Controversial MJ Documentary Leaving Neverland [GENERAL DISCUSSION THREAD]

[terrell]

I couldn’t agree more. And I must say, 2019 has changed the way I look at the media. Forever. And I already was a critical reader to begin with.

The media know this was lies but they tried to get ratings for it but fail (some did ignore it or just hit on it. My local news talked about it when it came out and even they had a look and talked about it as if to say "yeah right" this sound like lies. I know one of the host and I know how she reacts to report fraud cases). They said no more about this trash.​

 

[ozemouze]

I keep thinking was it always this way but it didn’t seem as obvious when I was younger and didn’t have access to social media?

Good question! I think what wasn't this obvious (or at least provable) before is that it's indeed orchestrated.

In the past it could have been said the bias against him isn't personal, it's just "bad news/sensationalism sells", there are no players/agenda behind it just copy-pasting lazy journalists, he isn't exactly targeted, the media just exploits his situation as would do with anyone etc. He was even celebrated when the media felt it was the profitable and "in" thing to do.

Now the agenda is clear and traceable: destroy MJ's legacy (they said it themselves) & deflect (LN entered to Sundance and suddenly no one talks about Untouchable?). Plus they exposed themselves with the lame, repetitive copy paste PR as well (blue ticks with "just watch the film", "I've just watched LN", opinion pieces regularly without ever bothering mentioning facts etc).

 

[ScreenOrigami]

I think before social media, it was easier to ignore that trash. Nowadays they shove it in your face the moment you open your Twitter. I never looked at tabloid junk before social media, but now there’s simply no escape. And what’s worse, it becomes harder to tell what’s tabloid junk and what’s actual journalism, because even some of the formerly decent media have started to blare lurid headlines at us. As it stands right now, there’s exactly one media outlet left on my list of trusted media (https://www.tagesschau.de/), everything else gets triple checked.

 

[Amaya]

I lost all respect for The Guardian. And I really used to like their articles.

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">&#8216;I was surprised how unceasing the abuse was&#8217;: the fallout from Leaving Neverland <a href="https://t.co/GVAR7JVYdu">https://t.co/GVAR7JVYdu</a></p>&#8212; The Guardian (@guardian) <a href="https://twitter.com/guardian/status/1207349959516999680?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">December 18, 2019</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

I think The Guardian was pretty anti-Michael from the get go... I swear they had a few articles supporting LN throughout the year. Though with all the bullshit that's happened it's hard to remember exactly which sites said what, and it always feels like 99% of them are doing so.

 

[Alh21]

I think The Guardian was pretty anti-Michael from the get go... I swear they had a few articles supporting LN throughout the year. Though with all the bullshit that's happened it's hard to remember exactly which sites said what, and it always feels like 99% of them are doing so.

I've just been reading this BS and I was going to post it myself, this article has actually knocked me sick reading it and I wished I hadn't, I feel like I'm stuck in a bad nightmare after all the truth that has come out about these two we still have to read crap like this, I just don't get it, I really don't

 

[ozemouze]

I think The Guardian was pretty anti-Michael from the get go... I swear they had a few articles supporting LN throughout the year. Though with all the bullshit that's happened it's hard to remember exactly which sites said what, and it always feels like 99% of them are doing so.

True, and one opinion piece is done by this same writer, in the same ignorant manner, so she's clearly a paid propagandist (or plain dumb, same difference). I felt sick yesterday too, but realising it's the same woman I think we shouldn't get too worked up about it.

Having said that I still feel insulted that this hysterical woman who knows absolutely nothing about the case and confuses opinion with facts had the audacity to claim that the fans, who actually read court documents and are investigating the case since 2013, aren't rational.

Notice how the fans (or anyone who questions the credibility of LN) are the targets - again. Interesting considering they are the only ones providing actual facts and both sides of the story. It's not just a sensationalist slur but a deliberate attempt to silence the truth.

