was released by the Estate last night, with a request to share it widely, so I guess this IS the PR. (Articles by fans and 'MJ writers').

It helps, but it is really not strong enough for fans to be able to counter the weight of the BIASED media. It really needs 'heavyweight' interviewees 'on the ground'. I hope that we'll be seeing Estate legal reps or similar being interviewed by reputable media (in the UK and Europe) at some point. It shouldn't be too difficult with satellite TV connections? Just needs someone to give them the airtime. But wouldn't it be great if some of the 'influencers' who are invited to MJ promo events (eg like the MJ On The Wall' NPG exhibition at the portrait gallery in London less than a year ago) spoke out? I think these events are also supposed to be 'MJ PR'...but I'm not feeling or seeing much that is positive for MJ from these so-called influencers in the UK....???

Anyway, here is the article shared by the Estate:
(Edited to add the Estate's comments: Many of you have seen this article posted by a member of the fan community, but continuing to amplify these voices plays an important part in the battle against the lies in Leaving Neverland. While the Estate continues to work tirelessly to ensure that these accusations do not go unanswered, please share again to your socials and help educate those outside the immediate fan community.)

https://www.cornwalllive.com/news/c...POyY0e6tXgy8ISSu6vkTkircJEGIL7hnkMC6jZQ7CCI_0

Michael Jackson Leaving Neverland documentary and why we shouldn't be free to destroy the reputations of the dead

When anguished pop superstar Michael Jackson died some ten years ago there was hope in many quarters that he had found peace at last.
But even in death, scandal continues to torment him. First came the ongoing controversy over the legitimacy of three songs on a posthumous album.

Then, in May 2013, a choreographer who Jackson befriended in the late 1980s went on television to allege that he had been sexually abused by Jackson when he was a child.
The man, Wade Robson, had previously testified under oath in defence of Jackson in the 2005 child molestation trial, claiming Jackson had “never” touched him.

But when Jackson was no longer around to defend himself, Robson changed his mind, citing a repressed memory. He was later joined in his accusations by another young Jackson friend, James Safechuck.
Robson and Safechuck sued Michael Jackson's Estate and then the companies it controlled. But in December 2017 a judge dismissed the lawsuit, ruling that they had filed it too late.

The Michael Jackson Estate claimed it was “always about the money rather than a search for the truth".

But Robson and Safechuck weren’t done there. Last week, news broke that HBO and Channel 4 had produced a documentary accusing Jackson of sexually abusing pair of young boys.
Titled Leaving Neverland, the two-part film will debut at the famed Sundance Film Festival in Utah, USA, later this month and then air on the respective networks this spring.
“Two boys, now in their 30s, tell the story of how they were sexually abused by Jackson, and how they came to terms with it years later,” the synopsis said.

Anyone reading this who has no knowledge of these accusers and their case would assume this abuse happened as a matter of fact.
But there is zero evidence that it did, these are merely claims.
Jackson can’t defend himself and his estate and family possess no powers to stop the documentary from being released.

Everything under the sun can be said by the media about dead individuals like Jackson and there is nothing anyone can do about it.
So why is it that we are free to destroy the reputations of those who are no longer with us?

Under law in the UK and the US, the dead cannot be defamed. This is because the view is that reputation is a personal right which ceases to exist when a person dies and it can no longer be damaged.
Defamation is also deemed to be a personal legal action which cannot be assigned or brought on someone’s behalf.

Jackson's nephew speaks out on the documentary:
(Twitter quote)

TJ Jackson @tjjackson
It will always be a flaw of humanity to cheat and exploit a beloved popular figure for personal gain. Do know the main actors involved swore under oath of my uncle’s innocence. What’s changed? The need for $. I feel terrible for my uncle & my cousins. They are the true victims.

Rolling Stone @RollingStone
Michael Jackson's estate calls upcoming documentary on sexual abuse allegations "another rehash of dated and discredited allegations" and "pathetic attempt to exploit and cash in on" singer https://rol.st/2CZxA43

But while Jackson might be dead there’s still a huge amount at stake.

Most importantly the impact of such heinous allegations on his children, who will be profoundly affected by more assertions that their father was a child abuser.

Jackson’s reputation around the globe also made a steady recovery since that damaging trial in 2005 which saw him acquitted of all charges.

