The funny thing is Freidman's article about Jermaine's book is one of the reasons that I decided to give it a chance. I said that if Freidman hates it, Jermaine must have done something right. LOL.^^Maybe love. It's love of something, maybe money. Notice when he did a review of Jermaine's the tone was much different. He schoffed at Jermaine belief that the children were Michael and other things. Now everything in Frank's book is good and fans should read it. The day I listen to Roger to help me make a moral and ethical dicision, you all can call the mental health authorities.
How many people in the general public will go back and read previous articles though?I know what he says in his article but it's also obvious what he means from his previous articles that he wrote about the same subject and from the information we have from the trial. They don't count?
The funny thing is Freidman's article about Jermaine's book is one of the reasons that I decided to give it a chance. I said that if Freidman hates it, Jermaine must have done something right. LOL.
Friedbrain writing positive or semi-positive article on Michael is nothing new, he's pretty much done a 180 ever since Michael died.
Personally, I've never been a person to just let go of the past; not just when it comes to Michael, so I'll never be able to forgive and forget as I lack on maturity, Friedbrain contributed to a fair share of media cruelty and nastiness throughout the last decade, so nothing he says or does now, will ever take away the fact that he's a low life scum.Although it's hard to forget the past and a damn shame he couldn't before Michael died, this ^^^ is a good thing, isn't it?
How many people in the general public will go back and read previous articles though?
Friedbrain writing positive or semi-positive article on Michael is nothing new, he's pretty much done a 180 ever since Michael died.
Although it's hard to forget the past and a damn shame he couldn't before Michael died, this ^^^ is a good thing, isn't it?
Personally, I've never been a person to just let go of the past; not just when it comes to Michael, so I'll never be able to forgive and forget as I lack on maturity, Friedbrain contributed to a fair share of media cruelty and nastiness throughout the last decade, so nothing he says or does now, will ever take away the fact that he's a low life scum.
That's the only thing I give him credit for. Apart from that his ''exclusives'' were horrible, and the saddest part was that a lot of other media picked up his dirty little stories.that's not an excuse for us fans to be ignorant, is it?
You must give credit when it's due. Friedman always wrote Michael wasn't a pedophile. He was one of the few people that said the trial was a absolute sham by the DA.
yes they did. let me quote the author
Q: Jobs could be notoriously difficult. Did you wind up liking him in the end?
Isaacson: Yes, I liked him and was inspired by him. But I knew he could be unkind and rough. These things can go together. When my book first came out, some people skimmed it quickly and cherry-picked the examples of his being rude to people. But that was only half the story. Fortunately, as people read the whole book, they saw the theme of the narrative: He could be petulant and rough, but this was driven by his passion and pursuit of perfection. He liked people to stand up to him, and he said that brutal honesty was required to be part of his team. And the teams he built became extremely loyal and inspired.
I watched tens of show talking about how "bad" he was. So it happens to anyone and every book. That's how media acts.
you clearly didn't watch Gest documentary. They go on to mention how perfectly he performed.
Wait for what? Fact is we have the press making their negative headlines again based on Frank's interview and book. This is already done. I don't care for anything else Frank has to say. He fed the media with giving them "his truth" and helped them making money with trashing Michael. This is just disgusting.I know the headlines are cause for concern but WE, more than any other group should know to wait until we can gather more information before judging, that's all.
A real true and honest portrait of Michael? Who says Frank can give us that? How can I trust someone who is involved in the much discussed song controversy, who neither gives us proof nor willing to discuss this issue? How can I trust someone who says that Michael married Lisa Marie to please the Arabs? How can I trust someone who says he wants to honor his friend but what he talks about is addiction, weed, and Michael as a calculating person?Some of today's posts made me think and left me wondering if the issue we have here is that we aren't ready or willing for a real true and honest portrait of Michael?
Both Jermaine's book introduction and Frank's book introduction written by their publishers contain these words or similar meaning ones. I'll just go with "real true honest" combo for the sake of simplicity.