 

[ozemouze]

I think before social media, it was easier to ignore that trash. Nowadays they shove it in your face the moment you open your Twitter. I never looked at tabloid junk before social media, but now there&#8217;s simply no escape. And what&#8217;s worse, it becomes harder to tell what&#8217;s tabloid junk and what&#8217;s actual journalism, because even some of the formerly decent media have started to blare lurid headlines at us. As it stands right now, there&#8217;s exactly one media outlet left on my list of trusted media (https://www.tagesschau.de/), everything else gets triple checked.

I agree with the bolded part, but with MJ it started way before: you couldn't escape the BS even if you avoided tabloids, as "respected" media printed them too without hesitation. I saw BS stories before I became a fan (before Bad), so basically I heard the BS before his music, and I never even encountered tabloids. During the trial, "respected" outlets copy-pasted complete BS from the National Enquirer! With MJ, fact checking or at least using common sense was never a duty.

As for social media: opinions are definitely louder and in your face now, and I'm not sure about its general impact, but with MJ I don't think it worsened the case. Perhaps even the contrary: not only it made facts more easily available, but it's also a platform to let people realise there's another side of the story that has been hidden from them.

I just don't know how will I process the fact that The Guardian is willfully blind and leads the propaganda, while Breitbart writes about the inconsistencies in LN. :wtf2

 

[elusive moonwalker]

The guardian/ observer have always been full of hate for mj. considering they are left wing you would think they would be more intrested in the facts but they have shown over the years they have a vile hatred for mj. At the end of the day the uk media whether it be right or left wing are run by the same type of people.establishment middle class private school educated. And these types seem to have a big problem with mj because of the standard reasons.

Sadly for them the gen public have continued to support mj. Maybe one day these fools will give it up and realise they will never break him .

 

[La74]

I agree with the bolded part, but with MJ it started way before: you couldn't escape the BS even if you avoided tabloids, as "respected" media printed them too without hesitation. I saw BS stories before I became a fan (before Bad), so basically I heard the BS before his music, and I never even encountered tabloids. During the trial, "respected" outlets copy-pasted complete BS from the National Enquirer! With MJ, fact checking or at least using common sense was never a duty.

As for social media: opinions are definitely louder and in your face now, and I'm not sure about its general impact, but with MJ I don't think it worsened the case. Perhaps even the contrary: not only it made facts more easily available, but it's also a platform to let people realise there's another side of the story that has been hidden from them.

I just don't know how will I process the fact that The Guardian is willfully blind and leads the propaganda, while Breitbart writes about the inconsistencies in LN. :wtf2

Same here! I heard the bs before I heard the music and became a fan during the Bad era. If none of this happend I think they would have just continued with stories about plastic surgery etc.

 

[myosotis]

For me, the surprise with this hit piece by Hadley Freeman was the timing of it. Just a few days after the main UK political party supported by 'The Guardian' (Labour) was soundly defeated in a general election (falling back to the number of Parliamentary seats they last held in 1935) and during ongoing impeachment hearings for the USA President, the most urgent thing she can think of to write about is.... a nearly year-old thoroughly-debunked TV programme! So yes, 'agenda' and 'propaganda' are very much to the fore here.

Born in the USA but educated in the UK, this failed former fashion writer seems to be aiming for a career in US media, by brown-nosing all the 'right' people.
In March 18 she interviewed her hero Oprah during the publicity cycle for the film ' A wrinkle in Time'. The title of her interview was 'God, I love Oprah'. ''(Ahhh, Oprah, the woman who could be (but won&#8217;t be) America&#8217;s next president. God, I love Oprah. Yes, I know she endorsed the likes of vaccine denialist Jenny McCarthy with a Goop-like enthusiasm. And yes, her preference for fuzzy platitudes over actual opinions is frustrating to those of us who know how smart she is. ''

