Randall Sullivan's book "Untouchable"

Bubs

Proud Member
Joined
Jan 19, 2012
Messages
7,856
Points
0
Re: Randall Sullivan's new book "Untouchable"

Joe Vogel (@JoeVogel1)
Posted Friday 25th January 2013 from Twitlonger

I didn't review Sullivan's book for Amazon, but here's what I wrote in email to someone who asked me about it:

I read all 700-something pages of the Sullivan book. It had some interesting parts and actually covered the 2005 trial quite well (thanks in large part to Mesereau). But overall, it's not a very good book and offers little new insight on MJ. As far as bios go, I think Taraborrelli's is actually much better. I don't know why Sullivan didn't just stick to the final four years (instead he tries to make it a comprehensive life story by flashing back to earlier moments in MJ's career that have been covered before and better). He didn't scrutinize his sources at all. Some are good, some are terrible. In terms of his personal interviews, he relied heavily on unreliable figures. I also got the sense that Sullivan really dislikes and distrusts black people. You'll have to tell me what you think when you read it. But he is very harsh on MJ's family and civil rights leaders like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton. He basically dismisses MJ's entire creative output after Thriller with a few sentences. It doesn't appear that he conducted one interview with MJ's creative collaborators. As you note, the nose stuff is ridiculous. The book does give some sense of the foul dust swirling around MJ in those final years and how abandoned he felt. But overall, it doesn't really penetrate much beyond superficialities and amateur pathologizing.
 

HIStory

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2011
Messages
6
Points
0
Bubs;3768863 said:
Joe Vogel (@JoeVogel1)
Posted Friday 25th January 2013 from Twitlonger

I didn't review Sullivan's book for Amazon, but here's what I wrote in email to someone who asked me about it:

I read all 700-something pages of the Sullivan book. It had some interesting parts and actually covered the 2005 trial quite well (thanks in large part to Mesereau). But overall, it's not a very good book and offers little new insight on MJ. As far as bios go, I think Taraborrelli's is actually much better. I don't know why Sullivan didn't just stick to the final four years (instead he tries to make it a comprehensive life story by flashing back to earlier moments in MJ's career that have been covered before and better). He didn't scrutinize his sources at all. Some are good, some are terrible. In terms of his personal interviews, he relied heavily on unreliable figures. I also got the sense that Sullivan really dislikes and distrusts black people. You'll have to tell me what you think when you read it. But he is very harsh on MJ's family and civil rights leaders like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton. He basically dismisses MJ's entire creative output after Thriller with a few sentences. It doesn't appear that he conducted one interview with MJ's creative collaborators. As you note, the nose stuff is ridiculous. The book does give some sense of the foul dust swirling around MJ in those final years and how abandoned he felt. But overall, it doesn't really penetrate much beyond superficialities and amateur pathologizing.

It's interesting that Joe says that because it's not the first time people get that feeling from Sullivan's work. Earlier he wrote a book about 2 Pac and The Notorious B.I.G. Here are two reviews from the Goodreads website:

As a fan of both Tupac and Biggie, I was very interested in learning more about what really went down. Former Officer Poole seems to think he has the answers so I was eager to learn what he knows so I could draw my own conclusions. Mostly, I was very disappointed - especially by the author's extreme bias. For example, on page 14 of the hardcover version, Sullivan notes that "[In the early 1960s], as now, black males committed a hugely disproportionate amount of crime in Los Angeles and across the country." WHAT? I can't even believe that went to print. Question: do black males commit a disproportionate amount of crime in this country or are they accused and convicted disproportionately? At the very least, if you're gonna make such outrageous comments, back it up. With no statistical data, I consider Sullivan's comment to be hearsay. Then, just a few pages later, on page 18, Sullivan gets a little diatribe going about how the LAPD hiring process has become less stringent over time, noting that "liberals had successfully argued that [baring applicants with juvenile records] limited the number of blacks and Hispanics who could join the LAPD." I'm not even 20 pages into the book, and my reading of the author is that he really doesn't like minorities or "liberals," whatever the latter term means to him because he sure doesn't define anything. Yet I decided to take these and similar comments with a grain of salt and press forward with the book.

I do think that Sullivan's style is extremely readable and engaging. I also like the way he attempted to provide background on the LAPD history, the history of the Crips and the Bloods, etc. If you're not likely to be critical going into this book, it's not bad for escapism. Unless you were living in a plastic bubble when these events took place, I doubt that you'll be blown away by the overall picture Sullivan paints.

