Gets my blood boiling!!

[elusive moonwalker]

Pot,kettle, black. friedbrain

 

[J5master]

I mean to me, not being a part of the solution is being part of the problem as well. If we want to point fingers at the jacksons for not saying anything, we also must point a finger at the estate. The estate handles MJ's legal/financial matters but ...if you want to get technical, they also handle the brand. So it really should be in their best interests to at least take some kind of action against - not just slander against MJ, but his kids as well, as it reflects on MJ. Thats just how I see it.

The estate is the official mouthpiece of MJ now that he's not here, especially when it comes to the media. So I think some responsibility is on them as well.

 

[Snow White 1937]

I mean to me, not being a part of the solution is being part of the problem as well. If we want to point fingers at the jacksons for not saying anything, we also must point a finger at the estate. The estate handles MJ's legal/financial matters but ...if you want to get technical, they also handle the brand. So it really should be in their best interests to at least take some kind of action against - not just slander against MJ, but his kids as well, as it reflects on MJ. Thats just how I see it.

The estate is the official mouthpiece of MJ now that he's not here, especially when it comes to the media. So I think some responsibility is on them as well.

The Estate is there to handle Michael's business. The guardians are there to look after his kids. It's that simple. I mean, if Michael were alive, we'd expect him to defend his children, not John Branca, correct?

 

[J5master]

^^ right but my point is that he's NOT here - and the estate controls the Michael Jackson brand. As in Marketing. So they have a stake in the false stories going around in the media as well, not necessarily watching over the kids. But watching over the media.

If MJ were here, MJ would be controlling his own brand. So lots of things are switched around now that he's not.

 

[Bubs]

^^ I would loved to estate take care of kids but unfortunately Michael made mistake and named KJ to be guardian to kids. I'm certain they would have been a lot happier and more private if the estate was looking after them.

Both TJ and KJ get paid to guard kids (Paris), why aren't they doing their jobs? Kids are not living with executors, but with their guardian and other guardian who is probably doing something relating to kids because he gets paid. TJ is in and out of court asking more money if not for himself, then it is for his lawyer regarding kids issues. Shouldn't those lawyers start earning their money and do something useful for a change? The estate has given tons of money for KJ and TJ's lawyers (Ribeira and Shultz) but seemingly those lawyers are not used for protecting kids.

 

[J5master]

I'm not saying the estate should watch over the kids either. I'm saying the estate should pay closer attention to the media, not "take care" of the kids - yes that is the Jacksons job. But the estate has the power to do a lot of things in the media to protect the Michael Jackson brand and stop this slanderous free-for-all surrounding both MJ AND his kids (as those kids are an extension of MJ and it reflects on MJ the brand). So yes, the family take care of the kids, the estate should take care of the MARKETING/media aspect of all of this.

 

[Bubs]

Sorry, just no. It is guardian's job to look after the kids in every way.
Kids are not a part of MJ brand that executors have to protect.

I have a distinct memory that when KJ was granny-napped, the executors said something about kids and how much they can involve. The letter is somewhere in this thread:
http://www.mjjcommunity.com/forum/t...ht=estate+letter+katherine+jackson+kidnapping

As a matter of fact, it would be lovely if they do send a message to media, that would get family riled up, and next they would be on tabloids screaming that executors are over-stepping their boundaries:cheeky:

 

[HIStory]

^^ I would loved to estate take care of kids but unfortunately Michael made mistake and named KJ to be guardian to kids. I'm certain they would have been a lot happier and more private if the estate was looking after them.

The Estate is a legal entity, not a family. What do you want? John Branca to adopt them? I'm sure he has his own family and I'm not sure he would want to raise Michael's children. His relationship with Michael was a business one. And talking about who does their work how well in terms of public relations, the Estate doesn't have a stellar record there either. I mean some of their responses (or non-responses) to vicious rumours and allegations was just mind-bogglingly weak and I did not at all get the impression from that that they passionately care about MJ's image.

I'm not at all a fan of the family and I realize their mistakes and shortcomings, but unfortunately I cannot see a better option for MJ's children. And whether you like it or not that is their family, not John Branca.