About Ava du Vernay she reports &#8220;Ava is more than a director &#8211; she feels like a movement,&#8221; Kaling says, done for the day and eagerly peeling off her high collar. &#8220;She knows people see her as an activist and this is definitely the most diverse movie I&#8217;ve worked on.&#8221;

Hilariously, Oprah treated Hadley with barely-contained contempt, and apparently (in Hadley's own words) considered one of her interview questions to be 'racist'.

https://www.theguardian.com/film/2018/mar/15/wrinkle-in-time-oprah-winfrey-film-not-expecting-this

Hadley also has 'HBO' connections - no surprise there. She says on Twitter:

''You realise you were an early adviser on Succession, yes? About a decade ago, you and @emilybell met with a friend of mine who was making a big HBO show based on, ahem, a media family. That eventually became Succession. So what I&#8217;m saying is, feel free to take all the credit.

https://twitter.com/hadleyfreeman/status/1181156535235485696?lang=en

In her latest Guardian interview with Reed, Hadley seems to have climbed so far up his backside that she can no longer see.
She swallows Reed's comments about the fans unquestioningly and unthinkingly, such as when Reed says:
''As soon as the movie was announced, people were denouncing the victims without even knowing who they were. It was just a kneejerk reaction: these guys are liars. And you can&#8217;t challenge them with facts because it&#8217;s an article of faith for them and any challenges to that belief are blasphemy,&#8221;

By January 2019, this forum alone had 1820 pages comprising over 17,500 posts about the Robson and Safechuck court cases, and fan forums worldwide would have replicated these discussions multiple dozens if not hundreds of times over since 2013/14. To suggest fans denounced 'LN' ''without even knowing who the protagonists were'' is patently ridiculous.

I can only assume that the Guardian employs Hadley purely to create empty argument for the sake of Twitter mileage. On another topic (discussing Julian Assange), a 'labour voter' wrote on Twitter: ''Hadley Freeman exemplifies perfectly the demise of The Guardian. Nothing original, sarcastic, dismissive & offering no intellectually challenging insights. Just another low level propagandist jumping on bandwagon. Journalism is almost extinct in Uk. Printed media is dead & buried.''
https://twitter.com/hadleyfreeman/status/1119539990155935744?lang=en

Happily 'The Guardian' has a rapidly -declining circulation, no doubt helped along by Hadley, so hopefully her days in print media will not be prolonged.

 

[ScreenOrigami]

I agree with the bolded part, but with MJ it started way before: you couldn't escape the BS even if you avoided tabloids, as "respected" media printed them too without hesitation. I saw BS stories before I became a fan (before Bad), so basically I heard the BS before his music, and I never even encountered tabloids. During the trial, "respected" outlets copy-pasted complete BS from the National Enquirer! With MJ, fact checking or at least using common sense was never a duty.

As for social media: opinions are definitely louder and in your face now, and I'm not sure about its general impact, but with MJ I don't think it worsened the case. Perhaps even the contrary: not only it made facts more easily available, but it's also a platform to let people realise there's another side of the story that has been hidden from them.

I just don't know how will I process the fact that The Guardian is willfully blind and leads the propaganda, while Breitbart writes about the inconsistencies in LN. :wtf2

It might have been a bit different here in Germany, or I really didn’t pay enough attention over the years. I wasn’t a real MJ fan until recently – of course I listened to the music, like everyone else on the planet, but didn’t actively follow the news. Especially in recent years, because I figured, since he’s gone, there won’t be anything substantial to read in the news anyway. And since that oxygen chamber thing back in the 80’s I’ve followed MJ’s advice to simply ignore everything that wasn’t coming from him personally. So, yeah, I somehow managed to be surprised – or rather shocked – about the media circus this year.

The Guardian used to be one of the online media that I frequently read, but their news website is huge, and of course no one can or wants to read all their articles every day. When I’m reading news, I mostly read about politics, not entertainment. For entertainment news, I usually just refer to the artist’s Twitter or Facebook page, to get the news first hand, and I didn’t follow MJ’s social media until after LN.

