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.