When Jackson announced his mega comeback in early 2009 he was viewed as the King of Pop once more and his death only enhanced that notion further. Now people speak more of Jackson’s music and legacy than the circus that was his personal life.
But this documentary will undo much of that progress.

So is there any hope for the family? As relatives of Jackson do they have any rights?

Interestingly, when ruling on a case in 2014 ( Putitstin v Ukraine ) in which the applicant complained that his dead father had been defamed in an article, the European Court of Human Rights accepted that the reputation of a deceased member of a person’s family may come within the scope of article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
This is because the reputation may, in certain circumstances, affect a living relative’s right to respect for a private and family life.

In the case of Putitstin v Ukraine the applicant lost the case on the grounds that the impact on him was very little.
While rejecting the case the court said that a claim on the basis of breaching a person’s rights to a private and family life could have succeeded.
But although the European Court has considered a number of cases that related to the reputations of deceased individuals, as yet, none have succeeded.

I can hear the chorus of cries - what about Jimmy Savile? Yes, it was only in death that his horrific crimes were truly uncovered and that his victims felt able to come forward.
But there’s a marked difference.
After Savile’s death police launched a criminal investigation into allegations of child sex abuse spanning six decades.
Officers pursued more than 400 lines of inquiry based on the testimony of 300 potential victims from 14 police forces across the UK.

If the authorities were investigating Jackson post-death, if there was evidence of wrongdoing this would be an entirely different scenario. There could be no complaints.
But the media have a responsibility to ensure that what is published or broadcast is true.
Without the evidence how can HBO and Channel 4 be sure that Robson and Safechuck were indeed abused?

Of course the grievances of relatives, and fans in this case, should not have an impact on the uncovering of uncomfortable truths through investigative journalism.
But therein lies the problem - no investigative journalism or police investigation has uncovered any wrongdoing by Jackson.
So even in the absence of evidence, the media has the power to make the world believe that people like Jackson are sinister characters.

That doesn’t sit right with me.

Reporter and author Mike Smallcombe has written about Michael Jackson for several years, including the biography Making Michael.
 
Last edited:
Re: Sundance Festival 2019 - Controversial MJ Documentary "Leaving Neverland"

The person you are referring to is Nihal Arthanayake. He appeared on the Jeremy Vine show a day or two before the Sundance premier and was very clear that he considered Robson and Safechuck as victims and that MJ is a paedophile. when a lady caller phoned in and mentioned the acquittal he stated that MJ paid the boy off. when she corrected him he spoke over her and told her that MJ DID pay the boy off. Of course we all know he factually wrong because the settlement was paid to Chandler, AND even if the discussion was about Chandler he would STILL be wrong because the payment didn't prevent MJ going to trial. Nihal Arthanayake is not an ally in any sense.

I contacted him via Twitter and refused to respond. He also had a spat on Twitter with Charles Thomson last night.

Don't hound him over the Vine show now because that's in the past. It's done.

He NOW claims to be seeking an objective opinion, and yes he has been tweeting Vogel so just in case he has changed, no need to aggrivate him further, just politely submit questions and facts.
Having said that, I don't trust him at all. I hope I'm wrong and he has actually changed his thinking, but I think if you listen to his show on BBC Radio 5 live you'll find him kissing Dan Reed's ass.

I have contacted the BBC and told them that they should be including an expert on the Robson/Safechuck civil case to provide a balanced coverage of the allegations within the documentary but I doubt they'll respond or ensure an expert is present. SO I recommend that people DO listen to the BBC Radio 5 interview and they contact the show relentlessly with appropriate questions and facts to put to Dan Reed.

Dan is NOT well prepared for challenge based on the interviews he has given so far and any informed MJ fan could easily expose his documentary as the one-sided propoganda piece that it is. BUT we need to be actively engaged to do that. No good avoiding it and moaning when they trash MJ yet again.
Thanks for the info on him. I know of him but never listen to his show as i found him frankly annoying from the first time he started on radio 5. Listened alot before then He sounds like he should be presenting kids t.v. prefer world at one on rad 4 boring old git here! I don expect anything from any of them the fact they have been invited on the show to give it P.R says it all for me. Talk about dumbing down
 
Re: Sundance Festival 2019 - Controversial MJ Documentary "Leaving Neverland"

The estate should be hiring a high end P.R firm to be ruthless. To do what they are doing to mj.go all out to destroy reed and the case. Heck the hard work has been done for them. All the evidence is there. Tweeting the odd article from tiny local uk newspapers shows how one sided this all is. Maybe they will start to care if the musical never gets off the ground amongst other things but then it will be to late. If the estate was that bothered they would bring out the big guns but we have seen nothing bar a couple of letters that i bet had them shaking in their boots. Not!
 
myosotis;4241712 said:
Someone asked 'Where is the Estate PR for Michael?' (I can't find the post right now, my apologies).