So, in this respect, my perspective has been that of the general public who doesn’t actively keep up with these things, but also that of a critical reader who ignores lurid headlines in the entertainment segment. 2019 gave me an insight into what’s going on there, and this has changed my view on the media forever. The Guardian still offers well researched articles in other segments, so it appears that only a few entertainment writers are somewhat out of control, and it’s worrying to see that The Guardian doesn’t seem to hold their writers accountable to journalistic standards in the entertainment segment, as if it didn’t matter there.

As far as Breitbart goes, those will write anything that’s the opposite of what the reputable media write, so it’s very unfortunate that some fans actually post Breitbart articles to support MJ, without considering their agenda. :doh:

So, in 2020 I will have to reassess the way I handle news, because of course I can’t research every topic in the world on my own. There has to be a point where I trust the research that others have done, simply to stay informed.

 

[ozemouze]

As far as Breitbart goes, those will write anything that&#8217;s the opposite of what the reputable media write, so it&#8217;s very unfortunate that some fans actually post Breitbart articles to support MJ, without considering their agenda. :doh:

Of course that's what they do. Same with RT that called out US media on not reporting the lies of LN. Their agenda is obvious, but I just can't digest this phenomenon. It's like when The Quibbler was the only one writing the truth about Harry Potter. :rofl:

 

[terrell]

True, and one opinion piece is done by this same writer, in the same ignorant manner, so she's clearly a paid propagandist (or plain dumb, same difference). I felt sick yesterday too, but realising it's the same woman I think we shouldn't get too worked up about it.

Having said that I still feel insulted that this hysterical woman who knows absolutely nothing about the case and confuses opinion with facts had the audacity to claim that the fans, who actually read court documents and are investigating the case since 2013, aren't rational.

Notice how the fans (or anyone who questions the credibility of LN) are the targets - again. Interesting considering they are the only ones providing actual facts and both sides of the story. It's not just a sensationalist slur but a deliberate attempt to silence the truth.

I keep telling yall, it is a few people who want u to think everyone is out to get MJ. That is NOT true. Even with Oprah with this Russell Simmons doc. It is backfiring on her real bad. I have not heard no one yet agree with what she is doing to Russell; in fact, there is outrage. I tell ya, this is all going to backfire on all of these people as it is being done now. No one is paying Dan Reed no attention and look he went to a MJ hating person (She know these guys are liars but she is pushing the anti MJ agenda. That is why they are so upset with fans and people who support MJ and see through this BS. Evil speaks louder but love wins in the end and MJ was all about love. Look how Thriller Live sold ONE MILLION tickets. Enuf said.

 

[elusive moonwalker]

For me, the surprise with this hit piece by Hadley Freeman was the timing of it. Just a few days after the main UK political party supported by 'The Guardian' (Labour) was soundly defeated in a general election (falling back to the number of Parliamentary seats they last held in 1935) and during ongoing impeachment hearings for the USA President, the most urgent thing she can think of to write about is.... a nearly year-old thoroughly-debunked TV programme! So yes, 'agenda' and 'propaganda' are very much to the fore here.

Born in the USA but educated in the UK, this failed former fashion writer seems to be aiming for a career in US media, by brown-nosing all the 'right' people.
In March 18 she interviewed her hero Oprah during the publicity cycle for the film ' A wrinkle in Time'. The title of her interview was 'God, I love Oprah'. ''(Ahhh, Oprah, the woman who could be (but won&#8217;t be) America&#8217;s next president. God, I love Oprah. Yes, I know she endorsed the likes of vaccine denialist Jenny McCarthy with a Goop-like enthusiasm. And yes, her preference for fuzzy platitudes over actual opinions is frustrating to those of us who know how smart she is. ''

