Gets my blood boiling!!

[Petrarose]

No, I don't equate someone being part of the brand as being the creator of the brand. I never said that MJ's kids WERE Michael or they made him, give me a quote where I said that lol I didn't forget what I wrote, but rather we're viewing this issue differently.

I'm viewing it from above the fans' ideal version of the Michael Jackson brand perhaps. To me, the brand includes MJ's character. It has to. Because by your assertion then, any rumors about MJ being a child abuser should not matter to the estate because its attacking MJ as a parent/person but not the brand.

But I'm saying that it DOES matter. It matters because defamation of character tarnishes the brand itself. It tarnishes the estates ability to make money off of the "ideal" version of the MJ brand due to lies and rumors. Brand = representation with images, ideals, values. Attacking MJ's character - if we EVER want the estate to perhaps use the brand for charitable efforts for instance, will be important for them to care about. It should be regardless - that is what I'm trying tos ay.

The bolded^^ bingo; there you have it. You see the name you include there? It is Michael, (not Paris, Blanket, Jr.)because he created it. That is why Michael affects his brand. Michael created it so he affects it. That is what we have been trying to show you--the children did not create this brand so their personal behavior in their lives cannot affect the brand. Glad you wrote that there so I can use it to clarify a point. For instance, if I create this brand of wholesomeness and propriety and then go and do something completely opposite to that like raping some men or murder, then it will affect my brand. All advertisers will stay away from me. Parents will keep their children away from buying my product. It happened to Brown when he beat up Rihanna. The advertisers dropped him. If his dad beat up the mom the advertisers would not drop Chris Brown, because his dad did not create Chris Brown brand.

Interesting having this chat with you.

 

[J5master]

I see the perspective you have but I think I just have a different one because MJ as a parental figure HAS to include his kids. If they attack his kids in ORDER to attack MJ as a parent, then that attack his character and we're back at square one.

See, I include MJ as a parent as a part of his character. So false rumors about PPB's behavior being spread with the UNDERTONE of "see? MJ was a bad parent" (which is what I'm reading with this rumor and the way these articles are written)...its attacks MJ as a parent/his character and therefore his brand.

 

[SheilaMJFan4Ever]

I see the perspective you have but I think I just have a different one because MJ as a parental figure HAS to include his kids. If they attack his kids in ORDER to attack MJ as a parent, then that attack his character and we're back at square one.

See, I include MJ as a parent as a part of his character. So false rumors about PPB's behavior being spread with the UNDERTONE of "see? MJ was a bad parent" (which is what I'm reading with this rumor and the way these articles are written)...its attacks MJ as a parent/his character and therefore his brand.

Lumping Mike the father with Mike the entertainer/brand is what doesn't make sense and isn't right. Mike's brand was set decades BEFORE he became a father. We're discussing two separate entities here.

Even Mike the father can pretty much be let off the hook from any ridiculous things his kids may do since he didn't have a lot of time to raise them, ANYWAY. All of them were 12 years old and younger when he died. While his influence was strong from the beginning, it can fade if it isn't reinforced and THAT blame will lie squarely at the feet of his mother and his nephew/co-guardian, TJ. He can't parent from the grave, people!

EDIT: On a personal note (as a person who lost both parents before I was 8 years old) I can say without a doubt that if it wasn't for my guardians re-enforcing and maintaining the same standards my parents raised me in during those brief years, I would have gone astray and not held onto them. I would have forgotten them.

 

[J5master]

Sure to US that is the ideal, that his personal life be left out of the brand. But to the public and the media? It just simply isn't. Hence why being labeled a child abuser HURTS the brand. As does all the false rumors about his personal life. Its his personal life, but it still MATTERS to the public and therefore, has an effect on the brand. Same as being made out to be a bad parent. Because what else is a part of the "ideal" Michael Jackson brand? MJ talking about children's issues (Neverland, for instance, was most definitely an intentional part of the brand he was building up). MJ himself made that part of the brand, its just a fact - as many of his songs are about children. Many of his public appearances had to do with children. So part of MJ the person IS a part of the brand. And if MJ the person is being slandered (as well as PPB), then that is cause for concern.