Well, this article (below) was released by the Estate last night, with a request to share it widely, so I guess this IS the PR. (Articles by fans and 'MJ writers').

It helps, but it is really not strong enough for fans to be able to counter the weight of the BIASED media. It really needs 'heavyweight' interviewees 'on the ground'. I hope that we'll be seeing Estate legal reps or similar being interviewed by reputable media (in the UK and Europe) at some point. It shouldn't be too difficult with satellite TV connections? Just needs someone to give them the airtime. But wouldn't it be great if some of the 'influencers' who are invited to MJ promo events (eg like the MJ On The Wall' NPG exhibition at the portrait gallery in London less than a year ago) spoke out? I think these events are also supposed to be 'MJ PR'...but I'm not feeling or seeing much that is positive for MJ from these so-called influencers in the UK....???

Anyway, here is the article shared by the Estate:

https://www.cornwalllive.com/news/c...POyY0e6tXgy8ISSu6vkTkircJEGIL7hnkMC6jZQ7CCI_0

Michael Jackson Leaving Neverland documentary and why we shouldn't be free to destroy the reputations of the dead

When anguished pop superstar Michael Jackson died some ten years ago there was hope in many quarters that he had found peace at last.
But even in death, scandal continues to torment him. First came the ongoing controversy over the legitimacy of three songs on a posthumous album.

Then, in May 2013, a choreographer who Jackson befriended in the late 1980s went on television to allege that he had been sexually abused by Jackson when he was a child.
The man, Wade Robson, had previously testified under oath in defence of Jackson in the 2005 child molestation trial, claiming Jackson had “never” touched him.

But when Jackson was no longer around to defend himself, Robson changed his mind, citing a repressed memory. He was later joined in his accusations by another young Jackson friend, James Safechuck.
Robson and Safechuck sued Michael Jackson's Estate and then the companies it controlled. But in December 2017 a judge dismissed the lawsuit, ruling that they had filed it too late.

The Michael Jackson Estate claimed it was “always about the money rather than a search for the truth".

But Robson and Safechuck weren’t done there. Last week, news broke that HBO and Channel 4 had produced a documentary accusing Jackson of sexually abusing pair of young boys.
Titled Leaving Neverland, the two-part film will debut at the famed Sundance Film Festival in Utah, USA, later this month and then air on the respective networks this spring.
“Two boys, now in their 30s, tell the story of how they were sexually abused by Jackson, and how they came to terms with it years later,” the synopsis said.

Anyone reading this who has no knowledge of these accusers and their case would assume this abuse happened as a matter of fact.
But there is zero evidence that it did, these are merely claims.
Jackson can’t defend himself and his estate and family possess no powers to stop the documentary from being released.

Everything under the sun can be said by the media about dead individuals like Jackson and there is nothing anyone can do about it.
So why is it that we are free to destroy the reputations of those who are no longer with us?

Under law in the UK and the US, the dead cannot be defamed. This is because the view is that reputation is a personal right which ceases to exist when a person dies and it can no longer be damaged.
Defamation is also deemed to be a personal legal action which cannot be assigned or brought on someone’s behalf.

Jackson's nephew speaks out on the documentary:
(Twitter quote)



But while Jackson might be dead there’s still a huge amount at stake.

Most importantly the impact of such heinous allegations on his children, who will be profoundly affected by more assertions that their father was a child abuser.

Jackson’s reputation around the globe also made a steady recovery since that damaging trial in 2005 which saw him acquitted of all charges.

When Jackson announced his mega comeback in early 2009 he was viewed as the King of Pop once more and his death only enhanced that notion further. Now people speak more of Jackson’s music and legacy than the circus that was his personal life.
But this documentary will undo much of that progress.

So is there any hope for the family? As relatives of Jackson do they have any rights?