 

[J5master]

The Estate is a legal entity, not a family. What do you want? John Branca to adopt them? I'm sure he has his own family and I'm not sure he would want to raise Michael's children. His relationship with Michael was a business one. And talking about who does their work how well in terms of public relations, the Estate doesn't have a stellar record there either. I mean some of their responses (or non-responses) to vicious rumours and allegations was just mind-bogglingly weak and I did not at all get the impression from that that they passionately care about MJ's image.

I'm not at all a fan of the family and I realize their mistakes and shortcomings, but unfortunately I cannot see a better option for MJ's children. And whether you like it or not that is their family, not John Branca.

EXACTLY. And based on this, I'm saying that they should care as people who control Michael's brand. Its the brand that brings money to the estate, so they should protect it at all costs. MJ's kids are a part of that brand - and again, I'm not saying that have to protect the kids themselves, but they need to protect them against defamation in some capacity. I mean all their efforts are supposed to be for THEM anyway. What sense does it make to NOT care about the image of MJ and his kids/not have some responsibility over it - when it is the kids that will profit in the end?

 

[HIStory]

I think both the family and the Estate needs to protect the children. But it's the family who should do first. I mean in private matters it's the family who should say something first, not the Estate who probably do not have a day-to-day relationship with the kids.

 

[Petrarose]

The Estate is there to handle Michael's business. The guardians are there to look after his kids. It's that simple. I mean, if Michael were alive, we'd expect him to defend his children, not John Branca, correct?

Exactly. The estate is involved with Michael's estate. The children do not affect the Michael Brand, only Michael is the creator of his brand. Once we begin to equate Michael Brand with his children then we have crossed the line in thinking the kids are Michael. They have they own identity & legacy which they will develop. If one of the children get pregnant, steal, lie, cheat, win the Nobel Prize, these have no effect on Michael's Brand in terms of what he created as his legacy. Let the estate do what they are paid to do and let the guardians do what they are paid to do. The role of the estate, guardians, and the kid's legal representative are spelled out and each knows what it is. I don't understand why people mix up the role of the estate and the guardians of the children.

The family particularly the guardians which are family members are the ones who should deal with this issue if they think it is important enough to do so. Maybe they think it is stupid and it is best to let it die.

Bubs true^^ the estate did make some comment about how much they can do. If they overstep their authority and try to get involved in the children's personal business you will see how quickly certain people including some fans and family members will be in an uproar. The estate is doing the right thing in leaving the children's upbringing/socialization to the guardians. Their responsibility is to provide the money so the kids needs can be met socially, medically, educationally, spiritually, etc., make business deals for the estate, etc; but they cannot go and get involved in the children's lives which is the domain of the guardians. This needs to be understood. We all saw how strong willed Katherine is. Now imagine the estate exec going to her and telling her how to do her job. She will not have it and neither will anyone else if something like that was done to them. It is ok to point fingers when people get their "blood boiling," (pun on thread title) but let's make sure we know who to point the fingers at.

Even if the estate goes and deal with the media about this pregnancy, they are still acting in the domain of the guardian, and again this is not their role. Personally now that I am thinking about this, I think the family did the right thing in keeping quiet. Don't feed foolishness by bringing global attention to it.

 

[Tygger]

J5Master, when Michael was alive, there were slanderous comments against the children at that time. Michael did his best to shield his children physically, however; we have all seen pictures of them before he passed and that did not stop the slanderous comments. Actually, Michael acknowledged comments and answered questions about his children in Bashir’s documentary. I do not remember him addressing any slander against the children at any other time.

Some are confusing slander and legal action as a response to that with raising and caring for a child and making that child feel loved and safe. Slander is not a private issue; it is public. Michael himself did not sue anyone because of the comments made publicly about his children. I do not believe anyone will say he did not make his children feel loved and safe. When the false accusations came to Michael twice, Sony rushed in with opinions on how to handle the situation; it was not left to Michael to do alone. Why? Just as you said; the Michael Jackson brand makes monies and damage to Michael Jackson’s image lowers profits.

The Jackson family have historically not responded to and/or dismissed slanderous comments made about them. Several family members have answered questions about Michael’s children and confirmed their well being. It seems some want the family to change what they have historically done only for Michael’s three children. In my view, Michael’s children should be treated the same as their nephews and nieces. If the Jackson family is not seeking legal recourse against slander of other second generation Jacksons (as they did not with the first generation), I see no need for them to do such for Michael’s children. Doing such would teach them that they are somehow different which can be more damaging than uplifting.