Plus, personally, I believe MJ the person was extremely interwoven with MJ the entertainer. They were not completely separate. MJ's brand/entertainment was extremely, extremely personal - IMO. It is littered in all of his artistic decisions.

 

[Snow White luvs Peter Pan]

What I found about what a estate executor does, it doesn't mention anything on being guardian of the decreased person's children, that's why Michael designated his mother for such duty and Diana Ross once KJ passes away. An estate administrates the assets of the deceased individual, pay his debts, taxes, ensures his will is respected and represent Michael as legal entity.

"It's both an honor and a burden to serve as someone's executor. An executor is entrusted with responsibility for winding up someone's earthly affairs -- a big or little task, depending on the situation. Essentially, an executor is charged with protecting a deceased person's property until all debts and taxes have been paid, and seeing that what's left is transferred to the people who are entitled to it.


The law does not require an executor (also called a personal representative) to be a legal or financial expert, but it does require the highest degree of honesty, impartiality, and diligence. This is called a "fiduciary duty" -- the duty to act with scrupulous good faith and honesty on behalf of someone else.


Executors have a number of duties, depending on the complexity of the deceased person's financial and family circumstances. Typically, an executor must:


Find the deceased person's assets and manage them until they are distributed to inheritors. This may involve deciding whether to sell real estate or securities owned by the deceased person.
Decide whether or not probate court proceedings are needed. Most jointly owned assets pass to the surviving owner, without probate. And if the deceased person's property is worth less than a certain amount (how much depends on state law), it may be able to go through a streamlined probate process. (To learn more about probate, see Probate FAQ.)
Figure out who inherits property. If the deceased person left a will, the executor will read it to determine who gets what. If there's no will, the person in charge (sometimes called the administrator) will have to look at state law (called "intestate succession" statutes) to find out who the deceased person's heirs are.
File the will (if any) in the local probate court. Generally, this step is required by law, even if no probate proceeding will be necessary. To learn more about this process, see Nolo's article Finding and Filing the Will.
Handle day-to-day details. This may include terminating leases and credit cards, and notifying banks and government agencies -- such as the Social Security Administration, the post office, Medicare, and the Department of Veterans Affairs -- of the death.
Set up an estate bank account. This account will hold money that is owed to the deceased person -- for example, paychecks or stock dividends.
Use estate funds to pay continuing expenses. The executor may need to pay, for example, utility bills, mortgage payments, and homeowner's insurance premiums.
Pay debts. If there is a probate proceeding, the executor must officially notify creditors of it, following the procedure set out by state law. For help with this process, see Nolo's eForm Notice to Creditor of Death.
Pay taxes. A final income tax return must be filed, covering the period from the beginning of the tax year to the date of death. State and federal estate tax returns are required only for large estates.
Supervise the distribution of the deceased person's property. The property will go to the people or organizations named in the will or those entitled to inherit under state law."

 

[J5master]

^^ right I completely agree, and it seems to me that considering their involvement with all these posthumous albums, etc....and managing when and where MJ's likeness is used, that the Michael Jackson brand is something that is considered "property"/asset of the estate. And that is where my perspective of false rumors about the kids falls into that spectrum, in the fact that these rumors just don't seem a "lets smear the name of Paris Jackson" in intent, but rather "lets smear the name of Paris but most importantly MICHAEL JACKSON" in intent, calling into question his parenting by way of FALSE slander.

It'll be different if people were just reporting the truth. In that case, the kids actions have nothing to do with the estate.

But this is obvious the media being typical media, using MJ's name and all associated with it as a punching bag. At least to me, again by the way/tone of these articles that came out.

 

[Tygger]

Bubs, I do not need to backtrack or add to any of my statements as I maintain what I said. It seems I needed to clarify one statement in particular for those who misread and/or misunderstood it as evident from yours and those posters’ responses.