Interestingly, when ruling on a case in 2014 ( Putitstin v Ukraine ) in which the applicant complained that his dead father had been defamed in an article, the European Court of Human Rights accepted that the reputation of a deceased member of a person’s family may come within the scope of article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
This is because the reputation may, in certain circumstances, affect a living relative’s right to respect for a private and family life.

In the case of Putitstin v Ukraine the applicant lost the case on the grounds that the impact on him was very little.
While rejecting the case the court said that a claim on the basis of breaching a person’s rights to a private and family life could have succeeded.
But although the European Court has considered a number of cases that related to the reputations of deceased individuals, as yet, none have succeeded.

I can hear the chorus of cries - what about Jimmy Savile? Yes, it was only in death that his horrific crimes were truly uncovered and that his victims felt able to come forward.
But there’s a marked difference.
After Savile’s death police launched a criminal investigation into allegations of child sex abuse spanning six decades.
Officers pursued more than 400 lines of inquiry based on the testimony of 300 potential victims from 14 police forces across the UK.

If the authorities were investigating Jackson post-death, if there was evidence of wrongdoing this would be an entirely different scenario. There could be no complaints.
But the media have a responsibility to ensure that what is published or broadcast is true.
Without the evidence how can HBO and Channel 4 be sure that Robson and Safechuck were indeed abused?

Of course the grievances of relatives, and fans in this case, should not have an impact on the uncovering of uncomfortable truths through investigative journalism.
But therein lies the problem - no investigative journalism or police investigation has uncovered any wrongdoing by Jackson.
So even in the absence of evidence, the media has the power to make the world believe that people like Jackson are sinister characters.

That doesn’t sit right with me.

Reporter and author Mike Smallcombe has written about Michael Jackson for several years, including the biography Making Michael.

This is lacking some very important key details. One is the fact that the FBI had done a ten year investigation on MJ and they found nothing. Another is the fact that not only did Robson indeed defend MJ all the way in 2005, he also has a long history of lying about many things, calling himself the master of deception and so on.

Three,.... nothing on Safechuck? That letter did touch on information about him. It should have been included here. This is rather really weak honestly.
 
Re: Sundance Festival 2019 - Controversial MJ Documentary "Leaving Neverland"

The estate should be hiring a high end P.R firm to be ruthless. To do what they are doing to mj.go all out to destroy reed and the case.
I'm wondering if they are that unprofessional/clueless, or simply this kind of counter-attack is not advised now in this mee-too era (they can be accused of "blaming the victim" right away).
 
Re: Sundance Festival 2019 - Controversial MJ Documentary "Leaving Neverland"

you can voice your options to Alicia Yaffe : [FONT=&quot]alicia@mjonlineteam.com[/FONT]
 
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="und" dir="ltr">&#55357;&#56391;&#55357;&#56391;&#55357;&#56391;&#55357;&#56391;&#55357;&#56391; <a href="https://t.co/w0mI0v0ras">https://t.co/w0mI0v0ras</a></p>&mdash; andjustice4some (@andjustice4some) <a href="https://twitter.com/andjustice4some/status/1097335522949705728?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">February 18, 2019</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
 
Re: Sundance Festival 2019 - Controversial MJ Documentary "Leaving Neverland"

The estate should be hiring a high end P.R firm to be ruthless. To do what they are doing to mj.go all out to destroy reed and the case. Heck the hard work has been done for them. All the evidence is there. Tweeting the odd article from tiny local uk newspapers shows how one sided this all is. Maybe they will start to care if the musical never gets off the ground amongst other things but then it will be to late. If the estate was that bothered they would bring out the big guns but we have seen nothing bar a couple of letters that i bet had them shaking in their boots. Not!

I agree. Reputation management is an expertise on its own. Privately-run companies have been sunk by their owners trying to do everything themselves. Gerald Ratner being a case in point. (He all-but sank his own UK-wide Jewellery co. with one remark in a speech).
It doesn't matter how many hours MJ fans spend on twitter responding to journalists with an agenda- we just don't have access to the headlines or to the major internet pages. Fans are doing a fantastic job online, and I hope that the public will actually read the evidence that is being posted there. But it is an unfair and heavily-weighted situation in the media's direction, and they know it. I'm especially disappointed at the 'Guardian' journalists who have sided with Reed and against the evidence. And if BBC journalists (like Nihil) are taking the tabloid line, that's almost a 'last bastion' of truth gone, right there.

We can but hope that the public are more insightful than the press give them credit for.
 