Then I looked to the comments comparisons to Jesus, no problems with weed but do not say that about Michael and so on and so on. I can't help but think , well it sounds like we are asking for a parts hidden , parts sugarcoated Saint portrait.
And I'll make it clear by a personal example.
Today if someone was to write a true, personal, honest book about me , it would include how my first love - who I believed to be one and only - broke my heart to the maximum by multiple acts including cheating, how I had an affair with a man for 2 years, how I hated myself for doing something that hurt me so much to another woman, and how after these two experiences I became not able to trust myself and the man I'm with and became commitment phobic. That would be a true inner me.
Another approach would be to look at me from my education, my job, my family, that I live with a puppy. like to do vegetable gardening - and not be that good at that, my love for Michael and some funny stories such as how my neighbor's kid escapes to my house after having a fight with his mom and how much I get a kick from it etc. That would still be me but a lot more superficial , obviously seen elements of my life but not at all my inner self or a real or full portrait.
So I'm wondering is that the issue here? That people do not want "real true honest" and inner portraits but prefer obvious omitted and even sugarcoated Saint portrait? Because when people say "give us funny stories, only positive, omit that , don't mention that" etc well it seems like that. So I'm curious.
edited to add: I'm also confused. Because initially the reason that people was so happy about this book was that Frank was close to Michael for 25 years and he knew Michael. But now we are unhappy because he tells us what he knows. Wasn't that what we were looking for in the first place?
Seriously this is getting lame. Do you have an excuse for everything Frank says? His claim is beyond ridiculous. Did MJ also want to please Muslim countries while he flew all around the world with his ex-wife, sharing a room, holding hands, being very affectionate? All this while he was married to another woman who was pregnant with his child. This statement just proves that he does not know Michael as much as he would like to or he has other intentions, bad ones, with claiming that...For Lisa Marie I'm waiting to put in context. Because unlike many here I'm Muslim and not being married and having sex is really frowned upon, and it's a hell to have a child out of wedlock. In some Muslim countries females can even get killed for it. Illegitimate children are seen like the plague , in most countries they won't be even given an ID. I personally feel no need to get married but everyone in my family feels the need to push me everyday to get married - that doesn't mean my relationship isn't real. Perhaps Michael preferred to not be married and enjoy free love but rushed to the altar to satisfy a very real public pressure in Muslim countries. It doesn't mean his relationship or love or sex wasn't real.
This Roger Friedman dude is insulting fans' intelligence...
Gee... so John McClain is now the bad guy? Seriously, if Michael's relationship with McClain went sour. Why wouldn't Michael replace McClain with another professional? Doesn't it take only minutes to amend a will?
Although I don't agree with all the artistic decisions the Estate has made, I don't support the character attacks aimed at the Executors. I find the family's accusations on Branca offensive. Likewise, I find the bad-mouthing on McClain equally offensive.
Not to derail this thread but trust me Frank wasn't the only rat feeding Friedbrain all these years.Any doubt now who's been Friedman's source all those years?
Well, I don't know if you saw the big 60 minutes piece the day before the book was released...but Isaacson didn't let the journalist run with the "he's mean" mantra. He presnted BOTH views....and that's EXACTLY what Steve Jobs wanted.
So I wouldn't use Steve Jobs' example to try and explain Cascio's BS.
Wait for what? Fact is we have the press making their negative headlines again based on Frank's interview and book. This is already done. I don't care for anything else Frank has to say. He fed the media with giving them "his truth" and helped them making money with trashing Michael. This is just disgusting.
A real true and honest portrait of Michael? Who says Frank can give us that?
How can I trust someone who is involved in the much discussed song controversy, who neither gives us proof nor willing to discuss this issue?
For a change, I would love to have someone who sugarcoats him. Or let's say who only writes about positive things and omits the negative parts of Michael's personality or life.
Seriously this is getting lame. Do you have an excuse for everything Frank says? His claim is beyond ridiculous.