Again, I do not participate in discussions focusing on distaste for the Jacksons. I do find it interesting that some are spinning the fact that Michael’s children had celebrity placed on them at birth. They will have a difficult time explaining Michael's protection of his children if they were not celebrities from birth.

Question please:

You give too much credit of Randy's importance and to be honest, I think they might have gained more fans if they had sued him.

Who would gain more fans?

 

[Petrarose]

I see the perspective you have but I think I just have a different one because MJ as a parental figure HAS to include his kids. If they attack his kids in ORDER to attack MJ as a parent, then that attack his character and we're back at square one.

See, I include MJ as a parent as a part of his character. So false rumors about PPB's behavior being spread with the UNDERTONE of "see? MJ was a bad parent" (which is what I'm reading with this rumor and the way these articles are written)...its attacks MJ as a parent/his character and therefore his brand.

Okay you are making me chuckle now. Let’s look at this whole post of yours in italics:



1) I see the perspective you have but I think I just have a different one because MJ as a parental figure HAS to include his kids.
-Question for 1: MJ as a parental figure has to include his kids in What Exactly?^ You mean include his kids in his image or brand or family unit?

2) If they attack his kids in ORDER to attack MJ as a parent, then that attack his character and we're back at square one.
^2 is true. If someone attacks a person’s child to attack the person’s character in terms of how the person socialized child, they are trying to attack the parent’s character & lack of parenting. However, that is not what we are talking about here. We were talking about claiming a kid affects the dad’s brand if kid get’s pregnant. So we are not back at square one, because attacking the child through the parent does not affect the brand because of what we said about the brand before.




3) See, I include MJ as a parent as a part of his character.
^3 is true. All our morals/learning/attitudes/socialization, experiences, etc., forms our character, so how Michael is as a parent is part of his character. However, that still does not have anything to do with the brand vs child issue.


4) So false rumors about PPB's behavior being spread with the UNDERTONE of "see? MJ was a bad parent" (which is what I'm reading with this rumor and the way these articles are written)...its attacks MJ as a parent/his character
^4 is true if there is an undertone of see MJ was a bad parent, and this is not just how you interpret the media foolishness. I have not heard anyone say they got that undercurrent in it. However, to be quite honest, in this time and age being pregnant has nothing to do with parenting. Girls & boys from what people used to call “good” families, “religious” families, or those they call “well brought up girls” have been getting pregnant for centuries. They were having sex in the barn, under a tree, you name it and getting pregnant, so by now everyone knows in these modern times that getting pregnant has nothing to do with bad parenting. AS long as you have sex there is a potential of pregnancy, so how people prevent this before was to have their unmarried children supervised. That was their parenting skill for pregnancy. We all know telling a boy and girl not to get pregnant does not guarantee they will listen.

5)and therefore his brand.
^5 is NO. Again attacking a parent by attacking the child to show the parent was a bad parent does not affect the parent’s brand. The parent’s brand has nothing to do with pregnancy. Michael did not make a medicine that could prevent pregnancies, give it to his daughter, and then she still became pregnant. If that happened, then it would affect his brand because it would mean he was giving bad medicine that was bogus.

What I am getting from you is that you start talking about one thing, then you shift to another area. Michael's character as a parent has nothing to do with his brand since his brand is a specific thing involving music/entertainment/dance/charity. You are mixing up his character with his brand. For instance, his character may include shyness, but his brand is not about shyness. We know he is shy, but that is not what his brand is about. These are different things. His character may include being a thoughtful, hands on dad, but his brand is not about that. His character may include a type of person who runs from conflict, but his brand is not about that. His brand shows him outside with specific glove, red shirt, hat, moonwalking. However, in his personal life, he is in the house without gloves, loose pants, walking and not moonwalking, & hatless. There is a Michael Jackson the person and a Michael Jackson the brand, so you can't mix up his personal character & his brand. He sat down and planned out his brand and what he wanted it to be. There is a Michel who makes breakfast and wants to go outside and just enjoy it all in peace. He acts differently as Michael with friends/family/children vs Michael as the entertainer/brand.