If one-tenth of what's written in these pages is true, Biggie and Tupac were just as despicable as Suge Knight, the LAPD, the affiliated gangs, the attorneys and just about everyone else who graced the pages of the book. And that made me really sad because it's hard for me to listen to the music the same way. Tupac and Biggie were not innocent; they were just greedy [...] who courted violence successfully. Truthfully, none of the stuff about the LAPD or any of the other authority figures surprised me. Money and testosterone--bad combination. Lest you think I'm a man-hater, the women in this book are appalling, too. I hate to say it but Tupac and Biggie were victims of their own making.

http://www.goodreads.com/review/show/146345381

Sullivan comes across like Oliver Stone in JFK, making every possible connection he can and tying it all into a central—and intentionally vague—thesis of "There Is A Conspiracy!" Some of the items stick, I'm sure, but for all of Sullivan's shots leveled at the LA media (principally The Los Angeles Times) for being predisposed to dismissing a conspiracy angle, he's no better, just working from the flip side of that coin. Sullivan also comes across as a strangely prejudicial narrator, injecting his personal politics not overtly but at that just-beneath-the-surface level of a slightly off Vietnam veteran talking about the war. There may not be any actual racial slurs tossed or anything you can pinpoint as being obviously racist, but the tone and phrasing leaves no doubt what the opinion really is. It's evidenced even in the way Sullivan throws in disgusted asides about how white cops can't follow the evidence if it looks like it might lead to anyone black being accused of a heinous crime. The subtext of reverse racism is obvious and highly distasteful coming from the author of the book. If these kinds of accusations are pertinent to the material, a truly neutral journalist would let them come in quotations from sources.

I'm really rather torn about this book. On one hand, it's a fascinating look at a set of cases that will probably always be linked together, it's a wonderful conspiracy tale and an incredibly interesting, if frightening, look at a particular time in Los Angeles' history. On the other hand, the book is clumsily written and lacks a lot of journalistic integrity which makes it feel salacious. I suppose that may just come with the territory for conspiracy books (another example is Jim Marrs's Crossfire about the JFK assassination, which has the same grudging appeal to a reader like me), but one wishes there were somehow a more studious examination of the subjects out there.

http://www.goodreads.com/review/show/307907082


(I wish though that people would stop referring to Taraborelli's book as a recommendable biography. His book is just as harmful (and full of innuendo, half-truth and lies) as Sullivan's. Or even more harmful because even some fans seem to think it's credible."
 

la_cienega

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2011
Messages
1,175
Points
0
Re: Randall Sullivan's new book "Untouchable"

Joe Vogel (@JoeVogel1)
Posted Friday 25th January 2013 from Twitlonger

I didn't review Sullivan's book for Amazon, but here's what I wrote in email to someone who asked me about it:

I read all 700-something pages of the Sullivan book. It had some interesting parts and actually covered the 2005 trial quite well (thanks in large part to Mesereau). But overall, it's not a very good book and offers little new insight on MJ. As far as bios go, I think Taraborrelli's is actually much better. I don't know why Sullivan didn't just stick to the final four years (instead he tries to make it a comprehensive life story by flashing back to earlier moments in MJ's career that have been covered before and better). He didn't scrutinize his sources at all. Some are good, some are terrible. In terms of his personal interviews, he relied heavily on unreliable figures. I also got the sense that Sullivan really dislikes and distrusts black people. You'll have to tell me what you think when you read it. But he is very harsh on MJ's family and civil rights leaders like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton. He basically dismisses MJ's entire creative output after Thriller with a few sentences. It doesn't appear that he conducted one interview with MJ's creative collaborators. As you note, the nose stuff is ridiculous. The book does give some sense of the foul dust swirling around MJ in those final years and how abandoned he felt. But overall, it doesn't really penetrate much beyond superficialities and amateur pathologizing.

The book had a very odd racial tone to it.

I just kept thinking, "This is a white male straight rich journalist. He really has no idea about racial matters, why is he speaking about them?"

Respect posted about how this odd racial bias comes through on his previous book... and a bias against liberals? LOL wut.

Then when he quoted the article about how "white" children would feel growing up in a big black household - boom, that was it for me. That article was disgusting to me when I first read it, and still is, and that Sullivan could feel that article had some kind of a point... really messed up.

