(Irish Times) Extracts:At this point, people just see these books are more trying to use MJ as a money maker to line their pockets. it is tiresome and people are moving on. And this guy is a former tabloid journalist which makes it worst and will be viewed no more than another "can not let Michael rest" book. Moving on. it will be likely a flop.Kingofpop4ever3000;4297127 said:
Again, what is it with the UK and this Irish time media? This fool does not speak for MOST (fans, semi fans, causal observers, etc). I have come to the conclusion that these writers in the UK/Irish just want MJ to fall. He talks about MJ's fan base will never accept any allegation against MJ. NO FOOL, fans and fair minded people will NOT ACCEPTS LIES PROVEN and BS. These writers sound stupid by the minute. The same theory he is trying to put on fans, that can said about HATERS like him. They are OBESSED, they can NOT accept the LIES told by these accusers, etc. I can not stand these types of writers. They clearly know nothing and just want to use MJ to make money. He does not care about facts. So what now sir? We as a society should throw people away all because someone make accusation even though the accusers are proven liars but that should not matter because of what you think? I think not. This fool is in no position to tell fans or anyone on how they should feel about MJ. Relationship? Look, if MJ was proven to be an abuser with FACTS, I do not think hardly anyone would back him; however, it has been prove OVER and OVER that MJ is the innocent one and these UK writers/Irish times do not want to accept it. What FACTS does this fool have to proven MJ "behave" in this way? What "acts" does he know for sure happen? He does not (and based on facts, lies told, stories changed, etc, clearly it is lies told on Michael). BURDEN OF PROOF lies with the accusers which they have not proven; if anything, they are continue to be proven liars over and over out to make money which this writer loves to overlook. I will say this to this writer, if you think MJ was guilty, STOP WRITING ABOUT HI; otherwise, he sound like a fool who is just using MJ to make money for his lame article. This is the only place where MJ is continued to be bothered every other place, country, etc still love MJ and will continue to play MJ even when these fools in the UK press/Irish times are dead and gone. Also, just looked this fool John Self up. he is also a writer for (not surprise) THE GUARDIAN. No more needs to be said. I knew it.myosotis;4297295 said:Another journalist who prefers his own theories to actual ....er investigation.... And who can't even get the film name consistently right
If the artist offends, should we pluck out their work?
...............Contrast with Michael Jackson, whose reputation – always shaky – fell conclusively last year with the film Leaving Neverland, which detailed allegations of child abuse against him: the man who had no real childhood of his own took it away from others. But how far did his reputation fall?
Ahead of Leaving Neverland’s release, RTÉ said it had “no plans to playlist his music at this time”, though it turned out this didn’t stop individual presenters from choosing to play Jackson’s songs. Jackson seems to be, like a bank at the heart of the financial crisis, too big to fail.
We’re battling the sunk cost fallacy: that is, in business, the tendency to believe that the cost already spent on a project justifies continuing to pursue it, irrespective of whether it’s still a viable idea. If we’ve loved our stars for decades, we don’t want to discard them; we cling to the hope that their acts or words have been misunderstood, or just don’t matter.
Jackson certainly has a fan base that will never accept any of the allegations against him; to do so would derail one of the most important relationships they have: a relationship that could not be tarnished in life because it was unrequited, and which they are determined not to relinquish now.
This unquestioning attachment is reflected in our wider filter-bubble society, where we see on social media only the views that reinforce our own. We are unwilling to have our likes dislodged. In addition, the same always-on information age means we are – Clive James on Larkin again – “over-informed”, bombarded with details about artists which may or may not have any relevance to the work.
Margo Jefferson, who wrote a book about Michael Jackson before his death, seemed to take a similar view when she reconsidered the point after Finding Neverland’s revelations. “The task,” she said, “is to read the art and the life fully as they wind and unwind around each other, changing shape and direction.”