Again in another post you are bring up the allegations, but again these involve Michael. The allegations were against Michael so of course it would affect Michael. That is why the kids issues can't affect Michael's brand you keep mixing up those 2 things. Yes Michael's bad press & allegations affect Michael but you can't make a big leap and say kids behavior affect Michael's brand. It is not their brand.

Micheal's brand is affected by what Michael does or what people say he did. You can't use that to explain how Paris being pregnant will affect Michael's brand.

Well nice having this chat with you. I have exhausted all my points and will leave it alone now.

 

[J5master]

Okay you are making me chuckle now. Let’s look at this whole post of yours in italics:



1) I see the perspective you have but I think I just have a different one because MJ as a parental figure HAS to include his kids.
-Question for 1: MJ as a parental figure has to include his kids in What Exactly?^ You mean include his kids in his image or brand or family unit?

Glad you find this amusing I'll answer these one by one but I'm pretty sure I've said this stance repeatedly before. MJ as a parental figure has to include his kids.The statement ends there. Meaning his kids have to be a part of what makes MJ a parental figure. And MJ the parental figure/his character is included in the brand in relation to the public/media whether we like it to or not.

2) If they attack his kids in ORDER to attack MJ as a parent, then that attack his character and we're back at square one.

^2 is true. If someone attacks a person’s child to attack the person’s character in terms of how the person socialized child, they are trying to attack the parent’s character & lack of parenting. However, that is not what we are talking about here. We were talking about claiming a kid affects the dad’s brand if kid get’s pregnant. So we are not back at square one, because attacking the child through the parent does not affect the brand because of what we said about the brand before.

Well thats not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about the FALSE rumors being spread about the children. Like I said repeatedly before, if this was simply a case of the media telling the truth and the kid was pregnant, then the estate has nothing to do with it. Again, I've said over and over, for me this is not about what the kids are doing but what the MEDIA is doing.

3) See, I include MJ as a parent as a part of his character.
^3 is true. All our morals/learning/attitudes/socialization, experiences, etc., forms our character, so how Michael is as a parent is part of his character. However, that still does not have anything to do with the brand vs child issue.

I explained why it matters to the brand. Again, if it did not, no one would care about people calling MJ out of his name - and the rumors surrounding his personal life. A PR person while he was alive would not even be needed. Why ifhis character has nothing to do with the brand? If there is a media fire storm over his personal life (baby danglings and Bashir documentaries) - it doesn't affect the brand!

But obviously, "damage control" was a necessary task in his empire because the reality is, his character in the media does affect the brand. Clearing his personal name/clearing his CHARACTER in the media was important for what he wanted to do professionally. And again, I am saying that attacks on PPB, in this instance - being that they are FALSE rumors, reflects on MJ's character.

4) So false rumors about PPB's behavior being spread with the UNDERTONE of "see? MJ was a bad parent" (which is what I'm reading with this rumor and the way these articles are written)...its attacks MJ as a parent/his character
^4 is true if there is an undertone of see MJ was a bad parent, and this is not just how you interpret the media foolishness. I have not heard anyone say they got that undercurrent in it. However, to be quite honest, in this time and age being pregnant has nothing to do with parenting. Girls & boys from what people used to call “good” families, “religious” families, or those they call “well brought up girls” have been getting pregnant for centuries. They were having sex in the barn, under a tree, you name it and getting pregnant, so by now everyone knows in these modern times that getting pregnant has nothing to do with bad parenting. AS long as you have sex there is a potential of pregnancy, so how people prevent this before was to have their unmarried children supervised. That was their parenting skill for pregnancy. We all know telling a boy and girl not to get pregnant does not guarantee they will listen.

Sure thats your opinion. And yes I know the commonsense ideal of this, people understanding the reality of a situation despite what the media is trying to tell them but we also know that when it comes to Michael Jackson or any Jackson, this does not apply to them in the media. And things that may be completely common and normal will be used as a way to attack.

It is of MY opinion that those who launched these rumors are intentionally capitalizing of the public's tendency to look for ALL the ways to "prove" MJ was a bad parent, despite all reason. Once again, this not a case of Paris actually being pregnant. It is a case of the media spreading that rumor. And in the many reaction posts outside of the fan community to this rumor guess what? There were plenty that were less about Paris and more about Michael and how 'weird' he was and how unfit of a parent he was.

5)and therefore his brand.
^5 is NO. Again attacking a parent by attacking the child to show the parent was a bad parent does not affect the parent’s brand. The parent’s brand has nothing to do with pregnancy. Michael did not make a medicine that could prevent pregnancies, give it to his daughter, and then she still became pregnant. If that happened, then it would affect his brand because it would mean he was giving bad medicine that was bogus.

What I am getting from you is that you start talking about one thing, then you shift to another area. Michael's character as a parent has nothing to do with his brand since his brand is a specific thing involving music/entertainment/dance/charity.

Yes yes yes I know from a fans perspective that obviously makes no sense, and its not fair to pen Paris getting preggers on MJ, but the fact is that people do. And with putting FALSE stories out there that feed on this illogical belief, it affects the brand. They are FALSE. Paris is not pregnant. That is my entire issue with this. They're LYING about these kids in order to perpetuate more slander against the brand. Again, if Paris was ACTUALLY pregnant, I would NOT have an issue.

Just like if MJ was ACTUALLY homosexual, I would not have an issue with people talking about it. But fact is, that he was not and yet papers still spread that rumor with the INTENTION to feed into the overarching narrative of MJ being attracted to boys.

So no I'm not shifting ideas or talking about one thing and not the other. Its been the same thing, over and over lol.
And again, I disagree that his character as a parent has nothing to do with his music/entertainment/dance/charity - ESPECIALLY his charity as MOST of his charity had to do with family issues and kids. As did some of his music.

 

[ivy]

@J5Master

Are you saying media writing a wrong story about Paris is worse than her actually being pregnant?

----

While such negative stories about MJ's kids aren't nice, I don't see the need for anyone "defending" the kids for such blatantly false stories. A tabloid wrote the story (or were fooled and took it from a satire website), it circulated a little but didn't make it to any major news sources. Many people realized the absurdity of it and even if they didn't they would realize it's not true eventually. Personally this is not a major thing to worry about IMO. I personally would be a lot more furious about Robson/Safechuck.

I also disagree that a negative story about Michael's kids would affect Michael and his brand badly - especially when the story isn't true to start with. Even if it was true and Paris was pregnant at 16, I don't see anyone stop listening to Billie Jean. Given that the story is baseless, I don't see any effect at all on MJ brand.

As I said I don't think anyone needs to defend the kids in this situation but if there was a need to defend them I would expect it to come from their guardians. Guardians are legally responsible parties for the kids, they are supposed to take care of them and to be blunt they are also being paid for such job. Estate which happens to be a business entity and it's not their job or responsibility to take care of the kids. If needed and wanted they provide money - such as a guardian can file a defamation lawsuit for the kids (estate cannot as they don't represent the kids) and ask Estate to pay for it. Or hire a publicist and have Estate pay for it. Also on a final note Estate did not insert themselves into the Katherine kidnapping event and made decisions on their own. To the contrary they did and do whatever they are asked to do.

 

[J5master]

Well yes, I'm saying that the media lying about someone - as they always do - is worse than them telling the truth about someone. Im not placing a value either way on Paris being pregnant or not.

 

[Snow White luvs Peter Pan]

I've never thought the Estate's performance has been perfect, what they did in 2010 was unforgivable, an embarrassment and total desrespect to Michael, the artist and the brand but Branca and McClain have redeemed themselves lately (there's always a room for improvement and doing things better) and have shown they want to carry his legacy with dignity, more sensitivity and care for Michael than most of immediate family combined, he chose more wisely his estate executors than his children's guardian.