It'll piss Sullivan and rich white people like him off so much when Paris will grow up and repeat again, "I'm black and I'm proud of it", the way she said 2 years ago.
 
Last edited:

Victory22

Proud Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2010
Messages
1,807
Points
0
Location
Westland, Michigan, United States
Rhilo;3768385 said:
Can we all please let this book die?

Victory, I'm so sorry about what Deborah did to you. Until now I had no problem with her or the site, and even enjoyed some of the interviews she had conducted in the past. Although I did feel at times she's using Michael to promote her religious beliefs...
Now, I can't believe she would do that to another fan or even support such a poorly researched book that is trashy and unflattering to Michael.

Thank you so much. As I said before this has been a very difficult time for us because I’ve worked so hard to build my page and we have accomplished a lot of good things for MJ there. We have our secret group up and running as of last night and we named it Michael Jackson Rapid Response Team Underground. We plan to use the large public page as a decoy and a recruitment page. From now on we will only use it for educating people as to who the real Michael Jackson is.
 
Last edited:

AliCat

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2010
Messages
1,626
Points
0
Location
Near a National Park
Re: Randall Sullivan's new book "Untouchable"

It's times like this that a person wishes Michael had never died, that he had made his comeback through doing his Shows and silencing the naysayers forever.
 

la_cienega

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2011
Messages
1,175
Points
0
Re: Randall Sullivan's new book "Untouchable"

I imagine in London there would have been some possible protests outside some of his shows because of the allegations, scathing reviews from critics about how MJ got away with 2005 and is now being allowed to be successful again, people saying he didn't have it anymore, people saying he was gonna fake out the rest of the tour, etc etc etc

Almost four years on and we're still hearing about masturbating to children stories, there's no way he would have avoided that back in 2009.
 

Victory22

Proud Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2010
Messages
1,807
Points
0
Location
Westland, Michigan, United States
Re: Randall Sullivan's new book "Untouchable"

I imagine in London there would have been some possible protests outside some of his shows because of the allegations, scathing reviews from critics about how MJ got away with 2005 and is now being allowed to be successful again, people saying he didn't have it anymore, people saying he was gonna fake out the rest of the tour, etc etc etc

Almost four years on and we're still hearing about masturbating to children stories, there's no way he would have avoided that back in 2009.

They would have jumped on him like a pack of hungry dogs and torn him to shreds. Nothing he did on stage would have been good enough for them to give him a positive review. He would have been crushed all over again and that was always my greatest fear for him.
 

Victory22

Proud Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2010
Messages
1,807
Points
0
Location
Westland, Michigan, United States
Re: Randall Sullivan's new book "Untouchable"

Can the fans try upvoting these reviews? If we could get 100 fans to do it, they'd be back on the front page

http://www.amazon.com/review/R3AL49Z63O1RZQ/ref=cm_cr_rdp_perm
http://www.amazon.com/review/RRSUGI...080211962X&linkCode&nodeID&tag#wasThisHelpful
http://www.amazon.com/review/R24N4Q...m?ie=UTF8&ASIN=080211962X&linkCode&nodeID&tag
http://www.amazon.com/review/R3RQOX...m?ie=UTF8&ASIN=080211962X&linkCode&nodeID&tag
http://www.amazon.com/review/R1SON8...m?ie=UTF8&ASIN=080211962X&linkCode&nodeID&tag
http://www.amazon.com/review/R1WJH9...m?ie=UTF8&ASIN=080211962X&linkCode&nodeID&tag

A member of my underground group said this: It's the only thing we can really do right now, if we frontpage the best responses to the book, perhaps these idiots will accept the fans have read the book and have real reasons to dislike it. It would only take 100 fans to put some of these reviews on the front page. Wow, some of them have been downvoted 150 times now! They really can't accept anything, it really is just about bashing MJ.
 

jamba

Proud Member
Joined
Nov 12, 2011
Messages
1,261
Points
0
Location
usa
Re: Randall Sullivan's new book "Untouchable"

I wrote a submission to the NYT on this, hoping they would consider publishing it. Since I haven't heard from them I assume they are not interested, and I can see why--I was critical of them So I will post it here. It's a bit late in the day, I know, to post. I had to wait 3 days to see if they were interested.

