We know the truth, not only by the reason, but also by the heart.

Archive for October, 2010

The Movement Part 1 (MJFanFOREVERAndADAY )


Kanye West Explains Michael Jackson ‘Runaway’ Scene

MC says he used King of Pop’s likeness to represent cult mentality.

By Mawuse Ziegbe

In a production wrought with powerful imagery, the Michael Jackson procession scene in Kanye West’s film debut, “Runaway,” is among the most impactful and intriguing.

Around seven minutes into the movie, which centers on the ill-fated romance between West’s character, Griffin, and aphoenix played by Selita Ebanks, fireworks herald a parade of a crimson-clad marching band flanked by a mob of followers sporting pointed hoods reminiscent of the garb worn by the Ku Klux Klan. The band surrounds a larger-than-life illuminated bust of the late King of Pop, Michael Jackson, while Griffin and the phoenix excitedly look on.

When West sat down with MTV News’ Sway for a live Q&A session that followed the film’s premiere Saturday (October 23) on MTV, he explained that he juxtaposed Jackson’s likeness with the hooded marchers to make a comment about the potent pull of cult mentality.

“The hood, what it does represent to me … in relation to the Michael Jackson thing is not the KKK but the concept of cult, because it’s multiple people with this hood on,” West explained. “It’s me taking [the phoenix] to my world and saying, ‘Let me show you what my world is about.’ ”

West said he invoked the image of the late icon, whose expansive cultural reach was unparalleled, to demonstrate the energy of the pop realm.

“The greatest, biggest pop-cultural figure of all time, arguably bigger than Jesus Christ, is Michael Jackson. You have the band in front of him, marching … and you have the cult around it,” West said, before explaining the scene that precedes the procession, of a young boy in mid-sprint brandishing a flaming baton.

“If you saw the kid in the beginning, he’s running and running at top speed holding his torch, and his torch represents his thoughts and ideals. At the end, after he’s been cultivated, he has the hood on now and he’s walking extremely slow. That’s basically how people think,” West said. “It’s the way society has set people up to be able to control them, slave mentalities.”

Yeezy added that coaxing people into social conformity is an effective form of control — assuming the followers don’t decide to break away on their own trails.

“[By] just creating this mentality by cultivating the ideals … you could just make people just stand in their own mental jails,” he said. “What happens when someone isn’t in a mental jail?”

 


Michael Jackson Alive- Talented Actors!!

This was interesting! lol

 


Michael Jackson The Business Man Thriller 2 Part 12


Lisa Marie Presley’s Interview with Oprah, aired Oct 21, 2010

Lisa Marie Presley Opens Up About Michael Jackson
The Oprah Winfrey Show | October 21, 2010
Lisa Marie Presley
On June 25, 2009, Lisa Marie Presley was in England having what she calls “the strangest day of my life.” 

Despite the seemingly routine tasks of the day—she went to work in the studio before coming home for dinner—Lisa Marie spent the entire day in tears and couldn’t understand why. “I was literally cutting my food, eating my dinner crying,” she recalls.

Later that evening, in an effort to stop crying, Lisa Marie went upstairs and crawled into bed to watch something mindless on television. An hour later, she got a text from her friend John Travolta that sent shock waves through her body.

Lisa Marie’s ex-husband Michael Jackson had died.

The tears stopped as shock set in. “I was floored,” she says. “Honestly floored.”

Oprah and Lisa Marie
A little more than one year after that unforgettable day, Lisa Marie sits down with Oprah to open up for the first—and only—time about Michael Jackson, their marriage and his death. It’s an interview unlike any she’s given before. 

“[In] previous interviews, I’m barky, and I tend to want to skirt out of it,” Lisa Marie says. This time, she wants to speak candidly about the intimate, personal details that made her relationship with Michael as complicated and misunderstood as it was.

“You said on my show, ‘Yes, this was a real marriage,'” Oprah says, referring to her 2005 interview with Lisa Marie. “But the rest of the world thought it was a big, staged publicity [stunt].”

“A lot of that is what I wanted to clear up in this interview,” Lisa Marie says.

Lisa Marie Presley
Though Lisa Marie says her marriage to Michael Jackson was real, she also admits that Michael was a master at manipulating the media

“He was brought up that way,” she says. “He was conditioned to get himself where he needed to go for his career, and he became very good at making and creating and puppeteering.”

Look back at Michael Jackson’s life in photos.

These manipulations made Lisa Marie question Michael’s love for her at the time. “I always confused that manipulation thinking that it meant he didn’t love me,” she says. “But I understand it better now. The manipulation was a survival tactic for him.”

Lisa Marie says any bitterness she held onto after their relationship ended gave way to clarity and understanding upon Michael’s death—along with a flood of emotions.

The day after Michael died, Lisa Marie expressed how she felt about his death and her perceived role in it on her blog. She wrote: “The person failed to help is being transferred right now to the L.A. County Coroner’s office for his autopsy. All my indifference and detachment that I worked so hard to achieve over the years has just gone into the bowels of hell, and right now, I am gutted.”

Lisa Marie Presley
According to Michael’s autopsy, a lethal level of the powerful anesthetic propofol and another sedative caused his death. Lisa Marie says she didn’t suspect Michael had a drug problem during their marriage, though she does recall one incident that gave her pause. 

While rehearsing in New York for an HBO special in December 1995, Michael collapsed onstage and was rushed to the hospital. “I couldn’t tell what was happening,” Lisa Marie says. “Dehydration. Low blood pressure. Exhaustion. A virus.”

“What did your gut tell you?” Oprah asks. “You thought there was some drug use?”

“Yes,” she says.

Lisa Marie also recalls times when she would pick Michael up from a certain doctor’s office, and he would not be coherent. Looking back, she says these behaviors were suspicious, but at the time, she didn’t push the issue.

Lisa Marie Presley
Despite these suspicious incidents, Lisa Marie says the marriage was, in every sense normal, open and intimate. When Michael couldn’t sleep at night, for example, she would stay awake to talk with him. She says she truly enjoyed being there for him. 

“I loved taking care of him,” she says. “It was one of the highest points in my life when things were going really well, and he and I were united. It was a very profound time of my life.”

Lisa Marie Presley and Oprah
Then, after less than two years as husband and wife, the marriage ended. 

Lisa Marie: He had to make a decision. Was it the drugs and the vampires or me? And he pushed me away.

Oprah: Vampires?

Lisa Marie: Meaning, people that are sort of …

Oprah: Sycophants sucking his blood?

Lisa Marie: Sycophants, yes.

Oprah: So you saw that all around him?

Lisa Marie: Oh, yes.

This is something Lisa Marie says her father, Elvis, faced in his life as well. “[My father and Michael] had the luxury of creating whatever reality around them they wanted to create. They would have the kinds of people who were going to go with their program … and if they weren’t, then they could be disposed of,” Lisa Marie says.

Elvis Presley
Photo: Keystone/Getty Images
Legendary fame, addiction, prescription drug overdoses—the parallels between the lives of her father and former husband are astounding, even to Lisa Marie. “It blows me away, to be honest with you,” she says. Michael Jackson even died in a house that was across the street from a home Elvis once owned, a place where Lisa Marie says she spent time as a child. 

See the parallels between Michael Jackson and Elvis Presley.

Michael also seemed to recognize the connection. As Lisa Marie watched footage of the ambulance backing out of Michael’s driveway, she says she thought back to a particularly eerie conversation she and Michael had in the Neverland Ranch library one day.

“We were sitting by the fire, and he was telling me that he was afraid he was going to end up like my father,” she says. “[Michael] was always asking me about when he died, how it happened, when it happened and where. He said, ‘I feel like I’m going to end up the same way.‘”

Lisa Marie Presley
For someone who grew up in the spotlight, Lisa Marie is a very private person who prefers to avoid the public eye. “It’s just not in my nature to do that sort of thing,” she says. Yet, she could not help but fall in love with Michael, one of the most famous men in the world. 

“He was an incredible, dynamic person,” she says. “He had something so intoxicating about him, and when he was ready to share with you and be himself—I don’t know if I’ve ever been that intoxicated by anything. … He was like a drug for me.”

People could not get enough of Lisa Marie and Michael Jackson. Since Michael was promoting an album during their relationship, there were many public appearances to make—including an appearance on the 1994 MTV Movie Awards that became known for the couple’s famous onstage kiss.

“He knew I didn’t love that,” Lisa Marie says. “I would be there, uncomfortably. And his hand was blue after we got off that stage. … I had squeezed it so hard. … But as his wife, I needed to do some things like that.”

Debbie Rowe
Photo: Associated Press
From the day they said “I do” in 1994, Lisa Marie says Michael wanted her to have a baby. 

“I did want to, but I just wanted to make sure,” she says. “I was looking into the future and thinking, ‘I don’t ever want to get into a custody battle with him.'” Over time, she says her hesitation became a source of contention. Then, two months after their divorce was final, it was announced in October 1996 that Debbie Rowe was pregnant with Michael’s child—an act Lisa Marie calls “retaliatory.”

Watch Lisa Marie talks about the pressure to have Michael’s children.

“She was there the whole time telling him that she would [have his child],” Lisa Marie says. “He would tell me, ‘Debbie said she’ll do it.’ That’s how he knew to handle it, ‘If you’re not going to do it, this person will.'”

“That’s what you mean by ‘disposable,'” Oprah says.

“Yes,” Lisa Marie says. “That’s exactly what I mean.”

Lisa Marie Presley and ex-husband Danny Keough
Photo: Ron Galella
At the time, Lisa Marie says she also did hurtful things that affected their relationship. 

One of those things involved Danny Keough, her ex-husband and the father of her two older children. Lisa Marie says the fact that Danny was still in her life made Michael uncomfortable.

“We’d take a vacation and Danny would go, and Michael would get upset,” she says. “And then he’d disappear for a couple of weeks, and I couldn’t find him.” In addition to these disappearances, Michael would also push Lisa Marie away when he felt vulnerable—something she now recognizes as a coping mechanism.

“He honestly tried so hard and went through so much with me,” she says. “He’s never done that with any other female. … I didn’t appreciate it then, and I wish I did.”

Lisa Marie Presley and Oprah
Even with the disagreements, difficulties and stress in the marriage, Lisa Marie says she now knows Michael truly loved her. 

Oprah: Did he have to die for you to recognize that he loved you?

Lisa Marie: I think so, sadly.

Oprah: Is that the first time you recognized or believed that he truly loved you—after he
died?

Lisa Marie: The sweeping answer would be yes. When we were together, we were really in love, and then we had the rough patches. And I had to make a decision to walk because I saw the drugs and the doctors coming in, and they scared me. They put me right back into what I went through with my father. That ended it. But we still spent four more years [together] after we divorced.

Oprah: Really?

Lisa Marie: Getting back together and breaking up. … At some point, I had to push it away.

Oprah: So you still loved him even when you left him?

Lisa Marie: Very much. I was trying to take a stand and say: ‘Come with me. Don’t do this.'”

Lisa Marie Presley
The last time Lisa Marie says she spoke with Michael was in 2005. At that point, it had been nearly a decade since their divorce, and she had shut herself off from him emotionally. 

Watch Lisa Marie talk about the last time she spoke with Michael.??

“I was very distanced, and he was checking to get a read, you know?” she says. “He was trying to throw a line out to see if I would bite emotionally, and I wouldn’t.”

During that final conversation, Lisa Marie says Michael told her she had been right about certain people around him—the vampires. He also asked her if she still loved him.

“I told him I was indifferent,” she says. “He didn’t like that word. He cried.”

Before the conversation ended, Michael revealed something chilling to Lisa Marie. “He felt that someone was going to try to kill him to get ahold of his catalog and his estate,” she says.

“So he actually gave you names,” Oprah says.

“He did, and I would like not to say them,” Lisa Marie says. “But he expressed to me his concern over his life.”

Lisa Marie Presley
Prior to his marriage to Lisa Marie, Michael faced child sexual abuse allegations and rumors that continued to follow him for years. Amid these claims, strange interviews began to surface—in particular, a 2003 documentary by Martin Bashir called Living with Michael Jackson

Lisa Marie: I didn’t see the Michael I knew in that Martin Bashir interview. He was high as a kite from what I saw.

Oprah: He said some pretty shocking things in that interview. Particularly about how he felt it was okay to sleep with young children.

Lisa Marie: I think he said stuff sometimes to be defiant. He got so angry at having been accused. I think that sometimes he was such a little stubborn rebel and, like a child, he would just say what he felt everyone didn’t want him to say.

Oprah: So you never saw anything, and to this day, you don’t believe that any of those [molestation] charges were true.

Lisa Marie: No. … I was never in that room. I can tell you I never saw anything like that.

Michael Jackson's casket at his private funeral
Photo: Harrison Funk/The Jackson Family/Getty Images
On September 3, 2009, Lisa Marie attended Michael Jackson’s funeral with nearly 200 of his closest friends and family members. At the end of the service, after most people left, she says she was the last one standing there with his casket. 

“As you stood over his casket,” Oprah asks, “Were you able to make peace?”

Lisa Marie pauses. “No, I don’t think I could make peace then,” she says. “It was more like I wanted to apologize for not being around.”

Lisa Marie admits it’s na??ve to think that she could have saved her ex-husband from his fate, but she wanted to more than anything. To this day, she wonders whether her efforts could have made a difference. “Had I just said, ‘How are you?’ Can I try to make a phone call? I really did regret that I didn’t,” she says.

Lisa Marie Presley and her husband Michael Lockwood
Lisa Marie now lives in England with her husband, Michael Lockwood—”He’s the most understanding person I’ve ever met in my life”—and their twin daughters. 

It’s been more than a year since Michael’s death and 33 years since the death of her father, but Lisa Marie says their birthdays and anniversaries of their deaths are still extremely difficult days for her. Now, she looks back on those relationships with perspective that can only come as a result of time and healing… and she says she’s ready to move forward.

Text from :

http://www.oprah.com/oprahshow/Lisa-Marie-Presley-Opens-Up-About-Michael-Jackson/1


-The American Public Must Demand Honest Journalism.-

Recent articles trying to keep tarnishing MJ’s name, due to the fact that his name is back on the school auditorium in that Gardner school, have left me livid.  I’d like people to consider the article below…

-by Forbes Everett Landis

–Do you think it is a good idea to keep silence about the attacks on one of the most visible achievers of the American Dream? Are we not forfeiting our children’s future into the hands of bullies? Is it not time for us to speak up about the damage opportunistic journalism is doing to our culture?–

Last year, the news of pop-superstar Michael Jackson’s premature death shocked the world. As I am a classical music fan, not a connoisseur of pop music or any of its stars, Jackson’s death did not immediately evoke any particular emotion in me. I just let it go.

But as the days went by, and as I passively soaked in more and more news reports on Jackson’s death, I began to feel increasingly uncomfortable. A man had passed away: What need was there for the media to so eagerly show humiliating images of how Jackson would have looked on his death-bed? I was prompted to look into the case more thoroughly.

After more than a year, although I am not a Michael Jackson fan, and despite my sometimes skeptical view of the frenzied remarks often made by Jackson’s hard-core followers, I feel the need to say this:

To keep the American dream alive for our children, we should stop abusing our talented and creative spirits out of jealousy and misunderstanding.

Jackson had to deal with the media condemning him as strange, weird, and even labeling him a freak, both figuratively and literally. My opinion about this is clear: Though at times, to subjective eyes, Jackson might have looked ‘different,’ half of this eccentricity was due to the fact that he was born to be an artist inevitably different from others because of his imaginative and creative nature, and half because he was forced into being so unconventional by a degree of media pressure few, if any, have ever experienced. Being different from others does not equate being harmful to others. As long as one does not violate others’ human rights, one has the right to be him or herself. In a society that prioritizes human rights and freedom, I find no justification for attacks on people who are perceived to be ‘different.’ These kinds of attacks are especially sordid when they involve the spreading of knowingly false rumors for financial gain. After Jackson’s acquittal on alleged child related charges in 2005, several journalists, such as Aphrodite Jones, came forward to confess that most of the media in attendance intentionally put objectivity aside in covering the Michael Jackson case by fragmenting the facts divulged in court, reporting only anti-Jackson information.

The human race has quite often owed its scientific or artistic progress to the “weird” and the “eccentric.” Let us consider, for example, Galileo Galilei, who was charged for openly discussing Copernican theory, a concept seen as sinful and roundly condemned at that time; later, of course, this theory went on to become the accepted standard of scientific understanding of the universe. We might also stop to consider how treasonable the very idea of democracy once was, how dangerous the aristocracy felt it to be; later, democracy became the world’s prevailing political philosophy. We can also remember that the concept of equality between : women and men, different ethnicities, or diverse religions, was derided when it emerged. Also, had she not thought differently from others, might Mother Teresa not have been a stay-at-home mom instead of traveling to India and risking her life for humanity?

Keeping the history of these exceptional ideas and people in mind, I can almost guarantee that if one had killed all the “weirdoes” among our Australopithecine ancestors 3.5 million years ago, our species might not have made it to the 21st Century. We might very well have just remained a much more primitive species, one without the use of fire and the wheel, let alone an orchestra, democracy, or computers. Is it not, after all, diversity that allows for evolution?

In other words, “weirdness” is sometimes the inevitable result of an exceptional imaginative ability that sees no boundaries in search of all the creative possibilities. As long as such individuals do us no harm, we should let them be. It is our duty to be respectful of those who are different not only because every human being is entitled to freedom, but also because diversity is at the root of human survival.

To those who regard Jackson’s soft voice altered skin tone or facial appearance as weird, I would simply say this: You are revealing your own nature, at best : narrow-minded or obtuse ; at worst – unkind and bigoted. Nobody’s holy scripture deems it acceptable to criticize the physical appearance of people who have contributed so generously to the voiceless.

To those who think that the Jackson’s spoken voice was peculiar, I would say that I see no significance in it. The spoken voice cannot be uncoupled from the singing voice that so many lauded. It might also be helpful for you to consider this information in order to broaden your understanding of the global context: there are countries where people respect those who speak softly, in a calm, non-aggressive manner. The American standard, where a loud voice seems necessary to assertiveness, is not the only standard in the world.

To those who criticize the ‘King of Pop’ for purchasing Neverland, I pose this question: Would you have survived without buying a Neverland-sized residential property if you were in reality never able to explore any place alone without being horded by an ensuing media and public frenzy whenever you stepped out of your front door? A huge residence with a vast garden might have been the only possible way for this worldwide megastar to relax and enjoy some fresh air without constant intrusion from the public. After all, Jackson earned his money though incredible hard work and a perfectionist work-ethic. In light of his Guinness record-making support of no less than 39 charities, it may very well be hypocritical to criticize his spending habits.

Having demonstrated that there is nothing inherently wrong with living unconventionally, the question now turns to whether or not Jackson ever harmed anyone with his behaviors. Here I will discuss the child related allegations leveled against him. —

In discussing the two instances of allegations Jackson was faced with, I would like to focus my attention primarily on the 1993 case due to the fact that the more recent (2003-2005) accusations ended with Jackson receiving a full legal acquittal on all counts, the extremely low credibility of the accuser’s mother playing a significant factor in this exoneration. In other words, Jackson was found not-guilty so I believe we must discount this case.

Considering that the laws of most U.S. states set down one’s right to sue anyone without being counter-sued solely in retribution for one’s lawsuit, this means that one can safely sue anyone they wants to sue. Thus, the extortion of popular and wealthy persons is an increasingly attractive ploy for those seeking a quick buck. Fast and easy money may once have come at a personal price, that being distrust from one’s community. But, with cities growing ever larger and more impersonal, an individual’s local reputation is of gradually thinning importance, resulting in more room for thievery. To some mischief minded, the risk of exposure as an extortionist might thus seem lower when compared to the potentially enormous financial benefits of a scam. As a result, a millionaire, especially one whose professional value is greatly magnified by popularity, is more vulnerable than ever. According to the National Center for Child Abuse and Neglect, in 1998, 71% of the abuse reports were revealed to be false or unfounded. The false accusation rate even rises to over 90% when a custody battle and money is involved (as was the case between the plaintiff’s parents in the 1993 allegations against Jackson, who was a friend of the child’s mother). In the 1993 case, the charges never went to trial but were settled out of court.

The record illustrates that the financially troubled accuser’s father had previously approached Jackson’s representatives with a monetary request well before he sued for the alleged molestation, demonstrating that he would have refrained from filing suit in exchange for money. Would any parent with real care for the well-being of his or her children make such a deal?

As evidence for my position, I present the recorded phone conversation in which the accuser’s father is heard to say that everything [is] going “according to a certain plan,” that he would win “big time” and that Jackson would be ruined forever. These words sounds far more like the words of a mercenary than those of a father concerned with justice for his son.

It should also be emphasized that Jackson was never indicted on the 1993 allegations, even after an intensive 13-month investigation including interviews with over 400 witnesses in and out of the country, extensive searches of his residential properties, and even a 25 minute full-body examination in which Jackson had every part of his body photographed, videotaped and examined. And in the six years before the statute of limitation had expired, no criminal charges were ever filed. After the District Attorney’s office spent millions of tax payer dollars in hot pursuit of the singer, had they found any evidence of molestation, they would have been certain to indict Jackson. Civil settlement does not prevent criminal indictment. The 13-year-old boy at the center of the allegations refused to testify criminally and his father, the main individual behind the allegations, committed suicide within months of Jackson’s death.

Having discussed the mischaracterization of what people might dismiss as “weird,” and having made plain the falsity of the allegations made against Jackson, accusations that in my view look suspiciously extortionate, I would now like to consider the moral impact that Jackson might have had on our society.

Regarding integrity, Jackson’s deeds and lifestyle, apart from the media’s fabricated stories, remained consistently appropriate. In fact, his decency made him look almost old-fashioned, even when he was young, when compared with many entertainers’ indulgences in sex, alcohol, and drugs. Interviews with Jackson indicated that he felt it highly inappropriate to remark publicly on his sexual life. This, as far as I am concerned, is an example of his dignity and modesty. However, this very reserve may ironically have fueled baseless speculation about Jackson’s sexual orientation. I wish to ask : is publicly questioning a person’s sexual life not way more inappropriate than that person’s choice of silence out of a desire for privacy regarding the same? The fact that Jackson was not involved in a multitude of sex scandals with women, a fact which should normally invite respect, seems unfairly to have been justification for the media to pathologize Jackson. It is beyond ridiculous to construct the lack of lasciviousness and scandal as itself scandalous and suspect.

Many people have also remarked that Jackson did not curse at all, especially when he was younger. Only after suffering numerous hate campaigns founded on falsehoods did he insert a very small amount of profanity into his songs, in response to a world which had betrayed him so deeply. Even then, his use of profanity stayed away from vitriolic attacks , but came across more as an artistic expression of deep anguish.

Jackson also faced many accusations regarding his appearance. But, turning this around, what might this suggest about those themselves who so scrutinized the way he looked? What does it say about their own biases ? And about the people who claimed to know details about every surgical procedure Jackson allegedly had, calling him a freak without even having seen him actually ?
After the 2003 allegations, the media repeatedly and mockingly displayed pictures of Jackson in an emaciated state, not out of concern for his well-being, but seemingly simply in order to label him a freak. It may very well be argued that Jackson was indeed beginning to look fairly thin, but doesn’t taking somebody’s tired physical appearance as direct evidence of inner abnormality only reveal our own superficiality ? Maybe , just maybe anyone else would have looked equally fatigued had they suffered the anguish of having to relentlessly fight vicious and false allegations.

On the topic of morality : Which is more admirable, giving people hope by regularly visiting and donating to hospitals and orphanages, or telling scandalous stories based on speculation or lies? Which is more despicable, pursuing an exceptionally rigorous dedication to artistic perfection, or giving in to jealousy and greed to bring down an artist? The tabloid press, of course, uses this strategy on most celebrities and public figures. One might argue that Michael Jackson had learned to use the press as cynically as it used him, that he , especially in the early days, once believed that “all publicity is good, even bad publicity,” because it keeps their names in people’s minds. One might even go so far as to say that Jackson purposely flaunted his eccentricities to generate press. He did, after all, have a fine artistic sense of the dramatic, with drama selling newspapers. And Jackson always managed to keep his fame burning bright, even when he was not producing any new songs. As elaborated below, my issue, however, is not with Jackson’s handling of the media. Rather it is about what the media’s handling of Jackson says about societal norms and ethics.

Critics have accused Jackson of not opposing false information adamantly enough. Pondering that charge, I suspect that having been abused by the media intrusiveness from his early days in the spotlight, Jackson might have come to feel vulnerable and victimized. Having been taught by his parent always to be nice to the media and to his fans, he might have felt he should not defend himself too vigorously for fear of losing his popularity. Furthermore, had Jackson taken the time to fight every rumor thrown his way, he would not have had time to be Michael Jackson, the artist as he did explain to a close friend. In the end ,we must ask ourselves, who is more faithful and true, a person who calls someone a freak without knowing him personally and without possessing any evidence of wrongdoing, or a person who shows patience and courage in the face of hostility and simply expresses who he really is by letting his work speak for itself?

Some might argue that the attacks Jackson had to suffer from the media and from consumers can be justified as a natural price to pay for the fame and fortune. No, I say. That is too high a price being charged from a human being. Those attacks had exceeded all justifiable limits, And I wish to note that he was not paid to endure pain, but for his relentless efforts and dedication to his craft.

We first explored “weirdness” as necessary and beneficial diversity, specifically addressing the fact that Jackson’s physical appearance and spoken pitch seem irrelevant to his achievements. We then found that allegations of unethical behavior on Jackson’s part were in truth baseless. Then we analyzed Jackson’s non-aggressive stance during TV interviews, not as demonstration of guilt but as a sign of decorum. Lastly, we found that the cost of fame seems an insufficient justification for the extraordinary personal attacks Jackson went through.

We will now consider the implications of the behavior of the media and the public during the course of Michael Jackson’s career. The American media have disgraced themselves by displaying to the world the schoolyard bullying of a talented and creative soul with great philanthropic achievements . Now consider how this public bullying of a legendary figure might present itself to a new generation of youth, how it might play out in their minds and affect their morale … Might this type of public bullying not discourage the youngsters of today from pursuing their own creativity, their own inner diversity, for fear that they themselves might incur such abuse ?

The coverage of Michael Jackson’s life poses among others, these questions to America: Does fulfilling the American Dream require that one subject oneself to unending media intrusion, to lies about oneself for the sake of selling newspapers, and where one unproven accusation is enough to be convicted in the court of national opinion ? Do you want your children to live in a world where pursuing the American Dream involves the risks of a nightmare of mistrust and abuse?

I refer again to the journalists who later admitted their purposely distorted biased reporting on the Michael Jackson child molestation cases. If we recall for a moment the enormous number of journalists who surrounded the Santa Barbara County courthouse, one can surmise that the handful of journalists who came clean about their deception make up only the tip of the iceberg.

I suspect that there were hundreds more who remained silent and who knowingly bent the truth to sell papers. I also suppose that there are thousands of people who, having received one-sided information, once believed Jackson to be a freakish criminal, but who, after his death and the revelation of new information, have come to see him just as one of us, a burdened human being and a caring parent, as well as a uniquely talented artist and a devoted philanthropist. Perhaps these now better-informed members of the public have come to doubt the veracity of the media itself, not just when it comes to Michael Jackson, but in general.

I speculate that there is a pervasive notion that it is safer to say nothing when it comes to Michael Jackson for fear of being promptly stigmatized. However, we need to address the implications of such silent behavior. What does our silence about the attacks on one of the most visible achievers of the American Dream say? If we play it safe, we are forfeiting our children’s future into the hands of bullies. It is time for us to speak up about the damage opportunistic journalism is doing to our culture. As Edmund Burke once penned, “all it takes for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.”

 

Article:

http://hubpages.com/hub/Does-American-Dream-Have-to-Die-With-Michael-Jackson


Michael Jackson Death Hoax Part –SeekingTruthMJ

<div style=”background:#000000;width:600px;height:370px”>http://www.metacafe.com/fplayer/5355442/michael_jackson_death_hoax_part_14a.swf</div><div style=”font-size:12px;”><a href=”http://www.metacafe.com/watch/5355442/michael_jackson_death_hoax_part_14a/”>Michael Jackson Death Hoax Part 14A</a> – <a href=”http://www.metacafe.com/”>Click here for more home videos</a></div>

 

<div style=”background:#000000;width:440px;height:272px”>http://www.metacafe.com/fplayer/5356572/michael_jackson_death_hoax_part_14b.swf</div><div style=”font-size:12px;”><a href=”http://www.metacafe.com/watch/5356572/michael_jackson_death_hoax_part_14b/”>Michael Jackson Death Hoax Part 14B</a> – <a href=”http://www.metacafe.com/”>Click here for more free videos</a></div>


Prince Announces Series of Concerts in New York

There’s an air of familiarity about this press conference…  The clothes, glasses…

And just WHO is  he welcoming to America?? lol

Prince’s look reminds me of some of MJ‘s recent photos circulating the net…

These series of events are to happen in December. Hopefully, nothing will happen to Prince in November,lol

I happen to love both MJ and Prince…

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

credit to

2good2btrue

http://michaeljacksonhoaxforum.com

 


Michael Jackson Hoax – The real making of … (This Is “IT”)???

Thanks to my friends Whitesocks and Ann11 for their insights .

http://thedeathofmj.forumotion.com/other-cool-videos-f38/the-making-of-t4925.htm

Did Stephen King And Michael Jackson Ever Collaborate Together?

SKMJ

The answer is yes. Ghosts is a short film starring Michael Jackson and directed by film director and special effects guru Stan Winston which could also be classified as a long-form music video. Stephen King worked with Jackson on the story and concept. It was filmed and first screened in 1996 and released along with select prints of the film Stephen King’s Thinner. It was released a year later internationally on VHS but has since gone out of print and is unavailable today.

The film tells the story of a scary Maestro with supernatural powers, who is being forced out of a small town by its mayor (also played by Michael Jackson). The movie includes a series of dance routines performed by Michael Jackson and his “family” of ghouls. Every song from the film was taken from Michael Jackson’s HIStory and Blood on the Dance Floor albums.

In the new issue of Entertainment Weekly – a special edition dedicated to Michael Jackson – Stephen King, who is a regular columnist for the magazine, remembers Michael:

MJ EW Covers

Sixteen years ago, the King of Pop called the king of horror with an idea: What if they paired up to make the scariest music video ever?

“One day during preproduction, I was in on a conference call about the choreography, and Michael fell asleep. On another occasion, he called my wife, wanting the phone number for wherever I was that day. She gave it to him. Michael called back five minutes later, on the verge of tears. He hadn’t had a pencil, he said, so he’d tried to write the number on the carpet with his finger, and he couldn’t read it. My wife gave him the number again. Michael thanked her profusely…but never called me. The video contains some of the best, most inspired dancing of Jackson’s career. If you look at it, I think you’ll see why Fred Astaire called Jackson ‘a helluva mover.’ You’ll also see Jackson’s sadness and almost painful desire to please. Yes, I am strange, his eyes say, but I am doing the best I can, and I want to make you happy. Is that so bad? This is a sadness that’s all too common in people who possess talent in amounts so great it has become a burden instead of a blessing. Despite being extraordinarily beautiful (although he had probably already begun the elective surgeries that would ruin those amazing looks), Jackson was painfully shy, and difficult (sometimes impossible) to talk to, but watching that old video still makes me happy…and no, that’s not bad. It’s worth noting that he was never convicted of anything in criminal court, and when I asked Mick—who hung out with Michael occasionally— he was emphatic in his belief that Michael Jackson was indeed innocent of the abuse allegations. In the court of public opinion, however, he was found guilty of Weirdness in the First Degree, and ended up secluded in one haunted castle after another. Finally, he died in one. Strange man. Lost man. And not unique in his passing. Like James Dean, Elvis Presley, Kurt Cobain, Heath Ledger, and a dozen others we could name, he just left the building far too soon. Because, man oh man, that guy could dance.”

Stephen King’s “IT”
(This is IT”)  ???
About ” IT”;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/It_(1990_film)


Michael Jackson Mort ou vivant 42 ième partie


Gospel (SeeingClues)—-MJ

http://seeingclues.blogspot.com/


Jermaine Commands Michael Jackson Army

Interesting title…. and the kids were there. Does it mean it’s MJ-approved?

 

10/4/2010 5:20 AM PDT by TMZ Staff

Jermaine Jackson squeezed into one of his old Jackson 5 costumes to perform a tribute to Michael inVegas this weekend — but the whole thing could ignite some serious family drama.

Jermaine Jackson
While cameras rolled, Jermaine performed a series of Michael Jackson‘s classics to a packed house at  the concert hall at the Planet Hollywood Resort.

Here’s the rub — Jermaine is legally allowed to cover the MJ songs in concert, but if he uses the recorded footage to create and then sell a DVD, album or TV special — he would need to go through theMichael Jackson Estate to secure permission.

So far, it’s unclear if Jermaine did get the green light — but if not, the MJ Estate could bring legal action against Jermaine to protect its most valuable asset … Michael’s music.

FYI … Michael’s kids — Prince, Paris and Blanket — were all at the show.

1004_jackson_kids_Splash_2


Michael Jackson : A Black Man’s Dream


Michael Jackson Message Of LOVE To The World


Love is Energy

One of Michael’s messages to us…


Michael Jacskon was Innocent – Tom Mesereau talks about how Jordan Chandler Lies


NEVERLANDHOME


Talking with Charles Thomson about Recent Divisive Events in the MJ Community


A while back, Extreme Michael Jackson was fortunate enough to be able to talk with Michael Jackson expert Charles Thomson. For those unaware of recent divisive events in the MJ community, Mr. Thomson has received an unfortunate hazing from bloggers who

have somehow decided he is involved in various conspiracies involving Michael Jackson.  There has been a flurry of unjustified misinformation based on diddly squat.

Some of Charles’ audience has decided he is a fanatical, delusional MJ fan defending a monster; others have decided he is not fan enough. The truth is that Charles never represented himself as either- his job as a journalist is to remain objective, have his own opinion when appropriate, and to uncover the facts about whatever stories he is working on.  Since music writing is his niche, he ended up writing about Jackson. Since the facts all point to Jackson’s innocence in the awful scandals he endured, Charles wrote about that. Since Charles is a professional journalist whose job it is to uncover deeper layers of information, he was involved with making Jackson’s FBI files public. Those files clarified further how distorted the media made the facts, and point further to the complete absolution of all charges against Michael Jackson. For some reason, Charles has become the victim of malicious accusations regardless of the laudable services he has done in the name of truth.

Since I did not fully understand exactly what has been going on, or why, I decided to talk with Charles and find out. The interview is extremely long: as ever, Charles is  generous with his time and expertise.  I am going to run the interview as a series, answering one or two questions at a time.

Following today’s question, I have pasted the list of questions so you can all anticipate what is to come.

Our previous interview was at this link:

http://extrememichaeljackson.wordpress.com/2010/05/11/lorette-c-luzajic-talks-with-michael-jackson-expert-charles-thomson/

What I think about Charles Thomson is hardly relevant, but since some of you have asked where I stand on what I see as a non-issue, and where I stand on MJ- as if that is hard to figure out- here is my statement:

I am a lifelong fan of Michael Jackson. I love interesting people and am fascinated by eccentrics, and I am an artist and writer and so I am drawn to unusual and creative people. Jackson is not my only hero, not by a long shot, but my admiration is unwavering- he is one of the greatest artists of all time, an absolutely unique person, grossly misunderstood, with an inexplicable ability to heal people around him and a heart of gold. I love him with all my heart. Yet part of my fascination is with public response: some people have died for him, some recoil, some are inspired, some are terrified. I see MJ as fated to have a mythological role, and part of that mythos is the tragic part. Tragic and broken in his own life- no one this unusual is entirely stable- and also tragic in that his magic and sorrow reveals the best and worst of human nature. Michael shows us a lot more about human nature than he showed about himself.

For these reasons, I do not believe in censoring anyone’s responses, even if I vehemently disagree. I believe in free speech in all areas, including this one. That does not mean I support people’s whims to spread lies: it does mean that I support people’s right to an opinion I may find reprehensible, or merely implausible.

As for Charles Thomson, he is a man I have never met, for those who were asking if we are old friends conspiring together. I certainly hope that we meet one day. I discovered Charles through my vast readings about Michael, and was impressed to say the least. He courageously spoke against the very presses that hire him, not always the best move for a young man hoping for a long career, but a move filled with integrity.  Charles is an extremely gifted writer with a commitment to facts. As a writer, I am envious of his professional skills and his dignified handling of animosity.

Do I agree with Charles on each and every detail? I trust Charles’ facts simply because I see how committed he is to honest reporting, even at great personal expense. But as for matters of opinion, not always. I’ve never met anyone yet with whom I always agree on every opinion. From what little I know, we have very different personality temperaments and different tastes in entertainment. Nonetheless, I am quite certain we would get on famously if we are ever given the chance to meet in a more personal setting. I expect we would not run out of things to talk about over a couple of pints or a fine cappuccino. I am grateful for the virtual world which has led me to this very gifted and inspiring writer.

Moving along now, let’s begin.

Charles, you’re a young writer who blasted rather quickly from school into the public eye after garnering some prestigious attention for your work on James Brown. Then you found yourself in the role of Michael Jackson expert. Was this unexpected? How did this affect the direction and state of your career?

First and foremost, I didn’t leave school and walk right into the public eye. After leaving school at age 16, I went to college for two years where I studied journalism among other subjects. From college I went to university, where I spent another three years in journalism training, graduating with honours in 2009. (NB from Lorette: Please be advised that by “school” I was referring not to high school but to college/university. It seems that Brits do not refer to higher ed as school.)

It is worth pointing out that none of this training is prerequisite for a career in British journalism. The industry qualification is issued by the National Council for Training Journalists (NCTJ) and if you enrol in a fast track course, you can qualify as a journalist in six months, whereas by studying the topic at college and university I trained for four years.

I first started contributing to newspapers at age 16 or 17, during my college years. It was a requirement of the journalism course I was enrolled in – we would interview local figures or cover local events and then write stories for the local press. During my early years at university I contributed to more local newspapers on a regular basis and by age 19 I was doing freelance work for an American music journal. By age 21 I was contributing to national newspapers and magazines.

My work as a Michael Jackson ‘expert’ was unexpected, to say the least. As I told you in a previous interview, I got a tip-off in March 2009 from an insider who gave me information on when and where Michael Jackson would fly into the UK to announce his comeback shows at the O2. The source asked me to leak the details as they felt it would create some positive PR around the concert announcements. I passed the information on to The Sun, which seemed the sensible thing to do – if you want publicity, you might as well go to the country’s biggest newspaper. The Sun realised that I was quite plugged in when it came to Michael Jackson, so they decided to keep using me.

My work with the Sun has drawn much criticism from Michael Jackson’s fans but I’m not quite sure why. At the first sign of impropriety I wrote a long and damning article, condemning them for their skewed reporting on Evan Chandler’s suicide. Before that, they’d never been anything but ethical in their dealings with me. It’s not like I’m some tabloid shill or paid Sun apologist. When I wrote that article about the Sun scrapping my research on Evan Chandler and replacing it with inaccurate information, I jeopardised any future work with the newspaper and have barely done anything for them since.

Regarding how my work on Michael Jackson has affected the state of my career, it hasn’t made me rich. It has boosted my profile, but only because the fans discovered my blogs and started posting them all over the internet. Before the fans discovered me, I was blogging about Michael Jackson in almost total obscurity. I got paid for my work with the Sun, but the hoopla surrounding Michael Jackson’s concerts and then his death only lasted from around March until October, and they didn’t consult me for every Jackson story they wrote – not by a long shot. It wasn’t a long term gig and my services were required only occasionally.

The majority of my work on Michael Jackson, particularly concerning the allegations and the trial, has been totally pro bono. I don’t get paid for my Huffington Post articles and obviously I write my own blog for free. But I don’t mind doing a certain amount of pro bono work. I consider journalism to be a vocation. I think it is a necessary job, especially in an era when many journalists are tethered by corporate ownership. So if I think a story is important, I will write it for free if need be. That goes for writing 5000 word essays about the media’s horrendous coverage of Michael Jackson’s trial, or covering important issues for my local newspapers. I’m currently covering a story in my town about local government trying to bulldoze children’s playing fields and build houses on them.

My work on Michael Jackson has made me a bit of an internet celebrity, which has brought just as many problems as it has benefits. But it hasn’t made me rich or won me a lucrative job in the media industry. I’m the same person living in the same house and doing the same stuff on a day to day basis – my name just generates more hits on Google.

Next time:

As a journalist, you were instrumental in getting Michael Jackson’s FBI records released to the public. Tell me about that process. What did those records reveal?

stay tuned for these questions during this serial:

Charles, you’re a young writer who blasted rather quickly from school into the public eye after garnering some prestigious attention for your work on James Brown. Then you found yourself in the role of Michael Jackson expert. Was this unexpected? How did this affect the direction and state of your career?