We can't say the same about the guardians, how many good things KJ has done for PPB? I've just seen her using them to her own financial benefit and allowing the other Jackson's doing the same. Paris got the help she desperately needed because her suicide attempt was widely covered and the Estate is/was paying the treatment and education. Let's supposing a very unrealistic scenario, just imagine Michael is still here, he doesn't need his estate executors yet and he allows his daughter to work in showbiz, if media in general dared to spread any cruel or idiotic rumor about her, he'd be suing their asses. Why on earth doesn't KJ fulfill her duties I'd she's being taken cared of? She's not the guardian for free. P

 

[Virre]

Michael the person could not be more far away from the entertainer.

 

[passy001]

I'm not saying the estate should watch over the kids either. I'm saying the estate should pay closer attention to the media, not "take care" of the kids - yes that is the Jacksons job. But the estate has the power to do a lot of things in the media to protect the Michael Jackson brand and stop this slanderous free-for-all surrounding both MJ AND his kids (as those kids are an extension of MJ and it reflects on MJ the brand). So yes, the family take care of the kids, the estate should take care of the MARKETING/media aspect of all of this.

How is that going to affect the MJ brand? I think you're looking for excuses to drag the estate in.

Why is that the guardians who by the way gets paid by the estate cannot defend the kids? KJ has an army of lawyers and publicists around her. why can't they step in and defend the kids?

if the estate has to do her job, what use is she as a guardian?

 

[passy001]

^^ I would loved to estate take care of kids but unfortunately Michael made mistake and named KJ to be guardian to kids. I'm certain they would have been a lot happier and more private if the estate was looking after them.

Both TJ and KJ get paid to guard kids (Paris), why aren't they doing their jobs? Kids are not living with executors, but with their guardian and other guardian who is probably doing something relating to kids because he gets paid. TJ is in and out of court asking more money if not for himself, then it is for his lawyer regarding kids issues. Shouldn't those lawyers start earning their money and do something useful for a change? The estate has given tons of money for KJ and TJ's lawyers (Ribeira and Shultz) but seemingly those lawyers are not used for protecting kids.

It's obvious by now that this whole guardianship thing is just a farce. Thankfully the kids (Prince in 5 months ( February 2015) and Paris in 19 Months ( April 2016)) and will soon become adults, and the estate will finally start saving money on guardianship fees.

 

[passy001]

If fans didn´t buy tabloids with stories and pictures of Michael´s children then there would be no paparazzis chasing them.

Exactly. it's a matter of supply and demand. Economics 101.

 

[Bubs]

While I know this pregnancy story was bs and in this occasion I didn't think guardian should have replied to the media, but there have been, and in the future there will be cases that they need to. For example the article about Blanket a while ago that was making rounds in the media, they should have taken certain steps then, but didn't. Fair play to Joe J who did made a comment the story not being true.

If they allow media to run disgusting stories of kids, they should understand it effect on themselves too. It can mean that under guardian's care, kids are showing questionable behaviour, thus they are not doing their job as guardians.

They need to show to media that they won't tolerate them abusing PPB the same way they did to Michael all those years.

Also I do believe it is guardians job to defend them, and don't care about the argument regarding MJ brand, I would be delighted if executors would issue statement in kids behalf as they have more authority than family put together, but I also believe there would be some consequences if they do.

I have a question to fans that demands executors should step in and issue statements if kids are abused by tabloids. What do you think what family members, mainly KJ and TJ would think or do, if executors will issue a statement on kids behalf and get themselves involved, or how would they feel that all of sudden executors are stepping on their toes? Try to put yourself on their shoes and think how would yourself feel that you are guardian and someone else is doing something that was your job or duty.
---------------------------

Article about MJ's brand
http://blogs.hbr.org/2009/06/how-michael-jackson-became-a-b/

PPB were never part of that and never will. They are just Michael's children.

 

[J5master]

How is that going to affect the MJ brand? I think you're looking for excuses to drag the estate in.

Why is that the guardians who by the way gets paid by the estate cannot defend the kids? KJ has an army of lawyers and publicists around her. why can't they step in and defend the kids?

if the estate has to do her job, what use is she as a guardian?