Unfathomable: The Strange and Tragic Media Attacks on Michael Jackson and His Advocates

A recent article written by David Streitfield in the Times claimed that supporters of Mr. Jackson had launched a campaign to discredit the recently published Untouchable: The Strange Life and Tragic Death of Michael Jackson by Randall Sullivan. Choosing selected sentences from among negative Amazon reviews, Mr. Streitfield painted a portrait of an unreasoning attack, even comparing it to war on a battlefield as opposed to a reasoned debate and describing Mr. Sullivan as a "casualty." In fact, if you go to the website, the reader will find extensive, detailed reviews that pinpoint errors and inaccuracies in this book, including a review from the former physician of Mr. Jackson in Ireland, Dr. Treacy. However, without indicating that there existed any basis for dislike of Sullivan's book grounded in fact and reasonable criticism, Streitfield painted the negative reviews with a broad brush, dismissing them as part of an organized smear campaign, nothing more.

How can such mischaracterizations encourage rational debate? Is it helpful to promoting truth to set up strawmen arguments, distorting reality, and thus encouraging attacks on not only his supporters but also on Mr. Jackson himself, a man who is after all a globally recognized and highly awarded Afro-American artist, and a man who was the target for decades of media mockery, particularly in the USA and the UK.? This denigration of the advocates of a deceased artist, a Black man who rose from the steel-mill industrial town of Gary, Indiana, to entertain millions world-wide, who devoted $300 million to charity, who received literally hundreds of awards, is especially abhorrent on the holiday that we set aside to honor Martin Luther King, another Black American who suffered from hatred and bigotry. Is this kind of mean-spirited attack on the supporters of an artist of world-wide stature really what the New York Times is in favor of?

As a result of Streitfield's false and inadequate characterizations both of Sullivan's book and the objections made by Jackson advocates, literally 130 5 star reviews have been posted on Amazon in the 3 days since the article appeared in the Times. These are clearly from people who, having read Mr. Streitfield's misleading article, are simply trying to defend Mr. Sullivan from what they see as "a swarm of killer bees." In reading these reviews, one finds grossly offensive and abusive terms applied to Mr. Jackson, epithets that we are all familiar with from past decades, including, of course, the assertion that he was a "monster," "a freaky boy," and a child molester. Given the twelve-year pursuit of Mr. Jackson by the Santa Barbara D.A. Tom Sneddon, the millions of dollars spent on searches of Jackson's home, on questioning over one hundred children, the hotline, the website asking for witnesses to step forward, the concurrent FBI investigation, and the 5 month trial in 2005 in which Mr. Jackson was found not guilty, it strikes me that there is no chance that any evidence was overlooked, and yet people can still make this claim today? Is beating a dead horse the occupation of people who believe exactly what they are told by the media? It is a sad day for America and the New York Times when civil discourse among citizens and articles in newspapers stoop to the lowest levels imaginable, both in terms of facts presented and accusations hurled seemingly without thought. Isn't it time for a fresh look at Mr. Jackson and his advocates?

Mr. Sullivan has received the highest possible media presence in order to promote his book. He has appeared on TV interviews with Katie Couric and on Nightline. His book was excerpted in Vanity Fair. He has had favorable articles recently published in the New Yorker and now in the Times. It is a dream come true for authors to get this level of exposure. If the book is not doing well in spite of this, perhaps the fault lies in the book itself and not in the dislike of Mr. Jackson's advocates. As a person who has spent much time researching Mr. Jackson's life and art, I do not appreciate the continuing misinformation promoted by media power brokers. By distorting the truth about the valid objections made by Jackson supporters to Sullivan's book, the Times writer has done everyone a great disservice. A lack of accurate reportage fails your readers and thus fails to uplift the level of discourse. People require information that is true in order to make informed decisions. Lax and lazy reporting hurts the polis, taking us further away from our goals and ideals.
 

CherubimII

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2011
Messages
6,452
Points
83
Re: Randall Sullivan's new book "Untouchable"

Can the fans try upvoting these reviews? If we could get 100 fans to do it, they'd be back on the front page

http://www.amazon.com/review/R3AL49Z63O1RZQ/ref=cm_cr_rdp_perm
http://www.amazon.com/review/RRSUGI...080211962X&linkCode&nodeID&tag#wasThisHelpful
http://www.amazon.com/review/R24N4Q...m?ie=UTF8&ASIN=080211962X&linkCode&nodeID&tag
http://www.amazon.com/review/R3RQOX...m?ie=UTF8&ASIN=080211962X&linkCode&nodeID&tag
http://www.amazon.com/review/R1SON8...m?ie=UTF8&ASIN=080211962X&linkCode&nodeID&tag
http://www.amazon.com/review/R1WJH9...m?ie=UTF8&ASIN=080211962X&linkCode&nodeID&tag

A member of my underground group said this: It's the only thing we can really do right now, if we frontpage the best responses to the book, perhaps these idiots will accept the fans have read the book and have real reasons to dislike it. It would only take 100 fans to put some of these reviews on the front page. Wow, some of them have been downvoted 150 times now! They really can't accept anything, it really is just about bashing MJ.