To your point, yes, the Estate controls Michael’s image and does exact some control over the media. There have been times when the Estate has gotten involved with the children’s personal lives as well. After that particular summer incident, the Estate attempted to control who could enter Casblancas which they had no right to do. That is sometimes forgotten and it honestly should be as it was not one of the Estate’s shining moments. There are ways for the Estate to try to manage slanderous comments made against Michael and the minor beneficiaries if they care to do so.

The estate is the official mouthpiece of MJ now that he's not here, especially when it comes to the media.

Branca did say he was Michael Jackson once however, that is too weird for discussion.

 

[Bubs]

Come to think about it, the estate doesn't step in when KJ gets some heat from media, and same goes with kids.
They do their job, and KJ and TJ should do theirs.

Tygger, seriously now! Did you really believe Branca said that or Randy made it up.
Randy's infamous letter was full of shite, and you believe that bit for whatever reason. Hmm okay

Jackson family has responded slanderous comments? Just because you haven't read them, it doesn't mean they didn't respond. I can think of KJ, Jermaine and LaToya and Janet from top of my head.

You think PPB should be treated the same way as nephews and nieces. We have to wait until those nephews and nieces are made to hold cans, bottles and perfumes in their hand on front of the media and made to appear on all sort of shows to support their uncles and aunties until they are exposed to media as much as PPB .
Oh wait, those nephews and nieces can live their lives the way they want because there is no interest nor it was created by their parents, but for PPB is and that interest and demand was allowed by guardian. You can draw comparison between PPB and nephews and nieces when you produce me a document that those nephews and nieces have been sold to porn producer to use for whatever they might come up with, until then, no comparison.

If you really read Randy's letter, he was demanding the estate sort out AEG trial, and I said it then which I'm going to say now again, executors are not babysitters for Jackson family stupidities, nor they do not clean their mess what they created.

Only time they stepped in when they felt PPB wasn't safe in their own home, and that threat came from infamous granny-nappers.

 

[SheilaMJFan4Ever]

MJ's kids are a part of that brand

:blink: This is where I strongly and RESPECTFULLY disagree with you, J5. Those kids had absolutely NOTHING to do with what made Michael Jackson MICHAEL JACKSON. They didn't write any songs, compose them, sing them, create dance routines, win a Brinks truck load of Grammys (and other awards), are great philanthropists, make jaw-dropping videos or headline record breaking tours. . .Mike did!

This is where I feel some fans have it twisted, thinking his kids and his legacy are one and the same when they're NOT. That's like saying Paris Hilton and the Hilton Hotel Corporation are one and the same. She is a beneficiary, only. She had nothing to do with creating the brand nor does she participate in running it, either. I doubt if she ever will, lol!

 

[Bubs]

:blink: This is where I strongly and RESPECTFULLY disagree with you, J5. Those kids had absolutely NOTHING to do with what made Michael Jackson MICHAEL JACKSON. They didn't write any songs, compose them, sing them, create dance routines, win a Brinks truck load of Grammys (and other awards), are great philanthropists, make jaw-dropping videos or headline record breaking tours. . .Mike did!

This is where I feel some fans have it twisted, thinking his kids and his legacy are one and the same when they're NOT. That's like saying Paris Hilton and the Hilton Hotel Corporation are one and the same. She is a beneficiary, only. She had nothing to do with creating the brand nor does she participate in running it, either. I doubt if she ever will, lol!

The same goes with LMP. What ever she does or is written about her, it won't effect on Elvis' legacy or brand in any way. Elvis is still Elvis, and Michael is still Michael.

 

[J5master]

I think you guys have what I'm trying to say wrong. I'm not saying the kids ARE MJ, or that they MADE MJ, or anything like that. I'm saying that MJ's kids are the beneficiaries, thats number one. And to me, its just kinda crazy to me that the empire isn't concerned whatsoever about slander against the beneficiaries - the very people they're WORKING for.

I'm also saying that MJ's kids - considering that they ARE his kids, whether we like it or not, reflect on his brand (I think the same thing is true for Paris Hilton, pretty sure thats the ONLY reason why she's famous lol). This is as of right now. When they break out on their own and do their own thing and create an image for themselves, then that'll change I'm sure. As far as the public and the media, thats just how it is. Stories about the kids, as of now, automatically conjure up thoughts about Michael Jackson. Just like Willow and Jaden conjure up thoughts about Jada and WIll Smith. The media attacking one of those kids often (not always) but OFTEN is a double edged sword - they're attacking the kids AND Michael Jackson, often as a parent. That is the reality of the situation. And that's all I'm trying to say.

