Latest on MJJC

How reliable Rolling Stone is? after this? Its a tabloid or a music mag?

It seems like they are a tabloid now:

"The magazine also says that Jackson wore a prosthetic nose and that was not attached"

Didn't Arnold Klien dismiss rumours that his nose was not attached?
 
Does that rumour even need dismissing? I mean, come on!
 
im not gonna even click on the link. if its more negative press talk i dont want see it, i dont wanna read it. it goes straight in the trash where it belongs
 
I really think this is crap..
First of all I remember that MJ had done some kind of an operation in 2004 with a german specialist doctor that recreated tissue in the nose area, so I don’t see why he needed a ‘prosthetic nose’ anymore.. I thought this was a closed issue.. And klein on lkl I think confirmed that this was how they had proceeded.. So I don’t know if this is legit.
I thought RS was a more reliable source, but…
 
Does anyone have the photo in the article, MJ with a scarf in higher resolution?
 
Anyway, why would a music magazine be interested in his nose? Shouldn't they rather be interested in the music?

MJ had nose jobs done, everybody knows that for 30 years. I don't care. I care about the music. So should Rolling Stone.
 
They wrote what??? I'm definitely not buying the magazine. Ever.
 
Please let this be a joke. I do not want to believe that Rolling Stone magazine would actually print such bull. I just won't believe it. I want the mag, but I'll wait until I have a chance to read it first at a newsstand before I spend a dime. I just do not want to believe that a so called reputable music mag would print such ridiculous nonsense.

BUt then again the magazine industry has been on the decline for YEARS because of the internet. I wouldn't be surprised... u know this kind of thing sells and we all know they could use the money...
 
Every aspect of the Rolling Stone article is unsubstantiated rumor and innuendo... Eric Bates is on par with Ian Halperin on "sources" and credibility... IMO Rolling Stone has long been full of Ish.
 
Once upon a time, Rollingstone was a good music magazine. When they had Michael on the cover in 1992 it was good then. It's garbage now & has been for some time.
 
As long as there are Michael Jackson fans, tabloids will always sell.
 
It used to be a serious magazine, but Rolling Stone went downhill when they started putting people like N*Sync on the cover. Time, Newsweek, even People used to be legit, but now they're the same as the Enquirer. But even in the old days it was biased to acts that Jann Wenner liked (the same with the Rock & Roll Hall Of Fame, which he created). I remember the magazine always used to trash & make fun of The Eagles because Wenner didn't like their music or them personally. Most acts he didn't like didn't even get that, they just wouldn't get any coverage at all.
 
Rolling Stone had/has dogged Michael FOR YEARS and any kind of "weird" story to come out they don't question it AT ALL, because everyone "knows" how "bizarre" and "strange" Michael was **rolls eyes**. Only because it's about Michael Jackson is why people get away with stupid ass stories like him NOT having a nose, him having all this plastic surgery...Man if Michael had as much as they claimed he would have still been recovering...**shakes head**

Rolling Stone Magazine's time of death was called when they put Justin Timberlake on the cover with the headline "The New King Of Pop". The dude had only had ONE solo record out at that time...WTF...And my whole issue with this is, why are/were they always trying to take Michael's title away? THE MAN FUCKING EARNED IT! Did you see People trying to find the New Godfather of Soul? A new King of Rock n' Roll? The new King of Funk? I know Britney likes to think she's the new "Queen of Pop" but seriously aside from maybe one other reporter where they stated that Justin and Britney were the King and Queen of Pop, I have never heard people calling Madonna "The Former Queen of Pop". It's so disrespectful and I just wanted to now WHY was Michael singled out? And then I remember...BECAUSE it's Michael! They tried to take EVERYTHING he did from him! Tried to tear away any and all he had accomplished! They tried to "re-write" history...

And only in death has he become "The UNDISPUTED King of Pop", I think I've only heard one person call him "The Self-Proclaimed KOP" since he passed and that was in the early days following his death. Which is stupid because he NEVER proclaimed himself this, it was Elizabeth Taylor (as we all know) and she called him "The True King of Rock, Pop, and Soul", and he is AND SO MUCH MORE! More like The King of Entertainment or as Berry Gordy said, "The Greatest Entertainer to Ever Live".

It's total BS and so is Rolling Stone Magazine sadly...and I could wipe my ass with their "tribute" magazine. Full of all the BS and all the wrong data! I mean really...They can take their tribute and shove it up where the sun don't shine...
 