About Ava du Vernay she reports &#8220;Ava is more than a director &#8211; she feels like a movement,&#8221; Kaling says, done for the day and eagerly peeling off her high collar. &#8220;She knows people see her as an activist and this is definitely the most diverse movie I&#8217;ve worked on.&#8221;

Hilariously, Oprah treated Hadley with barely-contained contempt, and apparently (in Hadley's own words) considered one of her interview questions to be 'racist'.

https://www.theguardian.com/film/2018/mar/15/wrinkle-in-time-oprah-winfrey-film-not-expecting-this

Hadley also has 'HBO' connections - no surprise there. She says on Twitter:

''You realise you were an early adviser on Succession, yes? About a decade ago, you and @emilybell met with a friend of mine who was making a big HBO show based on, ahem, a media family. That eventually became Succession. So what I&#8217;m saying is, feel free to take all the credit.

https://twitter.com/hadleyfreeman/status/1181156535235485696?lang=en

In her latest Guardian interview with Reed, Hadley seems to have climbed so far up his backside that she can no longer see.
She swallows Reed's comments about the fans unquestioningly and unthinkingly, such as when Reed says:
''As soon as the movie was announced, people were denouncing the victims without even knowing who they were. It was just a kneejerk reaction: these guys are liars. And you can&#8217;t challenge them with facts because it&#8217;s an article of faith for them and any challenges to that belief are blasphemy,&#8221;

By January 2019, this forum alone had 1820 pages comprising over 17,500 posts about the Robson and Safechuck court cases, and fan forums worldwide would have replicated these discussions multiple dozens if not hundreds of times over since 2013/14. To suggest fans denounced 'LN' ''without even knowing who the protagonists were'' is patently ridiculous.

I can only assume that the Guardian employs Hadley purely to create empty argument for the sake of Twitter mileage. On another topic (discussing Julian Assange), a 'labour voter' wrote on Twitter: ''Hadley Freeman exemplifies perfectly the demise of The Guardian. Nothing original, sarcastic, dismissive & offering no intellectually challenging insights. Just another low level propagandist jumping on bandwagon. Journalism is almost extinct in Uk. Printed media is dead & buried.''
https://twitter.com/hadleyfreeman/status/1119539990155935744?lang=en

Happily 'The Guardian' has a rapidly -declining circulation, no doubt helped along by Hadley, so hopefully her days in print media will not be prolonged.

Great post. They are all so obvious its pathetic. I dont even care about these fools aymore

 

[ozemouze]

Born in the USA but educated in the UK, this failed former fashion writer seems to be aiming for a career in US media, by brown-nosing all the 'right' people. [...]

The title of her interview was 'God, I love Oprah'. [...]

Hilariously, Oprah treated Hadley with barely-contained contempt, and apparently (in Hadley's own words) considered one of her interview questions to be 'racist'. [...]

I can only assume that the Guardian employs Hadley purely to create empty argument for the sake of Twitter mileage.

Lol. Great post indeed! Thanks for collecting this information, this woman is even more pathetic then I thought, and clearly dumb. One thing she certainly isn't: a journalist.

 

[Paris78]

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="de"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Thank you&#10084;&#65039; <a href="https://twitter.com/EvaMarcille?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@EvaMarcille</a> , DaBrat and the other lady for calling out Oprah for doing MJ wrong on Ricky Smiley show. <br>Indeed, one-sided dishonesty is foul play. Thank you for standing up for Michael Jackson <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/MJinnocent?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#MJinnocent</a> <a href="https://t.co/Gx2PlWoBaY">pic.twitter.com/Gx2PlWoBaY</a></p>&mdash; Shahbanu's biggest stan (@ZoroastersChild) <a href="https://twitter.com/ZoroastersChild/status/1207666993861517320?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">19. Dezember 2019</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

 

[ScreenOrigami]

Sooo, there will be a brand new German Michael Jackson documentary on TV, and look who’s participating.