Done.:yes:
 

Rhilo

Proud Member
Joined
Aug 2, 2010
Messages
2,816
Points
0
Re: Randall Sullivan's new book "Untouchable"

Victory22 - voted. I'm so put off by Amazon, I feel like never purchasing from them again. I have been using Amazon primarily to buy MJ stuff. Why should I continue to give them business when they are showing their bias against Michael and his fans...I could probably buy the same stuff off ebay from independent sellers.
 

jamba

Proud Member
Joined
Nov 12, 2011
Messages
1,261
Points
0
Location
usa
Re: Randall Sullivan's new book "Untouchable"

Victory22 - voted. I'm so put off by Amazon, I feel like never purchasing from them again. I have been using Amazon primarily to buy MJ stuff. Why should I continue to give them business when they are showing their bias against Michael and his fans...I could probably buy the same stuff off ebay from independent sellers.

I agree, Rhilo, with that. I am tired of Amazon too and their mealy mouth bs and their stupid editorial editor Sara Nelson, who wrote a review for Sullivan on Amazon. I have bought a lot of MJ books from them too. I am going to look elsewhere next time--maybe ebay or Barnes and Noble or other sellers. ABEbooks. ?? I am sure we don't have to buy books from them.

Raven Woods has a great blog post on the NYT hit piece just up. Also I heard there is a crap article from Deborah Orr of the Guardian on this bruhaha re Cry Babe, NYT, Amazon. She is an MJ hater.

I don't even want to go back to see the mess the reviews of Cry Babe's book have made. Last time I checked there were 23 pages__or something like that--of reviews. This is all bs.
 

HIStory

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2011
Messages
6
Points
0
Re: Randall Sullivan's new book "Untouchable"

I say let the book sink into obscurity. It's on it's way. It's down in the #10,000s. That's the biggest punishment for Sullivan.
 

Petrarose

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2009
Messages
9,574
Points
0
Re: Randall Sullivan's new book "Untouchable"

That journalist is so determined to try and get this book selling well, why?

And trying to only focus on the "bad" reviews from MJ fans - what about the obvious reviews from people who have read it who have been deleted, and the reviews from 5 star people who have obviously not read it? Reviews sent in by this terrible journalist himself.

And the coroner states he has a nose, why is this some weird "truth" we can't determine?

He seems happy the book's "score" is "evened". His goal was obvious. If this journalist isn't a friend of Sullivan's I'd be gobsmacked.

^^Actually this journalist sounds like a kid in grade school, saying, "they did this to us, and we hit them back, yeah we win." What exactly did he win here. He claims after the article people rushed to write 5 star reviews. He did not have to say they did not read the book, because his statement makes any intelligent person grasp that they did not, and the review was done for retaliation. I thought you wrote a book to help people decide to buy or not buy it.

He writes about what is in the 1 reviews, when anyone can check out the 5 reviews and see their content is not better than some of the 5 reviews. Hey, and about the story about the guy who knew Randy used people to get ahead and lie about them--Sorry I want to know that about an author. I want to know if this guy is ethical in his writing and I could believe his story. If he is a cheater, most likely his story will have a bunch of lies in it too. So, even if that information is not about the book, I would use it to judge the author's character & the potential truth of his work.
 

la_cienega

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2011
Messages
1,175
Points
0
And I just noticed this, re: the hoax confession:

The Jackson family insisted that it was authentic, though, and after Jermaine Jackson arranged its dissemination in cyberspace Jordie’s “ confession” achieved a kind of de facto substantiality.

What an idiot! He claims Jermaine was the one who "disseminated" it into cyberspace - nonsense.

It was posted by someone on June 26th and spread from there, Jermaine had nothing to do with it.

Yes he mentioned it later, but he was definitely not the one to post it or spread it.

Sorry this journalism is just beyond bad. Nothing he says is correct, absolutely everything he says has huge gaping flaws in it. I can't even understand where so much of his info comes from, he clearly just makes up a huge bulk of it.