 

[Petrarose]

I think you guys have what I'm trying to say wrong. I'm not saying the kids ARE MJ, or that they MADE MJ, or anything like that. I'm saying that MJ's kids are the beneficiaries, thats number one. And to me, its just kinda crazy to me that the empire isn't concerned whatsoever about slander against the beneficiaries - the very people they're WORKING for.

I'm also saying that MJ's kids - considering that they ARE his kids, whether we like it or not, reflect on his brand (I think the same thing is true for Paris Hilton, pretty sure thats the ONLY reason why she's famous lol). This is as of right now. When they break out on their own and do their own thing and create an image for themselves, then that'll change I'm sure. As far as the public and the media, thats just how it is. Stories about the kids, as of now, automatically conjure up thoughts about Michael Jackson. Just like Willow and Jaden conjure up thoughts about Jada and WIll Smith. The media attacking one of those kids often (not always) but OFTEN is a double edged sword - they're attacking the kids AND Michael Jackson, often as a parent. That is the reality of the situation. And that's all I'm trying to say.

About your first denial in the first paragraph you did say that, maybe you forgot what you wrote.

In the second paragraph you say they reflect on his brand, but they do not. Think about it; if every famous person's children reflected on the parent's brand there would be no brands. Brando had a kid who was a murderer and Bubs and Shelia gave some other examples. A brand is what the creator puts into it to cement it. The creator's children have nothing to do with the brand. When you hear their name you can think of the father, but people are not going to say Paris is pregnant so lets buy or not buy Michael's music, or Paris is pregnant and that tarnishes or does not tarnish Michael's brand. The most people will do is connect the person Paris to Michael because he was the father, but anything about the brand and her impact on it by her behavior is zero. Now if she runs the estate and her behavior there causes bad deals, then she can affect sales in the same way any executor can make bad decisions. However, if an executor does something like this we still will not say they reflect on his brand. There is a difference between Michael's brand and Michael the father. When you hear Paris' name and connect her to her father Michael, you are not connecting her to the moonwalk for example. You are connecting her to a person and not a brand.

You are right about stories about the kids conjuring up thoughts of the dad, Michael. However, you are mixing up people making mental associations, i.e., think of child & think of dad, with the child's ability to affect the dad's brand that the child did not create. For instance, when people think of Paris and then they think of Michael, they don't think their Billie Jean song has less or more value. They don't think the Michael awards have less or more value. Since Paris' pregnancy can't affect the value of Michael's legacy, then she can't affect his brand. Maybe you should not have used the word "brand." To me that is where your argument went off a bit.

At the bottom of your last paragraph, your point about they are attacking the kids and Michael the parent is true. Your own words there show the difference. They attack the parent, but that is not the brand. They attack Michael as parent/person but not the brand.

 

[J5master]

About your first denial in the first paragraph you did say that, maybe you forgot what you wrote.

In the second paragraph you say they reflect on his brand, but they do not. Think about it; if every famous person's children reflected on the parent's brand there would be no brands. Brando had a kid who was a murderer and Bubs and Shelia gave some other examples. A brand is what the creator puts into it to cement it. The creator's children have nothing to do with the brand. When you hear their name you can think of the father, but people are not going to say Paris is pregnant so lets buy or not buy Michael's music, or Paris is pregnant and that tarnishes or does not tarnish Michael's brand. The most people will do is connect the person Paris to Michael because he was the father, but anything about the brand and her impact on it by her behavior is zero. Now if she runs the estate and her behavior there causes bad deals, then she can affect sales in the same way any executor can make bad decisions. However, if an executor does something like this we still will not say they reflect on his brand. There is a difference between Michael's brand and Michael the father. When you hear Paris' name and connect her to her father Michael, you are not connecting her to the moonwalk for example. You are connecting her to a person and not a brand.