As a journalist, you were instrumental in getting Michael Jackson’s FBI records released to the public. Tell me about that process. What did those records reveal?

In an earlier interview with me, you stated that you believe in Michael Jackson’s innocence, not because you like his music, but because that’s what the evidence shows. The importance of this distinction might seem rather obvious, yet it is a distinction overlooked by Jackson’s fans and foes alike. Can you comment on that?

You wrote an excellent piece for the Huffington Post about how the tabloid lynching of Jackson is one of the media’s most shameful episodes in history. And you’ve consistently conveyed fact based journalism and analysis that champions Michael Jackson as innocent, doing much to vindicate that innocence to detractors. This has exposed many prejudiced hatemongers or the woefully misinformed for what they are. Yet recently, you have been attacked on some rather absurd premises. Can you tell me about that?

Regarding the photograph with Randy T- is Randy also a villain in this saga?

You were also accused of being someone you weren’t. Tell me about that.

Your previous interview on my blog received mostly wonderful support. But not entirely. I was asked why I’d run an interview with you on my blog, since you allegedly had not been a supporter before Jackson’s death. I mentioned that you are barely out of school and probably were not yet working during the trials. Am I wrong? Was there a time when you were giving Jackson negative press, and changed your mind?

There seems to be a phenomenon happening where some fans or bloggers or writers feel they have a monopoly on Michael’s legacy. While for the most part, I feel an extraordinary kinship and love as part of Michael’s fandom, there are some unfortunate divisions. Why can’t we all just get along?

You’ve been criticized for expressing that there were some artistic choices Jackson made that didn’t appeal to you. Can you comment?

For me, pretending a hero is beyond reproach, or pretending that every song or performance must appeal to every audience, means a danger of losing our critical faculty. Michael Jackson himself was far more critical of his work than even his toughest detractors. Can you comment on that?

I also feel it is dangerous to sweep things under the rug in order to sanitize someone’s reputation. We can’t get over stigmas and taboos about, for example, drug addiction, until we are able to honestly discuss such struggles. I’ve been criticized for referring to Jackson’s substance struggles, which is ironic given my own historical struggles and losses. Doesn’t it diminish Michael’s very humanity if we just leave important parts of the puzzle blank? In a sense, denying Jackson’s various struggles means denying his pain, the pain our society caused him.

You’ve also received support throughout this time. Tell me about that.

How did you handle the whole episode? How did it make you feel? What lessons have you learned?

What does this episode say about the dangers of fanaticism?

How will you proceed from this day forward?

We are talking with Michael Jackson expert Charles Thomson about some recent, peculiar events in the fan community. To recap, Thomson is a music journalist who frequently writes about black music. His award winning work on musicians like James Brown and Michael Jackson is widely read. He has written extensively in defense of Michael Jackson’s innocence, but has recently come under fire for his alleged secret agenda. In this lengthy serial interview, I tried to find out how things got so out of hand. One moment, Charles was a devoted, brilliant writer…the next, he was being accused, exposed, and jabbed for some absurd motivations. I wasn’t quite sure what was going on, so I decided to ask.

Read the first part of the interview (yesterday) here: http://extrememichaeljackson.wordpress.com/2010/09/29/talking-with-charles-thomson-about-recent-divisive-events-in-the-mj-community/

As a journalist, you were instrumental in getting Michael Jackson’s FBI records released to the public. Tell me about that process. What did those records reveal?

The files were released under a piece of legislation called the ‘Freedom of Information Act’. The act is designed to maintain openness and transparency in government by allowing members of the public to request information which is, for one reason or another, not public. The FBI, as a government body, is required by law to respond to FOIA requests.

While a person is alive, their FBI file is unavailable because to release it would breach privacy laws. You can get around this rule but only by getting the subject of the file to sign a privacy waiver agreement. However, once a person is deceased you can request their file and the FBI is required by law to release it unless it breaches national security. The files are often redacted, however, because they include reference to particular FBI agents or information on people who are still alive.

I was one of several people who requested Michael Jackson’s FBI file under the Freedom of Information Act, which I did because I was curious to see if it contained any additional information on the government’s repeated interferences in his life. I wasn’t sure he’d even have an FBI file so I was shocked to learn that he did and that it was 600 pages long.

Overall, I was distinctly unimpressed by the FBI’s handling of the request. Initially this was because the FBI took so long handling my request. In the UK, bodies are required by law to answer FOIA requests within 20 working days. However, I filed my request with the FBI in summer 2009 and it wasn’t released until December.

I was also unimpressed by the way in which the FBI released the documents, which I’ve never seen them do in any other case. They announced to the world’s press that the documents would be uploaded on a certain date at a certain time, which sparked a worldwide rush to download the documents and be the first to write a story about them. Meanwhile, as one of the original requesters of the file, I was not given any advance notice or priority.

The result was that the media, all racing to be the first with the story, skim-read the files and published wildly inaccurate stories about them on a global basis. I saw newspapers which claimed that the FBI had supposedly seized a videotape from Jackson and found child porn on it. The files actually said that the tape, seized from an unknown person at Palm Beach customs, was simply ‘connected to Jackson’ – and that connection appeared merely to be that somebody had written his name on the cassette’s sticky label. As for child porn, there was no record of any being found.

Other newspapers said that the FBI had investigated allegations that Jackson molested two Mexican boys in the 1980s. This was patently untrue. The FBI merely noted a phone call in which somebody claimed that they’d heard a story that the FBI had investigated such a claim. The documents further note that the FBI “searched indices, both manual and automated for any reference to the above mentioned investigation. No references were found.” In other words, somebody telephoned the FBI and made a bogus allegation. The FBI noted that allegation and found no merit to it, but the media misrepresented the allegation as the FBI’s own conclusion.

The inaccuracies in the media’s reporting on Jackson’s FBI files were countless and they went all over the world. The files supported Jackson’s innocence, showing that after ten years of investigation by both the LAPD and the FBI, neither organisation had ever been able to find one piece of evidence connecting Jackson to any crime. The release of the files should have been positive PR for Michael Jackson but the media’s ridiculously poor reporting had the opposite effect.

This is why I was so irritated by the way in which the FBI handled the release of the documents. If I had been given some kind of advance copy because I was one of those who actually requested the file, I could have read them properly and filed an accurate report, which would have been copied and pasted by lazy media outlets the world over. By releasing the documents to a global mob of salivating reporters the FBI ensured that the files were not read properly before news outlets started filing reports on them. So instead of repeating accurate claims about the FBI files, media outlets – on a global basis – were recycling distortion and misinformation.

My other gripe with the FBI was that they omitted around half of Jackson’s file and never offered any explanation as to why. My understanding is that government bodies are required by law to give an explanation as to why any information has been held back when answering an FOIA request. I never saw any record of the FBI giving any such explanation.
In an earlier interview with me, you stated that you believe in Michael Jackson’s innocence, not because you like his music, but because that’s what the evidence shows. The importance of this distinction might seem rather obvious, yet it is a distinction overlooked by Jackson’s fans and foes alike. Can you comment on that?

Michael Jackson is a divisive subject. He has some very overzealous fans and some very overzealous detractors, both of whom have attacked me for pretty much the same reason. The detractors have attacked me because they think it is impossible to believe in Michael Jackson’s innocence unless you’re an insane fan. They’ve palmed me off as a ‘floon’, a word they use to describe Jackson’s ardent supporters. But I don’t even like all of Jackson’s albums or tours and I’m certainly no apologist for his mistakes.

Unfortunately, the fact that I don’t like all of Michael Jackson’s albums or tours and don’t airbrush over his mistakes has drawn the ire of some of his fans, too. They don’t seem to be able to distinguish between a fan and a journalist and, displaying logic that is strangely similar to Jackson’s detractors, they seem to think it’s impossible to believe in Michael Jackson’s innocence unless you’re a devout fan.

I’ve said in the past – notably in my previous interview with you – that I don’t like a lot of Jackson’s later musical output or performances. Consequently, these fans have lambasted me as a ‘hypocrite’ and a traitor. Quite what my opinion on Jackson’s HIStory Tour or Invincible album has to do with my views on his trial, I’m not sure, but for some fans there is definitely a perceived connection. I can’t understand the logic that by believing Jackson is innocent and at the same time not liking some of his albums I am a hypocrite. The two, as far as I am concerned, are irrelevant to one another. It’s like calling somebody a hypocrite because they love apples and hate pears.

Next time: You wrote an excellent piece for the Huffington Post about how the tabloid lynching of Jackson is one of the media’s most shameful episodes in history. And you’ve consistently conveyed fact based journalism and analysis that champions Michael Jackson as innocent, doing much to prove that innocence to his detractors. This has exposed many prejudiced hate-mongers and the woefully misinformed for what they are. Yet recently, you have been attacked on some rather absurd premises. Can you tell me about that?

I discovered a few months ago that somebody had been impersonating me on TMZ. Worried that they’d start impersonating me elsewhere, and knowing that twitter is famous for such cases, I decided to set up a twitter account. Within a few days I had roughly 200 followers and was enjoying interacting with the fans and answering their questions.

During one discussion the subject of Michael Jackson’s drug dependencies came up. I suddenly found myself bombarded with angry and abusive tweets insisting that Jackson had never been addicted to any substance and the whole story was an evil media conspiracy. I pointed out that several of Jackson’s relatives have said in interviews since his death that they knew he was addicted to drugs and had tried to stage interventions. The fans simply claimed that these relatives were part of the conspiracy.

That incident caused some of Jackson’s fan to turn against me. My comments have been blown up since then; the product of several months’ worth of Chinese whispers. I recently saw somebody claiming they’d seen me write on twitter that I was planning a negative article about Jackson’s drug addictions – a total fabrication. The incident has been exaggerated to a ridiculous extent.

At roughly the same time, I travelled to Los Angeles for a week and while I was there I met the author J Randy Taraborrelli, who quoted my work in the latest edition of his Michael Jackson biography. We went out for dinner and while we were there we got some pictures taken. Both Randy and I posted the pictures on our facebook pages.

A while later I found out that somebody had written a blog accusing Randy and I of being involved in a Sony conspiracy to murder Michael Jackson. I emailed the blogger asking them to remove the entry because it was false. The blogger simply replied, ‘But I have a photo of you and Taraborrelli. What am I supposed to do with that?’, as though the photo was some sort of big secret. The blogger was taking an open and acknowledged friendship between myself and Randy and claiming that it was somehow secretive or suspicious.

The twitter incident combined with the animosity some fans felt towards Randy – and therefore towards me by association – created a backlash against me and my work, spurred on in no small part by the constant assertions by conspiracy theorist bloggers that I was somehow involved in a thus far unfathomable (at least to me) plot by Sony to murder Michael Jackson by writing blogs about him after his death.

I have never worked for Sony. Ever. The allegation is absurd and it is entirely without any evidential basis. Unfortunately, that hasn’t stopped a number of vulnerable fans from being taken in by the claims.

The fall-out from these Sony allegations has been extremely distressing for me. I received numerous obscene and threatening messages via email and facebook. The blogger’s followers started spying on my social networking accounts and publishing details of who I was talking to and what I’d been writing.

This intrusion into my private life, as well as the hate mail, prompted me to privatise all of my social networking accounts. The blogger even tried to usethat against me, claiming that the privatisation of my accounts proved Sony had ordered me to stop interacting with the fans!

I soon came under attack from a second blogger who actually attempted to blackmail me. The blogger found my page on a website I’d joined at college that offered support for gay teens, then emailed me threatening to ‘expose’ me unless I gave them information on Sony’s involvement in Michael Jackson’s death. This was information I didn’t have, which resulted in the blogger outing me as gay.

That second blogger also unearthed an old account I had on a Michael Jackson related forum, where I made – I would estimate – in excess of 10,000 posts over approximately 5 years. The blogger selectively posted a handful of comments I’d made on the forum (many quite similar to comments I’d made in our last interview; points about not liking Jackson’s latter musical output and complaining that he didn’t help himself in terms of bad press by constantly painting a target on his back). This sparked fury among some of the more obsessive fans.

This all links into what I was saying earlier about how some fans can’t conceive of somebody believing in Jackson’s innocence but also disagreeing with some of his decisions. The stance these fans take is that you either totally support every single thing Michael Jackson has ever done or you’re a traitor and a hypocrite.

In your question you used the word ‘absurd’, and I think that’s a very accurate word to describe what has happened to me over the last few months. The allegations being levelled at me are beyond absurd. There is no evidence in existence that will tie me to Sony and I can state that with 100% certainty because I have never worked for them. Ever. I’ve never worked for Sony, I’ve never met John Branca, I’ve never been a ‘paid blogger’ for anybody and I certainly wasn’t involved in Michael Jackson’s death. Anybody claiming to have evidence supporting any of these allegations is a liar and/or a fantasist.

Sometimes, as I read the blogs making these allegations, I do still get angry at how these people can write total nonsense about me and there is nothing I can really do about it. However, I don’t get too worked up because as I browse their other content – nasty comments about Jackson’s grieving relatives, allegations that ‘This Is It’ is all body doubles and even claims that Jackson may have faked his own death – I understand that nobody of sound mind would take any notice of them.

What does make me angry is when I see vulnerable fans looking to these blogs for answers and taking them seriously. Whenever I look underneath one of those blogs and see somebody commenting, ‘Thanks – I didn’t know Charles was a hired Sony blogger. I won’t support him anymore’, that makes my blood boil. These bloggers are taking advantage of vulnerable people – and those vulnerable people are bigger victims in this situation than I am.

Read more:

http://extrememichaeljackson.wordpress.com/2010/10/02/interview-with-charles-thomson-part-3/