Re: Sundance Festival 2019 - Controversial MJ Documentary "Leaving Neverland"

Nathan Cavaleri who spended time with MJ as a child came forward and defended MJ:

 
ILoveHIStory;4241725 said:
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="und" dir="ltr">&#65533;&#65533;&#65533;&#65533;&#65533;&#65533;&#65533;&#65533;&#65533;&#65533; <a href="https://t.co/w0mI0v0ras">https://t.co/w0mI0v0ras</a></p>&#8212; andjustice4some (@andjustice4some) <a href="https://twitter.com/andjustice4some/status/1097335522949705728?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">February 18, 2019</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

Here&#8217;s Priscilla Presley openly admitting she & Elvis shared &#8216;passionate kisses&#8217; when she was only 14 & he was 24. In 2019, Elvis is getting a star studded TRIBUTE show on NBC. Michael Jackson is getting a 4 hour HIT PIECE with provable lies by 2 perjurers. Sounds about white.
 
Re: Sundance Festival 2019 - Controversial MJ Documentary "Leaving Neverland"

I still dont understand why taj needs our money to fund his documentary surely they have enough money for it

Taj is not rich. You can't just assume because he's a Jackson other Jacksons will just hand him money. I'm sure Janet could pay for it, but you know how that goes.
 
Re: Sundance Festival 2019 - Controversial MJ Documentary "Leaving Neverland"


Really good piece. Problem is that these pieces are all so long, which is very understandable but the masses aren't gonna bother with that. I already know they won't. Man if there only was a simple way to ensure everyone out there knows about all these things beforehand, before LN airs in March.

We have so many different kinds of social media today but still not a way to post something and have it be visible for EVERY Facebook, Twitter user, right? If I post something on FB and Twitter, only my friends and followers will see that, correct? A shame. The whole world should be able to see what I post if I chose to do so.

Because the issue here is, people on my FB know very well that I've been a supporter and fan of MJ since I was a youngster and therefore will always see me as biased.

I also wouldn't be surprised at all if most people look at us like they we are the same as supporters of Bill Cosby, or supporters/fans of R Kelly, or fans that wrote love letters to Marc Dutroux and so on. Which couldn't be more wrong.
 
Re: Sundance Festival 2019 - Controversial MJ Documentary "Leaving Neverland"

I agree. Reputation management is an expertise on its own. Privately-run companies have been sunk by their owners trying to do everything themselves. Gerald Ratner being a case in point. (He all-but sank his own UK-wide Jewellery co. with one remark in a speech).
It doesn't matter how many hours MJ fans spend on twitter responding to journalists with an agenda- we just don't have access to the headlines or to the major internet pages. Fans are doing a fantastic job online, and I hope that the public will actually read the evidence that is being posted there. But it is an unfair and heavily-weighted situation in the media's direction, and they know it. I'm especially disappointed at the 'Guardian' journalists who have sided with Reed and against the evidence. And if BBC journalists (like Nihil) are taking the tabloid line, that's almost a 'last bastion' of truth gone, right there.

We can but hope that the public are more insightful than the press give them credit for.


Well said.post of the week ?
 
Re: Sundance Festival 2019 - Controversial MJ Documentary "Leaving Neverland"

It's difficult for me to see members of Michael's family act like nothing is wrong while people call Michael a monster. Taj is on his own, in my view it just looks awful. Maybe it's me I don't know
 
Is anyone in touch with the estate in any way at all? Can we ask them to explain why on earth they haven’t hired a PR or spokesperson on this? At the moment you can’t really blame the tv stations for not showing any counter argument to all this - who are they even going to ask to provide one? Jermaine can’t go embarrassing himself again. The estate needs a professional on this ASAP
 
Elusive have you got a link to back up that Janet and the toilet paper comment? wasn’t sure if you were being sarcastic or if it’s actually true. Says it all about Janet that I really wouldn’t put it past her
 
MJJ2theMAX;4241738 said:
Is anyone in touch with the estate in any way at all? Can we ask them to explain why on earth they haven&#8217;t hired a PR or spokesperson on this? At the moment you can&#8217;t really blame the tv stations for not showing any counter argument to all this - who are they even going to ask to provide one? Jermaine can&#8217;t go embarrassing himself again. The estate needs a professional on this ASAP



alicia@mjonlineteam.com
 
Back
Top