You are right about stories about the kids conjuring up thoughts of the dad, Michael. However, you are mixing up people making mental associations, i.e., think of child & think of dad, with the child's ability to affect the dad's brand that the child did not create. For instance, when people think of Paris and then they think of Michael, they don't think their Billie Jean song has less or more value. They don't think the Michael awards have less or more value. Since Paris' pregnancy can't affect the value of Michael's legacy, then she can't affect his brand. Maybe you should not have used the word "brand." To me that is where your argument went off a bit.

At the bottom of your last paragraph, your point about they are attacking the kids and Michael the parent is true. Your own words there show the difference. They attack the parent, but that is not the brand. They attack Michael as parent/person but not the brand.

No, I don't equate someone being part of the brand as being the creator of the brand. I never said that MJ's kids WERE Michael or they made him, give me a quote where I said that lol I didn't forget what I wrote, but rather we're viewing this issue differently.

I'm viewing it from above the fans' ideal version of the Michael Jackson brand perhaps. To me, the brand includes MJ's character. It has to. Because by your assertion then, any rumors about MJ being a child abuser should not matter to the estate because its attacking MJ as a parent/person but not the brand.

But I'm saying that it DOES matter. It matters because defamation of character tarnishes the brand itself. It tarnishes the estates ability to make money off of the "ideal" version of the MJ brand due to lies and rumors. Brand = representation with images, ideals, values. Attacking MJ's character - if we EVER want the estate to perhaps use the brand for charitable efforts for instance, will be important for them to care about. It should be regardless - that is what I'm trying tos ay.

 

[MIST]

PPM are Michael´s children , but they have their own thoughts

On Children
Kahlil Gibran

Your children are not your children.
They are the sons and daughters of Life's longing for itself.
They come through you but not from you,
And though they are with you yet they belong not to you.

You may give them your love but not your thoughts,
For they have their own thoughts.
You may house their bodies but not their souls,
For their souls dwell in the house of tomorrow,
which you cannot visit, not even in your dreams.
You may strive to be like them,
but seek not to make them like you.
For life goes not backward nor tarries with yesterday.

You are the bows from which your children
as living arrows are sent forth.
The archer sees the mark upon the path of the infinite,
and He bends you with His might
that His arrows may go swift and far.
Let your bending in the archer's hand be for gladness;
For even as He loves the arrow that flies,
so He loves also the bow that is stable.

 

[serendipity]

What's this about the Jacksons historically not responding to media? They do respond when they have to defend THEMSELVES. Katheirne always has her lawyers making excuses when something bad comes up - just recently about that documentary when she was asking money from the fans, Jermaine was quick to defend his son during the stun gun incident and don't get me started on all the statements Janet's lawyer did during granny napping, yet nobody from the family bothered defending the kids. And that's just off the top of my head.

BTW, I wouldn't mind the Estate defending the kids, because someone has to do it and the Jacksons won't do it, but it is not the Estate's job. Do they even know what's going on with these kids? KJ and TJ and the ones who should be doing it.

Not to mention the family were the ones who made it an open season on these kids by parading them all over the media in the first place. SMH

 

[Snow White luvs Peter Pan]

PPB are part of Michael's legacy but his personal one as human being and father. Why would the children have to affect 'Michael Jackson' the brand if it was made long before they were even born?

It's the guardians' job to take care and protect them, not the Estate's (probably just financially due to being the main beneficiaries of Michael's fortune.) As far as I'm concerned, KJ's and TJ's performance has been deplorable or more likely null, they both have shown to see for their own interest rather than the kids', just look how fast they answer every time a nasty "rumor" (those are true in most cases) comes out. I've been saying Diana Ross should step in because Michael chose a poor excuse of a guardian TBH, I bet Diana wouldn't be exploiting them and using them for her own convenience because she doesn't need their money. It's an absolute disgrace the Jackson's, mainly the guardians don't have the guts to defend an orphaned minor from such a disgusting, yet idiotic rumor.

 

[SheilaMJFan4Ever]

I think you guys have what I'm trying to say wrong. I'm not saying the kids ARE MJ, or that they MADE MJ, or anything like that. I'm saying that MJ's kids are the beneficiaries, thats number one. And to me, its just kinda crazy to me that the empire isn't concerned whatsoever about slander against the beneficiaries - the very people they're WORKING for.

I'm also saying that MJ's kids - considering that they ARE his kids, whether we like it or not, reflect on his brand (I think the same thing is true for Paris Hilton, pretty sure thats the ONLY reason why she's famous lol). This is as of right now. When they break out on their own and do their own thing and create an image for themselves, then that'll change I'm sure. As far as the public and the media, thats just how it is. Stories about the kids, as of now, automatically conjure up thoughts about Michael Jackson. Just like Willow and Jaden conjure up thoughts about Jada and WIll Smith. The media attacking one of those kids often (not always) but OFTEN is a double edged sword - they're attacking the kids AND Michael Jackson, often as a parent. That is the reality of the situation. And that's all I'm trying to say.

The estate execs work for (first and foremost) Mike. It is the Estate of MICHAEL JACKSON, not PPB. His children are the main beneficiaries, but they aren't the Estate. Branca & Co's main job is to do what is best for Mike's brand. Katherine and TJ's main job is to do what is best for Mike's kids, since he named her and Diana Ross as guardians, not Branca. That is the difference people are not understanding or accepting. Hilton Corporation didn't step in to "protect" Paris and Nicki during their stupid escapades and why should they? I don't see anyone turning away from Hilton hotels because of what they're doing. That makes no sense to me, sorry. People can make the distinction between the two.

 

[J5master]

I don't know. I think that there's a difference between "what the kids are DOING" and "what the media is LYING about and putting CLEARLY FALSE INFO as truth." No, what the kids are actually doing and all that...not the estate's concern. But what the MEDIA is doing, IMO, should be their concern.

Cuz really to me, for them to be collecting money for the MJ brand does nothing for Michael jackson himself obviously. Its all about PPB (and themselves). So what the media says about PPB should matter - to me thats a logical progression. Especially given what i just said about the media's attacks against PPB often is an attack on MJ (AND subsequently the brand).

 

[Tygger]

Some have misread and/or misunderstood my comment for whatever reason. Hopefully this will help:

The Jackson family have historically not responded to and/or dismissed slanderous comments made about them.

Note: dismissing a slanderous comment is responding to it with a dismissive statement.

Bubs, I do not participate in discussions focused on the distaste some have for the Jackson family. Hopefully you understand Michael’s children’s celebrity began at birth, not after the passing of their father. That celebrity was not created somehow by Michael’s parents, siblings, or any Jackson minus Michael himself. He fiercely protected his children because he knew how they would be received by the public and he was correct.

Do you remember the Estate’s response to Randy’s letter? Not another shining moment however; they wrote a public statement to defend themselves against what they called “defamatory accusations.” Defamatory is synonym for slanderous.

We are saddened that false and defamatory accusations grounded in stale Internet conspiracy theories are now being made by certain members of Michael’s family, whom he chose to leave out of his will. We are especially disheartened that they come at a time when remarkable progress has been made to secure the financial future of his children by turning around the Estate’s finances as well as during a time when so many of Michael’s fans, old and new, are enjoying his artistry through exciting new projects.

The fear for the executors was the family issues would overshadow their efforts: utilizing their control of Michael’s image - a.k.a brand - for maximum profit; something J5Master has said repeatedly.

The Estate issued a statement because they preferred not to pursue legal action against perceived slander to themselves and to hinder a perceived threat to Michael’s image/brand. The perceived threat was not the family's or their actions; the threat was the public would feel negatively about the situation and that may minimize potential profit.

Would be grand to see such a statement for minor beneficiaries.

By the way, a comment was made that Michael was their father. He is their father. A parent’s passing does not change that.

 

[Bubs]

Tygger, no one has access to your head and read your mind.

Some have misread and/or misunderstood my comment for whatever reason. Hopefully this will help:
"The Jackson family have historically not responded to and/or dismissed slanderous comments made about them."
Note: dismissing a slanderous comment is responding to it with a dismissive statement.

You know that is sooooooo bs
We didn't misunderstood not misread your comment. Now you come up with brand new addition to your previous sentence and now want to come up with bs that we misread or misunderstood you
The fact is, when there is crap written in the media about them, they will come up with response, whether it is dismissive or just plain response, not the point. Got it?

Michael's kids were never "celebrities" when Michael was alive. The celebrity thingy came after Michael's passing, and with people who wanted to use them as a prop for promoting stuff. There were no time wasted when PPB were unveiled, pushed in to the media glare and used as human mannequins.


"The Estate issued a statement because they preferred not to pursue legal action against perceived slander to themselves and to hinder a perceived threat to Michael’s image/brand. The perceived threat was not the family's or their actions; the threat was the public would feel negatively about the situation and that may minimize potential profit."