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Stop all liars and frauds proudly presents our lovely, amazing, sister in spirit&amp;heart <a href="https://twitter.com/BJackson82?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@BJackson82</a> Brandi Jackson. Participiant of the upcoming german tv doc AKTE special on Sat1 Jan 6 2020 on 10:30 pm. Here is a sneak peak of her taking a look at a caricarture of LN. More below <a href="https://t.co/SJbrAzQwIA">pic.twitter.com/SJbrAzQwIA</a></p>&mdash; Katie4aday (@ChantalO18) <a href="https://twitter.com/ChantalO18/status/1207701764608348160?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">December 19, 2019</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

“akte. Spezial: Michael Jackson - Auf der Suche nach der Wahrheit” (“In Search of the Truth”)
Date: January 6th 2020
Time: 22:30
Channel: Sat1 (Germany)

Usually they put their stuff online shortly after it aired on TV. I’ll keep you posted.

The channel’s target group is pretty much the same as the one of the channel that aired LN, so hopefully the same audience will watch this.

 

[ozemouze]

The guardian/ observer have always been full of hate for mj. considering they are left wing you would think they would be more intrested in the facts but they have shown over the years they have a vile hatred for mj. At the end of the day the uk media whether it be right or left wing are run by the same type of people.establishment middle class private school educated. And these types seem to have a big problem with mj because of the standard reasons.

Sadly for them the gen public have continued to support mj. Maybe one day these fools will give it up and realise they will never break him .

Thanks for summarising in brief what I was trying to say. Interesting what you wrote about the background of these writers, being privileged individuals basically. You would expect better from these reputable media outlets, and once they fail in some area you can't help but start questioning their sincerity as a whole.

The Guardian still offers well researched articles in other segments, so it appears that only a few entertainment writers are somewhat out of control, and it’s worrying to see that The Guardian doesn’t seem to hold their writers accountable to journalistic standards in the entertainment segment, as if it didn’t matter there.

I also think this is the case and yes, it's worrying as it reflects back on the whole newspaper, as principles can't be turn on and off depending on sympathy or laziness (or on the person who writes the article). The likes of Hadley Freeman do the most damage to their real journalist co-workers actually.

 

[ozemouze]

Sooo, there will be a brand new German Michael Jackson documentary on TV, and look who’s participating.

Great news.

It's so obvious why Reed, Oprah and co are so afraid of Brandi. Not just because of the proof she can provide, but that she comes across as a bright, well-articulated, sincere, down-to-earth and at the same time very delightful individual. She would steal the heart of the public and they can't let that happen (as much as I am a "person of facts" I must admit that "humanisation" is almost as important in this case, and she would do just that with her presence, without even trying).

And now I've become furious again, because Reed's tactic with the one-sidedness wasn't only to hide facts from the other side, but "faces" as well. You can see family, grandma etc around R&S, so "persons" you can relate to, while the other side is just a faceless and nameless, distant mass. BTW when they say the fans are "rabid, crazy, cult, etc" they are doing the same...

 

[ozemouze]

It might have been a bit different here in Germany, or I really didn’t pay enough attention over the years. I wasn’t a real MJ fan until recently – of course I listened to the music, like everyone else on the planet, but didn’t actively follow the news. Especially in recent years, because I figured, since he’s gone, there won’t be anything substantial to read in the news anyway. And since that oxygen chamber thing back in the 80’s I’ve followed MJ’s advice to simply ignore everything that wasn’t coming from him personally. So, yeah, I somehow managed to be surprised – or rather shocked – about the media circus this year.

I think the definite eye-opener was the trial period. It was already clear from the beginning that the reporting won't be fair so fans obtained the court transcripts (which are public documents but there was some administrative process). So you could read the actual documents and the next day see something else in the papers - it wasn't just biased reporting but a completely different virtual reality.