For a change, I would love to have someone who sugarcoats him. Or let's say who only writes about positive things and omits the negative parts of Michael's personality or life. And it has nothing to do with me not wanting to see the real Michael with his good but also bad sides. I KNOW he was not perfect, I know he had problems with drugs at some point in his life, I know that he might have character traits which I don't like. But I don't need to hear that over and over again. Michael was an incredible human being with a huge heart and the greatest artist of all time. Why not just leave it with that? Why do we have to know everything of the man? Why is it necessary for Frank to tell the world that MJ was high in the mountains?
anything sugar coated would be a joke by the media.
A real true and honest portrait of Michael? Who says Frank can give us that?
who says he cant? you? who probably never ever met Michael and sit across a computer and think they know everything about Michael better than a person that has been around him ?
.
Guys, can someone tell me: Did Frank really say Michael smoked weed? Or was that only written in a tabloid again?
I know this story can't be true in any way, but still it baffles me if Frank actually said that.
The Associated Press said this is what Frank wrote in his book. That he and Michael got stoned in the mountains a few times. As to whether it is true, we don't know. As to whether Frank actually wrote that in his book, we don't know until a few days.
However, it is possible that it is true. Why not? Why would MJ never have smoked weed in his life? Now whether it was prudent of Frank to say this (if he did) is another thing.
Frank is yet to give an interview. So you can't really compare what the media choose to pick from his book versus how the author of Jobs book defended his book.
Actually I have been saying give him a chance to defend his book. What are you going to say for example in the Q&A he does a god job of explaining it? Wouldn't it be the exact same example you gave?
Frank is yet to give an interview. So you can't really compare what the media choose to pick from his book versus how the author of Jobs book defended his book.
Actually I have been saying give him a chance to defend his book. What are you going to say for example in the Q&A he does a god job of explaining it? Wouldn't it be the exact same example you gave
and today we also had a positive headline? why that doesn't count?
One positive article versus many negative ones! I'm so impressed...and today we also had a positive headline? why that doesn't count?
Yes, I say he can't. Because he did nothing, N.O.T.H.I.N.G., to gain credibility in my eyes and those of many others. On the contrary.who says he cant? you? who probably never ever met Michael and sit across a computer and think they know everything about Michael better than a person that has been around him ?
I've said it before and I've never denied it. I have a problem with both Cascios. Frank and Eddie Cascio. And it's not solely based on the fake tracks, the book or whatever. It's all together. If he wants to honor his "friend" and he can't do it by talking, he should just shut his mouth.News Flash : Frank isn't Eddie. And this makes it apparent that your issue is with "Cascio" and not the book.
Great way of thinking...anything sugar coated would be a joke by the media.
Watch my words? Towards you or Frank? There's nothing disrespectful in my words. I have the impression that you find excuses for everything. You tried to explain how he could have meant it, trying to make his ridiculous claim sound positive. And we all know that his own explanation does not make any sense. Or can you really believe that?first please watch your words. second I didn't give an excuse, I said I'm waiting to read it in context to understand it. Third being married / not committing adultery and not having a child out of wedlock due to negative connotations (which might even include murder) that comes with it is a fact in Muslim countries.
Thank you. That's it.Agreed. What's wrong with "sugarcoating" MJ for once? He's been trashed enough, hasn't he? The focus has been long enough on negative things such as drug use. Like you said: WE KNOW, WE GET THAT, NOW CAN WE MOVE ON? It would be really refreshing is someone focused on the positive for a change. Because I don't think the essence of Michael Jackson is that he was a drug addict.
As for the LMP thing: so Michael convinced the Arab princes of his strong family values by breaking up LMP's previous marriage to marry her? Or by taking his ex-wife on tour and even kissing her publicly (the Ivy's restaurant pics) while he was married to another woman?
Sure he did this for the Arab princes to show them his family values. Makes sense. :smilerolleyes: