Michael Jackson Interview?

Williamhenry

Sorry if you think my posts are 'longwinded'. Perhaps that's an example of cultural difference. Where I come from, we encourage the use of words to express ourselves, both in oral and written form. Our maybe we just have longer attention spans over here!!

This is a complex subject, that's hard to 'dumb down', although I suppose the US media are capable of reducing anything to soundbites!

It's just as well Michael Jackson has the luxuary of rebuttal. Unfortunately, many people that the parasitic sections of the media have used for their own benefit, have not been so fortunate.

I also don't need any Valium, but thanks for the offer. I simply thought this site was for exchanging information, or perspectives on various subjects. I was offering the perspective of someone who has some experience of the media and propaganda. Having grown up (and still living) in a country that has a history of conflict, in which not only violence, but propaganda has been used by all sides, it's hard not to learn a thing or two on the subject after more than three decades.

I've seen how facts can be twisted, lies disseminated, and murder / maiming justifed by the perpetrators of the violence, via the news media as well as other methods. Believe it or not, people actually support / believe the propaganda, and quite a few of them even consider themselves to be 'educated' or 'well informed'. Sometimes the supposedly 'intelligent' people are the easiest to dupe.

If people are gullible enough to be manipulated into believing excuses for violence, then manipulating public opinion on a tabloid news story such as Michael Jackson's lifestyle, isn't really that much of a streatch.

With the ongoing propaganda war regarding Iraq, you might want to consider what I've been saying. Who is telling the truth? Who can you trust? Or they telling you all the facts? Or do they simply tell you their own, 'subjective', 'edited' version of the story?

I will stop there. I wouldn't wish to exhaust you with a really longwinded post on the subject! In future, I'll try and restrict myself to small bite size McPosts.

Chatoyant

No need to feel guilty about watching this sort of TV, or any type of 'fluff TV'. As long as it's balanced by something else that's more important in life, then a desire for escapism is perfectly okay, and natural.

The secret, is not to switch of your critical thinking when reading a paper or watching TV. Too many people just slump infront of a TV, and soak everything up like a sponge, without trying to question the validity of the information. Some of it is real, some of it is an illusion. The trick is spotting what is real, or at least keeping an open mind until you can verify the 'facts' you see or hear. Everything else, can be discarded. Asking yourself, what the possible overt or covert agenda may be, of those making the TV show, or those particiapting in it, is a good a place as anywhere to start. Sometimes, it's also more interesting to think about what they are not telling you. Or what is it they are trying to distract your attention from? Or what audience, are they really speaking to?

Next time you want to watch a documentary like this one, and you feel guilty about spending your time on tabloid TV, you can always tell yourself it's 'research'. Just call it something like 'media studies'.

You know, I really get the feeling that in his mind, he literally is a child. I wonder if because he didn't really get a childhood himself, he will forever be living one out in his adult life. I am perplexed over the children sleeping with him thing. I have nothing against co-sleeping with your own children. I know that is a popular practice known to "attatchment parenting." Children that are not your own, though? It was strange the way he tried to sweeten it by saying they have milk and cookies, and read stories...
Being a mother of two children myself, it was quite obvious to me when Michael was feeding "Blanket" that he had seldom fed a child a bottle before. Obviously he has help to take care of the children, and there's nothing wrong with that. I just wouldn't say anything bad about him from what we saw while he was feeding him. I also got the feeling that his leg was shaking partly out of nervousness. He seemed very on edge. Not that there's anything wrong with that either. Perhaps his toe was itching, or he had one too many cups of coffee.
I read alot of posts here saying that he uncaringly dragged his children around. I don't know about that. There was press and cameras all over them. If that happened to my kids, I probably would have quickly pulled them along also. I can think of times when walking my children into the house during a cold night that I pulled them along quickly to get them out of the cold. It didn't seem like horrible parenting on his part.
And the holding his baby over the balcony thing? Here's my angle - if he only has the maturity of a "child", perhaps he didn't know any better. Still, there's really no excuse. If he only has the maturity of a child, he ought not to be a parent. Someone has to be the grown-up.
I'd also like you all to keep in mind the unfortunate miracle that is editing. There may have been times when Michael kissed his daughter's scraped knee or gave his son a piggy-back ride, but would they include that in the interview? What do you think?

Creme Brulee

First of all, welcome to the site.

Secondly, it's always a pleasure to meet people who have open minds, look at things from an alternative perspective, and are willing to withold judgement until all the facts are known. Sometimes, I even take up an alternative viewpoint in a discussion, just to provoke people into thinking, and explain their own opinions (If they can). Constructive Provocation I call it. Although this time, I actually mean what I say. Honestly! Or is that just more propaganda....ehmmmmm.....who can tell?

Thirdly, I brought up the subject of editing sometime ago, but it's good to see you also think that it may at least be a possibilty. The fact that Martin Bashir's glowing compliments of Jackson's relationships with his kids, were editied out off the broadcast, make me, for some crazy reason, a little suspicious about the overall tone and general credibility of the documentary's content.

Call me a cynic!!

creme, Michael Jackson obviously takes drugs. I doubt he has much to do with the bringing up of his children and probably is not exactly in control the few times he goes before a camera with them. Probably isn't too aware even of what he's doing.

But, his family defends him, as do some people here. What is wrong with the parents of those kids who lie around in bed with a aging super star. They will be held responsible.

Tex-Star

Tex-Star

A lot of people thought a lady named Sally Clark murdered her kids. Even after a court case in which evidence was presented by both sides. However, after serving a few years in prison, Sally Clark is now a free woman. Apparently the prosecution 'evidence' wasn't as reliable as people imagined. It had been 'edited' as well. Sound familiar?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/2706699.stm

Even the courts can get it wrong. This is just one example. But while the courts are not perfect, they are sure as hell better than 'trial by television'. If an innocent mother can be convicted in court of killing her babies, I think there may just be a slim possibility that the 'evidence' presented in tabloid newspapers or on a TV documentary that uses edited footage (Evidence), may also lead to an innocent person being wrongly convicted by the experts that make up a TV jury.

Maybe Jackson is guilty of all the things that you and others say, but as yet, no evidence has been produced that would convict him in a court of law. Until the evidence is produced, he's an innocent man.

Welcome to A2K, Creme_Brulee.

Thanks stinger for the thoughtful long-winded posts, I appreciate them - it drives those with the short attention spans away. And they are far more likely to reside in my part of the world in the southeast USA, than in any part of Europe. As for the valium, a quick glimpse at the posts in this topic makes evident who needs it and who doesn't.

I appreciate your posts too, Stinger. I do have to say it's hard to keep an open mind when one sees child abuse going on right before his/her eyes. Jackson may not be beating the crap out of his kids, but the things he does is abusive, in my opinion.

Do his kids think it's normal to wear a mask out in public? At what age will they figure out their father is a freak? Will it be too late for them? Why would he take his children out in public and take the risk of them getting hurt or kidnapped?

No responsible parent would ever dangle a baby over a balcony. Nor would they lead their children to believe they have no mother. Sooner or later, they'll figure out everyone has a mother and they'll wonder why they were lied to.

What responsible person would think it's okay to share a bed with children, especially older children like the one shown who was holding Jackson's hand and leaning his head on Jackson's shoulder?

I admire MJ's talent, but I totally disdain his abuse, yes abuse of children. I keep an open mind until things are proved otherwise.

Michael's Interview
How closed minded can you be? Apparently you must be in financial duress or just a jerk. Michael has done an injustice to himself, and what I mean by that is all the plastic surgeries other than that. He is just another victim of a closed minded racist society, that wishes they had half or even a portion of his monies. That man is brilliant and a child within himself. He is no more a molester, pervert or deranged person than you are. Hey do you have issues you'd like to share? Leave the man alone and get a life....

Whoa, mom, that's a pretty flaming opening post.

Perhaps you should go read again the member agreement.

We tend to write to each other a bit more civil than that here.