I remember their response letter and thought it was very thoughtful response.
You are reaching in order to support your stance that guardian duties should be outsourced to executors.
That is your take of it. I don't think they didn't sue Randy because it would have perceived threat to MJ's image/brand. Did public feel negatively of situation when they sued Mann or Melissa J? No, and it didn't effect to MJ's image/brand either. Why would public would feel negative of situation if they sued Randy? You give too much credit of Randy's importance and to be honest, I think they might have gained more fans if they had sued him.

They defended themselves to very same way that Jacksons defend themselves against unfair media stories of them. You know, like the way Janet replied media report of her delaying MJ's burial.
She wanted to make sure that the public knew what was the story. Thats what they usually do, issue a statement requesting some sort of apology, and then its done and dusted. Most of the family members who signed that letter, went on their knees and apologised (withdrew their signature). There was no need from executors to sue them because what came after that infamous letter, granny-nappers practically buried themselves in deep shit.
After that they didn't need to do anything as family made fools of themselves on front of the world.
After all that mess during wildfire of madness, did not effect on in anyways to MJ's brand/image, and that was because hew wasn't involved to it, and public knew it. The same way if PPB is slandered in media, it won't effect to MJ's image/brand, but it effect on PPB only. That is good enough reason to guardians start earning their money and do what they are supposed to do.

 

[J5master]

I have to disagree with one thing - as much as MJ tried, those kids WERE famous before MJ's death. Everyone knew who Prince, Paris, and Blanket were - especially Blanket (unfortunately).

No one was wondering who MJ's kids were. Everyone knew them.

 

[Petrarose]

^^No they were not famous, but they were known to exist. There is a difference and you are mixing it up. No one knew what they looked like except close friends. No media was following them around. No media were writing blogs, lies & frequently taking pictures about the kids. It is like Clinton is famous as a president but many other presidents are known or people are aware that they exist, but they are NOT famous.

People were also curious about the kids but again that does not equate to being famous. Being a curiosity and being famous is not the same thing.

Anyway it seems because the family remained silent & no big name gave this attention by refuting it, the media had to let this story die so good.

Bubs and Shelia like your points above, especially when you show examples.

 

[SheilaMJFan4Ever]

^^No they were not famous, but they were known to exist. There is a difference and you are mixing it up. No one knew what they looked like except close friends. No media was following them around. No media were writing blogs, lies & frequently taking pictures about the kids. It is like Clinton is famous as a president but many other presidents are known or people are aware that they exist, but they are NOT famous.

People were also curious about the kids but again that does not equate to being famous. Being a curiosity and being famous is not the same thing.

Anyway it seems because the family remained silent & no big name gave this attention by refuting it, the media had to let this story die so good.

Bubs and Shelia like your points above, especially when you show examples.

YES! In my honest opinion the word "famous" is being used too loosely and out of context, like "Icon" is. Kudos on the Clinton example, because he was more of a rock star than President (playing sax on Arsenio's first show helped get him more votes, imo). President Kennedy is another example of that and President Obama took it to an even higher level. Their children were curiosities, not famous, during their presidencies and were pretty much hands-off by the media while they were minors (as it should be). President George W. Bush's daughters were put on blast as ADULTS by the media when they were partying hard in college and even then that had nothing to do with or affect their father's presidency.

Of course people knew Mike had kids, but that was a part of his private life, not his BRAND and one didn't affect the other. Quite frankly, I find it a bit too involved for his fans to be so focused on them, especially since he didn't want that for them, wanted their childhood to be as private as possible. His wishes aren't being respected by some of the very people that claim to love and admire him.

His being dead shouldn't change the way the fans honor his wishes! And, just because the media is chasing after them doesn't mean the fans have to FOLLOW.

 

[J5master]

His being dead shouldn't change the way the fans honor his wishes! And, just because the media is chasing after them doesn't mean the fans have to FOLLOW.

I might disagree with EVERYTHING else (lol), but this I definitely can agree with :bow:

 

[MIST]

His being dead shouldn't change the way the fans honor his wishes! And, just because the media is chasing after them doesn't mean the fans have to FOLLOW.

If fans didn´t buy tabloids with stories and pictures of Michael´s children then there would be no paparazzis chasing them.