But if we are not like Jackson’s obsessive fans, what is our rationale anyway for wanting to stop listening to, or reading, someone who has fallen from grace? Is it purely ethical, in that we cannot stomach the idea of enjoying the work any more; that it has become infected by the creator’s acts? Or is it also more practical purpose: I won’t give my time and money to someone who behaves in this way? ................
https://www.irishtimes.com/culture/...ends-should-we-pluck-out-their-work-1.4275674
myosotis;4297295 said:Another journalist who prefers his own theories to actual ....er investigation.... And who can't even get the film name consistently right
If the artist offends, should we pluck out their work?
...............Contrast with Michael Jackson, whose reputation – always shaky – fell conclusively last year with the film Leaving Neverland, which detailed allegations of child abuse against him: the man who had no real childhood of his own took it away from others. But how far did his reputation fall?
Ahead of Leaving Neverland’s release, RTÉ said it had “no plans to playlist his music at this time”, though it turned out this didn’t stop individual presenters from choosing to play Jackson’s songs. Jackson seems to be, like a bank at the heart of the financial crisis, too big to fail.
We’re battling the sunk cost fallacy: that is, in business, the tendency to believe that the cost already spent on a project justifies continuing to pursue it, irrespective of whether it’s still a viable idea. If we’ve loved our stars for decades, we don’t want to discard them; we cling to the hope that their acts or words have been misunderstood, or just don’t matter.
Jackson certainly has a fan base that will never accept any of the allegations against him; to do so would derail one of the most important relationships they have: a relationship that could not be tarnished in life because it was unrequited, and which they are determined not to relinquish now.
This unquestioning attachment is reflected in our wider filter-bubble society, where we see on social media only the views that reinforce our own. We are unwilling to have our likes dislodged. In addition, the same always-on information age means we are – Clive James on Larkin again – “over-informed”, bombarded with details about artists which may or may not have any relevance to the work.
Margo Jefferson, who wrote a book about Michael Jackson before his death, seemed to take a similar view when she reconsidered the point after Finding Neverland’s revelations. “The task,” she said, “is to read the art and the life fully as they wind and unwind around each other, changing shape and direction.”
But if we are not like Jackson’s obsessive fans, what is our rationale anyway for wanting to stop listening to, or reading, someone who has fallen from grace? Is it purely ethical, in that we cannot stomach the idea of enjoying the work any more; that it has become infected by the creator’s acts? Or is it also more practical purpose: I won’t give my time and money to someone who behaves in this way? ................
https://www.irishtimes.com/culture/...ends-should-we-pluck-out-their-work-1.4275674
And they speak for THEMSELVES but want to talk like they speak for others. And these fools are upset that fans will NOT allow their lies to tear down that celeb based on LIES. Look at Johnny Depp fans and fair minded people defending him from these liars in the UK media.
I agree. Square ONE is out now and doing great (many people are also watching it but not posting comments. I know some folks who watched it but did not post a comment). The difference with MJ and all the people that fool listed in his article is that there is a factual film and others who defend MJ. Gary glitter and others does NOT have that. Again, I still believe there is a media machine that has been working against MJ in the UK since he brought the Beatles catalog. It is too obvious even more now. They do not like fans because fans will not let their BS destroy or cancel MJ which the racist UK media wants so bad. Again, all other nations do not go this far like the UK now not even USA at this point (only tabloids and we know tabloid are bull***).
And he is not going down over some lies so the UK media can get over it like you said. They represent 1%ScreenOrigami;4297324 said:The media didn’t make Michael, so the media can’t break Michael. And they just can’t get over it.
ChrisC;4297320 said:
I know but I was just point out about the UK and that Irish times. The writer of that article writes for The guardian as well. They have an agenda. They seem to have something to talk about MJ everyday. They need to get a life and leave MJ alone especially if they do like MJ. They look like fools and like they are trying to make $$ off MJ. They seem bored but want to use MJ for excitement for their lame papers/sites.
Exactly. And that proves their agenda against MJ which people with brains can see their bias (And MJ is the ONLY ONE who has people defending him with facts and NOT just fans either). I still want to know from these types of fools, what makes their view more right than fans when it is fans who comes with FACTS (they come with BS, tabloid, proven lies, etc). And what they try to use to proven guilty turns out to be lies. Again, anyone who writes for THE GUARDIAN has an agenda against MJ.myosotis;4297340 said:
That's ok.