Now thanks to the New York Times we're not even allowed to question it, because we're a nuisance if we do.

He could also answer why he said that I am Josephine Zohny when I'm not and have never claimed to be, and why he claimed the Floacist's blog was set up to obsessively stalk and harass Jordan Chandler, when it was not.

If I had faith in Deborah I'd ask her to point these things out to him, but I don't.
 
Last edited:

Petrarose

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2009
Messages
9,574
Points
0
Re: Randall Sullivan's new book "Untouchable"

LaCienega don't be misled. He gives this wrong impression of the blog, for example, to paint a picture of deranged, rabid fans. This is supposed to make you discouraged and prevent you from attacking his "facts" in an intellectual way or to make others see you/fans as robots so that they will not take your critiques/analysis seriously. This is a popular attack method of unscrupulous people who cannot win by real facts & by intellectual discourse. People become discouraged and then give up, which is what the person really wants.
 

la_cienega

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2011
Messages
1,175
Points
0
Re: Randall Sullivan's new book "Untouchable"

LaCienega don't be misled. He gives this wrong impression of the blog, for example, to paint a picture of deranged, rabid fans. This is supposed to make you discouraged and prevent you from attacking his "facts" in an intellectual way or to make others see you/fans as robots so that they will not take your critiques/analysis seriously. This is a popular attack method of unscrupulous people who cannot win by real facts & by intellectual discourse. People become discouraged and then give up, which is what the person really wants.

Oh I know, I just can't believe he's allowed to get away with it.

It's laughable to claim the fans have a "Jordan Tracking Blog" and the citation he uses is this:

http://floacist.wordpress.com/2007/09/20/time-flies-when-youre-living-off-of-michael-jacksons-money/

He claims it was posted after MJ died, it was not.

He claims it urges readers to send in sightings about Jordan and posts various hang outs of his, it does not.

He claims the entire blog was set up for that one very specific use, it was not.

But if THIS is all they have to show how the Chandler's need to live underground, it says a lot. If this is the worst of the fans Sullivan can muster, it says a lot. (reminds me of the Chandler's claims about how they lived in fear of their lives after being shot at and almost run over, when the reality was they only had one crazy fan throughout that whole time)

I thought it was funny Sullivan said denying the Jordan confession was real was something he knew would upset fans - how stupid does he think we are? If he's paid one bit of attention to fans he should know none of us here uses or believes that. He takes us for complete fools.

The only problem I have with what he said about it was how he claims Jermaine was the one to spread it and that's a bold face lie. I don't even know where he got that from, some crazy made up story on a hater blog where they blamed Jermaine? I have no idea. But it takes a LOT of stupidity to try and even make that claim, because you'd need to believe Jermaine had posted the message, or tweeted it, or something, and it's patently untrue, and should be obvious it's untrue. Imagine how big a story it would have been if Jermaine had been the one to share it and it turned out to be untrue. He's a complete idiot.
 
Last edited:

Petrarose

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2009
Messages
9,574
Points
0
Re: Randall Sullivan's new book "Untouchable"

^^He seems to be on a hate fest. His issues and citations should be about his book. Not about what fans are doing in other areas. Again I say he sounds like a kid in elementary school. Sullivan is supposed to be a great reporter & look how low he is stooping. He must have been like this all the time, which makes me think that information the fan wrote about how he tell lies and uses people is true. It comes out in his statement. He knows nothing about that blog and came up with yet another tacky lie.

It gives me such a great feeling that a man with so much media clout & exposure could not even sell his book after taking full advantage of prime time TV, inflated paper reviews from Vanity & reporters, book signing, use of reporter pals to attack his non-buying audience, & had to go crying in the public sphere & make a fool of himself.

Overall, it can be said this man had everything and still LOST. Oh I forgot, he had little of value about his subject & despises his audience. Goodbye Mr. Bond.


Let's see you revenue from this book Sullivan--can't be that good....
 
Joined
Feb 6, 2008
Messages
10,193
Points
0
Location
Mexico
I'd love people remembering, admiring, considering relevant, influential and loving Michael for centuries just like Wolfgang Amadé Mozart. He was born 257 years ago and it happens everything I mentioned previously; however I'm afraid with this kind of bullshit surrounding him, he may be remembered also for it. Those racist parasites must die to not happen...
 

ivy

Proud Member
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
16,074
Points
0
Location
USA
Re: Randall Sullivan's new book "Untouchable"

I thought it was funny Sullivan said denying the Jordan confession was real was something he knew would upset fans - how stupid does he think we are? If he's paid one bit of attention to fans he should know none of us here uses or believes that. He takes us for complete fools.