Last edited:
~* White Chocolate *~ said:
Rolling Stone had/has dogged Michael FOR YEARS and any kind of "weird" story to come out they don't question it AT ALL, because everyone "knows" how "bizarre" and "strange" Michael was **rolls eyes**. Only because it's about Michael Jackson is why people get away with stupid ass stories like him NOT having a nose, him having all this plastic surgery...Man if Michael had as much as they claimed he would have still been recovering...**shakes head**

Rolling Stone Magazine's time of death was called when they put Justin Timberlake on the cover with the headline "The New King Of Pop". The dude had only had ONE solo record out at that time...WTF...And my whole issue with this is, why are/were they always trying to take Michael's title away? THE MAN FUCKING EARNED IT! Did you see People trying to find the New Godfather of Soul? A new King of Rock n' Roll? The new King of Funk? I know Britney likes to think she's the new "Queen of Pop" but seriously aside from maybe one other reporter where they stated that Justin and Britney were the King and Queen of Pop, I have never heard people calling Madonna "The Former Queen of Pop". It's so disrespectful and I just wanted to now WHY was Michael singled out? And then I remember...BECAUSE it's Michael! They tried to take EVERYTHING he did from him! Tried to tear away any and all he had accomplished! They tried to "re-write" history...

And only in death has he become "The UNDISPUTED King of Pop", I think I've only heard one person call him "The Self-Proclaimed KOP" since he passed and that was in the early days following his death. Which is stupid because he NEVER proclaimed himself this, it was Elizabeth Taylor (as we all know) and she called him "The True King of Rock, Pop, and Soul", and he is AND SO MUCH MORE! More like The King of Entertainment or as Berry Gordy said, "The Greatest Entertainer to Ever Live".

It's total BS and so is Rolling Stone Magazine sadly...and I could wipe my ass with their "tribute" magazine. Full of all the BS and all the wrong data! I mean really...They can take their tribute and shove it up where the sun don't shine...
Click to expand...


I really don't think I could've said it any better!:clapping:
 
The tribute issue quoted Landis for saying he saw how Michael bleached his chest during thriller and was disgusted by it. Lies again.

And Klein said he was rebuilding his nose on LKL. It looks much better than in prior years.
 
krism said:
im not gonna even click on the link. if its more negative press talk i dont want see it, i dont wanna read it. it goes straight in the trash where it belongs
Click to expand...

Agreed. I don't even bother reading that garbage anymore and I don't let it bother me because I know it's not true.
They just need to stop. They all repeat the same lies over and over again anyway.
 
They've always reported trash on Michael Jackson. I never buy that magazine cause it's not reliable.
 
not every person at every news agency believes or agrees on everything. Just like some articles on MSN.com have a conservative bias and some have a liberal bias.

as for a prosthetic nose many high profile doctors have come out and said that if it was a fake nose it would look a lot better than it did, and they did not believe he had a fake nose. Plus why would he show up to court with a bandaid on a fake nose?
 
I thought Rolling Stone magazine was about music, not bullsh*t. Ugh.
 
Okay. Shoot me. I picked it up at one of the newsstands after reading a bit of it. Tabloid-ish? Some parts yes, definitely. The article does mention something about a piece of missing nose which made me shudder, cause I'm just like really Rolling Stone? Really? It also DID talk about needle marks, BUT if I'm reading correctly, the article was stating that the needles were from the doctors efforts to revive him, not due to drug use.

I will say this. The ONE thing that the article did make sure to express over and over again was that MJ was excited about doing the shows. He wanted this to be his big comeback, wanted to show his kids what he did, and wanted to clear up his so called debt. People they quote in the interview, folks that we've all talked about on this board, say that he was excited, and had all kinds of ideas about what he wanted to do. He wanted it to be huge and was really starting to become confident that he could pull off a successful string of shows. He planned jsut about everything and they also say that the last night of rehearsals before he passed something clicked and it was like magic. MJ went home that night happy and confident.

I just wanted to share that. Whether that part of the article is true or not I guess we will never know, but I wanted to just give you a review of the article and let you decide for yourself...
 
Last edited:
One of my colleagues at work showed me her copy of Rolling Stone today because she saw MJ on the cover and thought of me -- but I was disappointed to see that the magazine has really gone downhill. I keep hoping for analysis of his amazing music SOMEWHERE like maybe a music magazine but it seems everything is a tabloid now. Maybe I will write some of my own music analysis for the Groove Theory section! :) Or if anyone knows of any good links out there about the music theory behind his work...?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top