BTW MJ wasn't the only one Sneddon mistreated. Many stories surfaced at the beginning of the trial when media outlets flooded the area, hoping that national media would pick up on them and help the community to find justice. Needless to say they didn't care...

On a side note: it must be so exciting to be a new fan, it's such a good feeling being in the "falling in" phase, so many new thing to discover! :clap:

 

[ScreenOrigami]

And now I've become furious again, because Reed's tactic with the one-sidedness wasn't only to hide facts from the other side, but "faces" as well. You can see family, grandma etc around R&S, so "persons" you can relate to, while the other side is just a faceless and nameless, distant mass. BTW when they say the fans are "rabid, crazy, cult, etc" they are doing the same...

Yup, it’s a textbook propaganda film. Rule 1: dehumanize your victim. Check out all those Nazi propaganda films from the 1930’s and how they depicted the Jewish people. Same pattern.

I think the definite eye-opener was the trial period. It was already clear from the beginning that the reporting won't be fair so fans obtained the court transcripts (which are public documents but there was some administrative process). So you could read the actual documents and the next day see something else in the papers - it wasn't just biased reporting but a completely different virtual reality.

I didn’t really follow the trial either. I didn’t believe he did these things, and famous people get into legal trouble all the time, just because people want their money. I admit I didn’t really have much of an idea what was going on there, but I also didn’t run around having strong opinions about the topic. I figured that the court will sort it all out, and when MJ was acquitted I wasn’t surprised, and that was it for me then. And honestly, that day should have been the end of all this nonsense, really. I assumed he had retired after that to spend more time with his kids, and didn’t think about it much anymore.

Yes, I was a filthy casual. :laughing:

On a side note: it must be so exciting to be a new fan, it's such a good feeling being in the "falling in" phase, so many new thing to discover! :clap:

It’s the best thing in my life right now! There’s so much to discover! And I even listen to the good old music in a whole new way now, knowing more about what was going on in the different eras. And that tower of shiny new books on my couch is just glorious!

 

[ozemouze]

Yes, I was a filthy casual. :laughing:

:rofl: Casual fans are cute. But seriously, that's what I've been dreaming about these days actually, how I wish to be just a casual fan, enjoying the music without paying attention to all the BS.

 

[MJTruth]

Great news.

It's so obvious why Reed, Oprah and co are so afraid of Brandi. Not just because of the proof she can provide, but that she comes across as a bright, well-articulated, sincere, down-to-earth and at the same time very delightful individual. She would steal the heart of the public and they can't let that happen (as much as I am a "person of facts" I must admit that "humanisation" is almost as important in this case, and she would do just that with her presence, without even trying).

And now I've become furious again, because Reed's tactic with the one-sidedness wasn't only to hide facts from the other side, but "faces" as well. You can see family, grandma etc around R&S, so "persons" you can relate to, while the other side is just a faceless and nameless, distant mass. BTW when they say the fans are "rabid, crazy, cult, etc" they are doing the same...

To be honest, Brandi hasn't provided any proof. At least none that I've seen.

I think MJ is innocent so please don't misunderstand me. but if you were looking from an outsider, neutral position, you'd see that Wade tells one story and Brandi tells another. Neither offer proof.

But you're right about Reed's approach.

I always laughed at Reed saying he didn't ask the Jackson family because "what would they know?" etc. BUT he included the accusers grandma, brother etc. Well what would THEY know Dan?? Only what they've been told by the accuser.

So he can't keep his story straight. He keeps lying again and again.

His latest claims are that the fans and Jackson family/estate have provided no factual rebuttal to his film, which is of course a bare faced lie.

 

[ScreenOrigami]

To be honest, Brandi hasn't provided any proof. At least none that I've seen.

I think MJ is innocent so please don't misunderstand me. but if you were looking from an outsider, neutral position, you'd see that Wade tells one story and Brandi tells another. Neither offer proof.