I've already said this multiple times, I'm not going to repeat it again.

I also wish when debates like this happen, people would stop throwing around assumptions and judgments because it only makes people unnecessarily irritated (for instance, I never said of you guys that you all are looking for reasons to hate on the Jackson family just because I disagree).
But no, I really don't care either way about the estate right now, and I'm not looking for excuses. It is my opinion.

I have a question to fans that demands executors should step in and issue statements if kids are abused by tabloids. What do you think what family members, mainly KJ and TJ would think or do, if executors will issue a statement on kids behalf and get themselves involved, or how would they feel that all of sudden executors are stepping on their toes? Try to put yourself on their shoes and think how would yourself feel that you are guardian and someone else is doing something that was your job or duty.

I don't think its that big of an issue. I'm not saying the estate should take their kids and be their guardians. I'm saying they should just address the false rumors and slander aimed at the beneficiaries. A statement. That's it.

And if the parents feel THAT stepped on, they could also release as statement. Problem solved.

Its not that huge of a thing.

Also that article really didn't address all of the things that make up the brand, but this certainly speaks to my point:

Denied a normal childhood, Jackson was amazingly generous to disadvantaged children. Some 39 charities benefited significantly from his support. He also collaborated on Live Aid with other entertainers.

THIS. Childhood, children, parenthood. ALL a part of his charitable brand. So I'll say once again, that the estate should care about protecting the man's name (as a parent or otherwise) from slander if they wish to continue this portion of the brand or allow the kids to pick up where MJ left off.

 

[elusive moonwalker]

while fans not clicking and buying would certainly help i think its abit niave to think that would stop articles and pics being posted. it will happen until the press get bored which because of who the kids are will prob take years if ever and only if they as adults go totally off the radar

Exactly. it's a matter of supply and demand. Economics 101.

the estate prob sees it as above what they are here for interms of putting out statements re stories about the kids. after all that is the job of the guardians/family.i could also see another factor ontop of the one mentioned above that due to many of the jacksons attitude towards the estate that they dont want to get involved in family matter as it opens the door to outbursts by certain family members and all the bad publicity that brings.

not talking about the baby story but i wouldnt complain if the estate in future put statements out to defend or worn off the media due to the inability of the guardians to do their job.its better to have at least someone looking out for them even if in the scheme of things its not in their realm of responsibility

 

[passy001]

I've already said this multiple times,

[/COLOR]I don't think its that big of an issue. I'm not saying the estate should take their kids and be their guardians. I'm saying they should just address the false rumors and slander aimed at the beneficiaries. A statement. That's it.

And if the parents feel THAT stepped on, they could also release as statement. Problem solved.

Its not that huge of a thing.

Also that article really didn't address all of the things that make up the brand, but this certainly speaks to my point:

What's to stop KJ from dispelling the false rumors?

[/FONT][/COLOR]THIS. Childhood, children, parenthood. ALL a part of his charitable brand. So I'll say once again, that the estate should care about protecting the man's name (as a parent or otherwise) from slander if they wish to continue this portion of the brand or allow the kids to pick up where MJ left off.

Rumors about Paris concerns her private life. the estate has nothing to do with that. and this brings us back again to the issue of guardianship. until Paris becomes an adult, it's precisely KJ job to handle her guardianship role.

 

[J5master]

Alright lol If I respond to that I'll just be repeating myself, so I'm completely fine with disagreeing on this issue!

 

[ivy]

Well yes, I'm saying that the media lying about someone - as they always do - is worse than them telling the truth about someone. Im not placing a value either way on Paris being pregnant or not.

sorry but it doesn't make sense in this instance. The rumor here is pregnancy. Like I said most people have already realized the absurdity of the claim, even if they didn't in 9 months time when no baby is born they would realize it's a false story. So the effects of this false story should be zero.