Stinger, did I say Michael Jackson was "guilty" of something? As of yet, he isn't. Anyhow, what the heck do I know. The media just goes on and on...

Tex-Star

Michael Jackson Interview
The interview showed what an idiot the reporter was who did the interview. He was very biased and I would like to see the entire tape before editing.

This stupid reporter had in his mind what he wanted to show the world whether it was true or not.

Micheal isn't all that weird. He is just reacting to the crazy world around him.

Really watch it. Watch it close. He seems pretty human and normal to me.

I am not a Michael Jackson fan by the way.

Here's your TV guide to this week's Michael marathon:

The self-described King of Pop is king of February sweeps. Three major broadcast networks devoted 10 hours of programming to the scandal-plagued singer.

*ABC plans a new one-hour special tonight (Monday 2/17) at 8 ET/PT, 'The Many Faces of Michael Jackson.'

*Then, ABC will re-air 'Living With Michael Jackson' (9 ET/PT), which drew 27 million viewers Feb. 6 and aired five times over the weekend on cable's VH1.

*In response, NBC has expanded its own special, 'Michael Jackson Unmasked', to two hours (9 ET/PT). First planned as a look at his facial surgery, the Dateline special will answer some of the questions raised by ABC's report, which was conducted by British journalist Martin Bashir.

"We started looking into the seamy contradictions in his life," Dateline producer David Corvo says. "It became more investigative than we intended."

Fox presents a Jackson-authorized rebuttal that airs Thursday (8 ET/PT) and includes footage filmed during production of the Bashir special and an interview with Jackson's ex-wife Debbie Rowe.

Thanks, but no thanks -- I'm not pining to watch all this media crap about MJ. I'm not so astonished at the public fixation on this kind of news -- look at the success of the banality of "reality" shows.
This has be categorized as going past "news" and into cheap sensationalism.

I watched the interview again last night, but this time I gave it my full attention. I've never been a MJ fan, but I never had a problem with him either. In my opinion, MJ is far from being the normal guy, but from what I could see, he seem to be a very caring and compassionate human being and the only problem I see is the fact that he sleeps in the same bed with children other than his own. My problem with it is not that I think he's mollesting them, it's the fact that it gives these kids a false sense of security and trust towards getting that close to any adult that is not their parent. The first time I watched the interview I had a problem with the way he handled his baby, but with lots of thinking I realized that those children are most likely care for by nanny's day 24/7, so that's doesn't bother me anymore.
I truly feel sorry for the man since he is constantly being tortured by the media and truly can't have much of a life. I also feel bad for him because since he was beaten as a child by his father, he never really had a childhood, which may explain why he is so childlike to this day.
I personally think he's interesting to watch and I wouldn't mind hanging out with him myself. He may be a bit over the top, but that's what makes him interesting.

Now don't anyone start throwing stuff at me

To the other refugees from Abuzz, I have to comment that it's pretty amazing how a TV show can lead to a thread this long!!!

And before you say anything WilliamHenry, I mean the number of posts, not the length of individual postings!

Anyway.......

I am quite happy for people to agree or disagree with me on any subject. It's a free world, so they keep saying anyway. All I wish to encourage, on any subject, is for people to think....and then think some more, before forming an opinion. To avoid rushing to judgement, or relying on partial or dubious information, from untested or questionable sources etc.

Wisdom, is knowledge and experience, with the ability to apply them. While I wouldn't claim to be an 'expert' on anything, along the winding road of life, I have acquired a little bit of wisdom, on a few things.

As I have alluded to previously on this thread, my little patch of earth has experienced a few decades of conflict....or a couple of thousand years, depending on how you look at it. The plus side of growing up in a society in which violence is constantly simmering, is that you get plenty of 'hands-on' sociological / psychological 'field work', right in your own home town, without having the trouble of boarding a plane and flying to Beruit or the Balkans. (That's just me being a glass half full person!)

Over the years, there have been many acts of violence in my country. The details of many of those incidents, are so brutal that I won't even try to describe them. The level of hatred, brutality, and naked aggression, bordering on sadism in some cases, is beyond the comprehension of any rational individual. It makes you wonder about the darkness that lies within fellow human beings, and provokes the obvious questions - What am I capable of doing? What separates me from them? To put it simply, murder isn't quite how it seems in the movies!

I know this posting appears to be going off on the mother of all tangents, but stick with me. Hang in there, I'm almost done.

There have been countless incidents in my country, in which people have been murdered by virtual or complete strangers, simply because they were from the 'other side'. Or to be more accurate, they were perceived to be from the 'other side'.

Why were they really killed?

Propaganda and ignorance.

Ignorance, is fertile ground on which to sow the seeds of propaganda.

Propaganda, unchallenged by facts / truth, can manipulate people into hating complete strangers. Fellow human beings become nothing more than labels or stereotypes. Their lives become cheap or worthless. The result is bombs in bars and resturants. Car bombs in busy streets. Shootings at point blank range, in front of the victim's kids. Gunmen armed with assault rifles entering a bar, and spraying the customers.....etc etc etc etc etc.......I could go on!

I know that seems like a different world from a documentary on the strange world of a pop star. But it's really all part of the same game, in which you are a player. If people can be conditioned by propaganda into believing it's justifiable, maybe even patriotic to commit mass murder, for a 'cause', imagine how easy it is to manipulate Joe Public into believing supposed facts or evidence, about showbiz personalities. On a scale of difficulty, which would be easier?

A clever piece of editing. Maybe the juxtaposition of certain images to hammer home the message. Careful misuse of context. Avoid asking particular questions in order to avoid receiving answers that may not fit in with the hidden agenda of the journalist / TV show. Play on the prejudiced opinions that already exist in the minds of the audience (Thanks to the previous outstanding examples of journalitiv integrity), and just give the folks at home what they want to see, and already believe to be true.

Before forming opinions on an issue, especially when you are being encouraged to dislike or hate another person, it's always best to stop and think. Are you being manipulated? Have you been told ALL the facts? Someone else's opinons, are not necessarily 'facts'. Their 'truth', is not necessarily 'the truth'.

Sometimes the truth, is just an illusion.

Unfortunately some people pay have to pay the ultimate price for our ignorance.

Over/under on nose jobs: 15

eye jobs/brow lifts: 10

skin bleaching: one every three months for past 10 years

(the tape on his fingers is apparently to cover up the skin under the nails, which bleaches less successfully)

Cheekbone lifts/chin cleft sculpting/assorted other facial work: 10

The sad fact about all these Michael Jackson shows in one night is that they are on opposite the riveting finale of Joe Millionaire. Which is a thinking person supposed to choose???

I really think there are duelling cynic positions here:

1.) Celebrities get away with murder. Whether literally (O.J.) or figuratively, it is a valid concern that celebrities are not held to the same standards as the rest of us.

2.) Celebrities are vulnerable to opportunists. From false paternity claims to false sexual abuse claims, those who have both money and a reputation that they want to protect are prime targets for scams.

I have come to no conclusions regarding Michael Jackson. But I tend more towards #1 than #2. Watching through the eyes of a cynic, spotting countless manipulations by Bashir, there were still real-time nuggets -- his reaction to the zoo outing, his story of snatching his daughter, placenta and all, and especially the young man snuggled up to him, holding his hand -- that are far, far from proof while still being very disturbing.

It's somewhat difficult to watch MJ because of his disfigured face, but
still, I cannot "hate" him the way much of America seems to want
to. He's such an easy target for bigots and bullies.

I do think he has some serious issues (who doesn't?), but I also think he's
relatively harmless. He is the ultimate child, probably missed his entire
childhood, and is now trying to relive it. It's weird, I guess, but I get a certain measure of satisfaction from the fact that he has enough money to not give a damn and to tell the rest of the world to back off. The only real problem is, as others have noted, that he is the sole parent to several small children, and I'm not sure the environment he provides is stable.

Bottom line, I think MJ is an extraordinary talent, and his private
life is none of anyone's business. The media leaches that haunt him
and make their living off his personal life make me sick.