Well, Brandi can certainly show proof that she&#8217;s been in a relationship with Wade, and thus it&#8217;s not true that MJ tried to keep Wade away from girls, as he claimed. That&#8217;s just one thing, off the top of my head. Let&#8217;s just wait and see what else she has to say.

 

[ozemouze]

To be honest, Brandi hasn't provided any proof. At least none that I've seen.

I think MJ is innocent so please don't misunderstand me. but if you were looking from an outsider, neutral position, you'd see that Wade tells one story and Brandi tells another. Neither offer proof.

But you're right about Reed's approach.

I always laughed at Reed saying he didn't ask the Jackson family because "what would they know?" etc. BUT he included the accusers grandma, brother etc. Well what would THEY know Dan?? Only what they've been told by the accuser.

So he can't keep his story straight. He keeps lying again and again.

His latest claims are that the fans and Jackson family/estate have provided no factual rebuttal to his film, which is of course a bare faced lie..

You're absolutely right it's a he said/she said case, the problem is one is provided with a platform to tell his story, while the other isn't. It was Reed's excuse that his "documentary" is about stories instead of proofs - fine ¯\_(&#12484_/¯, but then show both sides without questioning them and let the public decide.

And here comes the problem because IMO Brandi comes across much more convincing than R&S (and I'm not even saying it's fair, but this is what happens when you build everything around stories and the credibility of the storytellers).

 

[ScreenOrigami]

Btw, the TV channel Sat1 is one of the biggest in Germany. It&#8217;s not some tiny niche channel. So to have that documentary on there is actually a huge thing.

 

[terrell]

You're absolutely right it's a he said/she said case, the problem is one is provided with a platform to tell his story, while the other isn't. It was Reed's excuse that his "documentary" is about stories instead of proofs - fine ¯\_(&#12484_/¯, but then show both sides without questioning them and let the public decide.

And here comes the problem because IMO Brandi comes across much more convincing than R&S (and I'm not even saying it's fair, but this is what happens when you build everything around stories and the credibility of the storytellers).

Even without Brandi, there is BRITNEY SPEARS saga with Wade which i documented.

 

[La74]

Even without Brandi, there is BRITNEY SPEARS saga with Wade which i documented.

There must be a lot of people who knew them who can confirm Brandis story though and maybe she will provide proof in that german documentary.

 

[Big Apple NYC]

In my opinion, Brandy IS the evidence.

I remember seeing a small clip of The Jackson Brothers on with Gayle King, and Jackie just blurted out that Brandy had dated Robson. If memory serves, he also mentioned that Robson was always at their house. I WAS SO SHOCKED!!!!!!

Not that I knew anything about Brandy's life, I was just shocked that this information was, for the first time, being revealed to the public. Of course Gayle King just glossed over Jackie's words. She didn't follow up and neither did Jackie. He could have gone in, but he didn't.

If Brandy dated Wade for all of those years, I'm sure there is plenty of "evidence" to back it up, i.e. pictures, outings with friends, and holiday's spent with each other's families. I wouldn't even be surprised if Brandy accompanied Robson to some of his shows and/or public affiliations, back in the day.

Oh and I also wouldn't be surprised if Robson BRAGGED to anybody who would listen that he was "dating Michael Jackson's Niece!!"

 

[ozemouze]

Well, Brandi can certainly show proof that she’s been in a relationship with Wade, and thus it’s not true that MJ tried to keep Wade away from girls, as he claimed. That’s just one thing, off the top of my head. Let’s just wait and see what else she has to say.

I think what MJTruth meant is that she didn't provide factual evidence, e.g. photos. What's interesting is that Robson didn't react to Brandi's claim at all, which makes me think he knows she could prove it. Reed sort of acknowledged it though (not that he knows what he's talking about most of the time).

If we are being cynical, Reed and his supporters must accept even if Brandi would just show the L.A. Gear promo pics as proof and build a story around them, as that's what R&S did too and it was more than enough for them.
:shrugmeme: