Ashtanga
Proud Member
Re: Frank Cascio to write memoir of his friend Michael Jackson / press release at pg12 / Nov 15 ,201
You took the words right out of my mouth. I was about to say something similar. There is no platform that will have the same impact as a 20/20 interview. Frank should have thought of that backlash from fans when he gave that interview. He is talking to one fan to help him out. As a friend of Michael he should be outraged about the interview and immediately come out with a big statement on his facebook or some other outlet. If I had a close friend and was going to write a book to correct misconceptions and a tv program edited my interview in a way that would harm my friend, I would be screaming from the roof tops on behalf of my friend. It seems it is not that important if he is waiting for Ivy so they could come up with a platform. I am not impressed.
He is talking to one fan to help him out.
As a friend of Michael he should be outraged about the interview and immediately come out with a big statement on his facebook or some other outlet. It seems it is not that important if he is waiting for Ivy so they could come up with a platform. I am not impressed.
Ivy, people's frustration and anger expressed here are never towards you. Honestly, I don't know how mesningful it is to have a platform or Q&A session. Fans are not the one who have misconceptions. It's the public who have misconceptions.he's not talking to me for help.he's not waiting for me either. we were trying to come up with a platform that everyone can ask questions and express their concerns. you don't want that and prefer a statement? am I in fault for trying to give you a chance to ask and talk?
do you want him to take back this?
But then there were, as Cascio calls them, the "random people" -- doctors, he said, who saw Jackson as "a money pit."
"They were just selfish, disgusting doctors that knew they would get paid," Cascio said. "They would, like, push [medications] on him because they knew he would pay them."
everyone seems to focus on only one part "situational addict" but fail to realize that he went to blame some doctors for his addiction issues and ended it with saying that Murray was the worst.
And is the public really giving Frank's comments that much attention? This is the only place I've seen it discussed heavily and raked over the coals.
The problem is these "explanations" now that he wants to do for the fans are ALSO self-serving, because he's worried that his sales will suffer after the backlash. He chose this time to promote his book during the trial deliberately, because the topic of "addiction" is at an all time high. He wasn't caring about MJ when he did that, he was caring about selling his book. And now worried the sales may suffer he wants to "explain himself" to the fans -- the only ones likely to buy his book. Again, I see a self-serving person, trying to sell a product at his "friend's" expense. Like you said, I'm not impressed.
and how do you know that? from your crystal ball?
if you must know he contacted me and we have been trying to come up with a platform that would allow him to express himself.
he does care.
There may not be a "right time" to discuss MJ's drug issues, but this certainly is the WORST possible time. Why during jury deliberations? He couldn't wait until the trial is over? Honestly? Don't tell me this isn't self-serving.
(BTW, there is no need to discuss MJ's drug issues at all quite frankly, no need whatsoever. Who really needs this and benefits from it, other the person discussing it and selling the product? Because it certainly isn't Michael)
Unless he "expresses himself" to the public at large (and potentially the jury), it is all moot IMO. The fans need no explanations, we know MJ had health issues and he wasn't stuffing himself with drugs for the heck of it. He can't undo what he did in that interview no matter how much he explains himself. The damage is done.
If he truly cared for MJ and not not only for himself, he should've waited a few days until the trial is over. It's the very least he could've done. It's too late now.
Then why does he refuse to answer the many respectable questions that we have asked him on twitter? Because he has something to hide thats why.
he's not talking to me for help.
he's not waiting for me either. we were trying to come up with a platform that everyone can ask questions and express their concerns. you don't want that and prefer a statement? am I in fault for trying to give you a chance to ask and talk?
fine I'll ask for a statement. I'm f*cking tired to try to bring something to you that you all can have a chance to express yourselves. What was I thinking?
Honestly, This part is also upsetting me. He did make MJ sounds like he was doctor shopping that the doctor would give MJ drugs because they know he would pay them like the media said. This sounds quite bad. I think it sound even worse than "situational addict" (which I really don't know what's that supposed to mean by Frank). I actually want him took back all the 20/20 interview. The whole tune just sounds like MJ did doctor shop and the doctor would give him whatever he wanted because of money. How does that sound good during this sensitive time? I really don't understand. I am not talking about the book but the whole interview just really make me really disappointed. For a long time, I like the Cascios, I do want to believe they are the ones truly care for MJ. However, what he said in 20/20 is really quite bad.