The only problem I have with what he said about it was how he claims Jermaine was the one to spread it and that's a bold face lie. I don't even know where he got that from, some crazy made up story on a hater blog where they blamed Jermaine? I have no idea. But it takes a LOT of stupidity to try and even make that claim, because you'd need to believe Jermaine had posted the message, or tweeted it, or something, and it's patently untrue, and should be obvious it's untrue. Imagine how big a story it would have been if Jermaine had been the one to share it and it turned out to be untrue. He's a complete idiot.

Jermaine is one of the Jacksons that heavily mentioned the hoax confession during his book interviews. So even though he did not start it, he helped it to spread it. Although later on he said he wasn't referring to it and he had other sources of info for that claim.

However Sullivan thinking he is writing that the alleged confession is not real would upset the fans is a total BS. Not only fans were aware that it wasn't true and were highly annoyed that Jermaine and Katherine were repeating it at interviews. In a Q&A with Jermaine, MJJC / I told him it was a hoax and published / circulated it. Therefore it clearly demonstrates that we were very well aware the so called confession was fake / hoax / false / lie and we had no qualms about making it known. So sorry Sullivan you are once again clueless and wrong.


Here's the Q & A below. We sent this question around November 2011 and published the Q&A at February 2012.

MJJC: Are you aware that the internet blog where Jordan Chandler retracted his allegations against Michael is a hoax? In TV interviews you and Mrs Jackson when defending Michael from the child abuse allegations use this argument to prove Michael's innocence and because it is false it has the opposite effect of making viewers continue to question the accusations against Michael. There are so many good arguments to support Michael's innocence and it is extremely frustrating for fans and extremely damaging towards your brother when an argument which is clearly a lie is used.

Jermaine Jackson: I don't know what Internet blog is being referred to??

Michael's attorney Tom had a witness that was prepared to testify that Jordan Chandler had told him the allegations were untrue (should he have appeared as a witness in 2005) The boy had privately retracted it, and Tom was going to prove it. I think that's as good as any argument can get!
 

la_cienega

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2011
Messages
1,175
Points
0
Re: Randall Sullivan's new book "Untouchable"

Jermaine is one of the Jacksons that heavily mentioned the hoax confession during his book interviews. So even though he did not start it, he helped it to spread it. Although later on he said he wasn't referring to it and he had other sources of info for that claim.

I know, but Jermaine only actually spoke about it in November 2009 - months and months after it came out. He never helped to arrange to have it "disseminated it into cyberspace." It went viral on June 26th, and it had nothing to do with the Jacksons or anyone else in MJ's real world. Jermaine mentioning it months and months later doesn't have anything to do with it going viral on June 26th, and he certainly never "arranged" it or helped spread it when it first came out. It's a misrepresentation of what happened, and one of the many many many ones Sullivan makes. He can say Jermaine mentioned it as though to give it credibility, but that's different from what he claimed, he made it seem like Jermaine orchestrated it.

I know, he's clueless about the fans. He lists all our blogs in his citations, even though in every single one we all document the allegations and why they're BS and we don't just say "Jordan confessed after MJ died, so it's all not true!" I've never seen a major MJ blogger try to claim that. It was so condescending how he said that, like he felt we were all clueless and naive. But that tone about us reeks through every page.

I doubt he's even read most of the MJJC interviews, he's one of the most out of touch journalists regarding MJ or in fact social media I've ever seen.
 
Last edited:

Petrarose

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2009
Messages
9,574
Points
0
Re: Randall Sullivan's new book "Untouchable"

^^ He does this purposefully. One of you posted a blog which I looked at, and it seems Sullivan did not give complete URLs for his references. It appears that his source section is not complete. That tells you he does not even want readers going back to check these things. He picks out some words in a blog, like confession, disregards the whole context of the words and rewrites it. What pisses me off is when I think how the professors were so severe about such things when I was in graduate school. In our research papers we couldn't write this; we couldn't change that, and on & on. Here you have people being paid to do things that we in a classroom couldn't even do. It makes no sense!!! Sullivan & his cohorts disregard all the rules & their editors approve it.

We may have to get a type of person who can document & expose them like in the Watergate story.
 
Top