So I think you cannot make such general statements statements, it depends on the situation. I might agree media lying about something AND convincing people it's the truth can be a bad thing (such as saying someone uses drugs and people believe it and there's no way for public to know if it's true or not). But again not in this instance when eventually everyone would see it's not true. That's also why there's no need to defend the kids in this instance IMO.

 

[passy001]

while fans not clicking and buying would certainly help i think its abit niave to think that would stop articles and pics being posted. it will happen until the press get bored which because of who the kids are will prob take years if ever and only if they as adults go totally off the radar



the estate prob sees it as above what they are here for interms of putting out statements re stories about the kids. after all that is the job of the guardians/family.i could also see another factor ontop of the one mentioned above that due to many of the jacksons attitude towards the estate that they dont want to get involved in family matter as it opens the door to outbursts by certain family members and all the bad publicity that brings.

not talking about the baby story but i wouldnt complain if the estate in future put statements out to defend or worn off the media due to the inability of the guardians to do their job.its better to have at least someone looking out for them even if in the scheme of things its not in their realm of responsibility

I think you guys have unrealistic expectations of the estate. it's probably because you don't understand the functions and duties of an estate.

 

[passy001]

oops...double post.

 

[elusive moonwalker]

As i said in my post i dont expect the estate to be involved in family matters as its not apart of their responsibility and job as executors.im sure everyone is aware of their role as we have been seeing them in action so to speak for five years.so theres no unrealistic expectations or not knowing what the job of executors are and the difference between that and a guardian.but that doesnt mean to say im sure many wouldnt mind if they did go beyond their job

 

[MIST]

while fans not clicking and buying would certainly help i think its abit niave to think that would stop articles and pics being posted.

It´s all about money.
If they write and post pictures of someone people aren´t interested to read about tabloids don´t get money for it.

 

[passy001]

As i said in my post i dont expect the estate to be involved in family matters as its not apart of their responsibility and job as executors.im sure everyone is aware of their role as we have been seeing them in action so to speak for five years.so theres no unrealistic expectations or not knowing what the job of executors are and the difference between that and a guardian.but that doesnt mean to say im sure many wouldnt mind if they did go beyond their job

The executors can only do that under extra-ordinary circumstances. for instance they did intervene in the ganny-napping situation. it was an extra-ordinary circumstance where minor beneficiaries were facing a very adverse and distressing situation with their guardian, also a beneficiary, going missing. in that case they had no choice but to intervene.

in this instance however, there is absolutely NO REASON for them to intervene. Rumors about Paris pregnancy is a private matter that has NOTHING to do with the estate.

 

[ivy]

but that doesnt mean to say im sure many wouldnt mind if they did go beyond their job

actually I think many would mind. As passy pointed out the KJ "kidnapping" was an extraordinary situation in which their guardian was missing and there were two camps in the family. Estate intervened when asked and needed but however there are some people(fans) - including some Jacksons- thinking they shouldn't have get involved and family matters are family matters. So some people would mind if Estate start talking for the kids as well. In my opinion majority of the discussion here (not you) has been deflecting the guardian's responsibility to the Estate.

 

[Snow White luvs Peter Pan]

I wouldn't mind if the Estate talked for the kids and/or defending them from the media's libel and slander either but in reality it's not their job, that's what guardians are for unfortunately, we've seen on many occasions they don't care. KJ and TJ even allow others like Jermaine, Randy and Janet blaming the children for their messes.

 

[elusive moonwalker]

of course theres no reason for them to say anything about this non story. The story was ridiculous and should have just been ignored by everyone. It was as i posted earlier its a roll your eyes and move on story.

yeah ivy im sure many would complain. you cant please everyone!

The executors can only do that under extra-ordinary circumstances. for instance they did intervene in the ganny-napping situation. it was an extra-ordinary circumstance where minor beneficiaries were facing a very adverse and distressing situation with their guardian, also a beneficiary, going missing. in that case they had no choice but to intervene.

in this instance however, there is absolutely NO REASON for them to intervene. Rumors about Paris pregnancy is a private matter that has NOTHING to do with the estate.