Ivy, 99.5% of people that watched 20/20 would not be able to distinguish the difference between long term drug addict and situational addict because they do not research Michael Jackson the way we do. To most, the misconception that Michael was an addict is reinforced.
What Janet said on her Robin Robert special is no better or worse than what Frank said on 20/20.
Frank may mean well, but it came out really bad.
Again, if it's inexcusable for Tito and Rebbie talked about intervention during trial, why it's somewhat okay for Frank to describe Michael as situational addict during jury deliberation?
May be if you see things from a non-fan's view, you'll see how bad Frank's interview was.
who are you kidding with the "respectable questions" part? when I run a search for him all I see is cursing.
Classic, no offense. Why don't you watch the actual 20/20 segment and see what Frank actually said?
Also, I dont think the public is actively discussing Tito and Rebbie's interview neither. So?
I just saw a documentary about Michael's concert in Moscow in 1993. During the whole film, the word "drug" is not used at all. We saw footage of orphanage visit. That smile of Michael when he held a baby said it all.
To me, it sounded as if Frank was talking about some doctors inserting themselves into Michael's life. I remember during the trial, there were plenty of people stating how they could help Michael with this or that if they could get in touch with him. Who was the person talking then about some compression machine that could help Michael? It was crazy and that is just from who we know about. If you are in pain or someone knows you suffer from chronic insomnia, they probably know that it would not be hard to convince you to try their services.
But, you did ask whether Frank used the term situational addict himself. If you have watched the segment, then you would know. Of course I know what Michael's legacy is. I'm talking about public misconception. Frank said he wanted to clear some misconceptions. I just don't see how if he was promoting his book with drug talk.No offense. But, I get what he said. He stated his observations, interactions, and feelings about a situation concerning Michael that is being heavily discussed right now. And the fact that you saw this documentary should tell you that Michael's legacy will not ever be about drugs and addictions no more than it will be about child molestation charges.
Personally? I PLEDGE not to discuss, speculate about, try to figure out, or seek more information about -- Michael and MEDICATIONS. I am NOT in denial that there were issues. I just want him to have the respect he truly deserves. I PLEDGE not to discuss it, nor read about it. I'm DONE. I'm going to choose to focus on the many wonderful and positive things about Michael, and I'm just so sorry he had so much pain, and so many challenges in his life. IMHO, Frank should not have said what he said, at any time, and especially at such a critical moment. He blew it, IMO, and that's the end of it for me. No "explanations" necessary, from him.
Agreed with Autumn. Why we feel we have the need to learn every single detail of the man's private life? All in the name of getting informed and knowing the truth. What we don't realized is that we are invading the privacy that the man valued so much in life. Do you think Michael would be happy to know that his friend told the world that he too pills away from him?
I think, as a fanbase, we have some soul searching to do.
In so many way, Michael Jackson is his music. Learning and studying his artistry is the beat way to get to know Michael Jackson. What Frank said is WIND.
That's why I react the way I react as well. I watched the 20/20 with my friend. Her first comment "Gee. MJ was such a druggie."Again, the average Joe will not interpret Frank's words the way Classic and Ivy do here.Ha, I guess, it's the interpretation from different people. I think it might go either way. My father watched the 20/20 with me and he said I am in denial that MJ likes to doctor shop for years and even one of my best friend say so. That's why I feel more and more frustrated and anger over with his interview. SIGH....
I'm just voicing out my opinion. There is no need to blow my comment out of proportion.Then you will support stripping this site of everything about Michael that is not music related?
He blew it, IMO, and that's the end of it for me. No "explanations" necessary, from him.
But, you did ask whether Frank used the term situational addict himself. If you have watched the segment, then you would know. Of course I know what Michael's legacy is. I'm talking about public misconception. Frank said he wanted to clear some misconceptions. I just don't see how if he was promoting his book with drug talk.
Ha, I guess, it's the interpretation from different people. I think it might go either way. My father watched the 20/20 with me and he said I am in denial that MJ likes to doctor shop for years and even one of my best friend say so. That's why I feel more and more frustrated and anger over with his interview. SIGH....
Maybe what you think is the misconception and what Frank thinks is the misconception are two different things because he was there. What do you define is the misconception?