Latest on MJJC

Randall Sullivan's book "Untouchable"

Re: Randall Sullivan's new book "Untouchable"

It's times like this that a person wishes Michael had never died, that he had made his comeback through doing his Shows and silencing the naysayers forever.
 
Re: Randall Sullivan's new book "Untouchable"

I imagine in London there would have been some possible protests outside some of his shows because of the allegations, scathing reviews from critics about how MJ got away with 2005 and is now being allowed to be successful again, people saying he didn't have it anymore, people saying he was gonna fake out the rest of the tour, etc etc etc

Almost four years on and we're still hearing about masturbating to children stories, there's no way he would have avoided that back in 2009.
 
Re: Randall Sullivan's new book "Untouchable"

la_cienega said:
I imagine in London there would have been some possible protests outside some of his shows because of the allegations, scathing reviews from critics about how MJ got away with 2005 and is now being allowed to be successful again, people saying he didn't have it anymore, people saying he was gonna fake out the rest of the tour, etc etc etc

Almost four years on and we're still hearing about masturbating to children stories, there's no way he would have avoided that back in 2009.
Click to expand...

They would have jumped on him like a pack of hungry dogs and torn him to shreds. Nothing he did on stage would have been good enough for them to give him a positive review. He would have been crushed all over again and that was always my greatest fear for him.
 
Re: Randall Sullivan's new book "Untouchable"

Can the fans try upvoting these reviews? If we could get 100 fans to do it, they'd be back on the front page

http://www.amazon.com/review/R3AL49Z63O1RZQ/ref=cm_cr_rdp_perm
http://www.amazon.com/review/RRSUGI...080211962X&linkCode&nodeID&tag#wasThisHelpful
http://www.amazon.com/review/R24N4Q...m?ie=UTF8&ASIN=080211962X&linkCode&nodeID&tag
http://www.amazon.com/review/R3RQOX...m?ie=UTF8&ASIN=080211962X&linkCode&nodeID&tag
http://www.amazon.com/review/R1SON8...m?ie=UTF8&ASIN=080211962X&linkCode&nodeID&tag
http://www.amazon.com/review/R1WJH9...m?ie=UTF8&ASIN=080211962X&linkCode&nodeID&tag

A member of my underground group said this: It's the only thing we can really do right now, if we frontpage the best responses to the book, perhaps these idiots will accept the fans have read the book and have real reasons to dislike it. It would only take 100 fans to put some of these reviews on the front page. Wow, some of them have been downvoted 150 times now! They really can't accept anything, it really is just about bashing MJ.
 
Re: Randall Sullivan's new book "Untouchable"

I wrote a submission to the NYT on this, hoping they would consider publishing it. Since I haven't heard from them I assume they are not interested, and I can see why--I was critical of them So I will post it here. It's a bit late in the day, I know, to post. I had to wait 3 days to see if they were interested.

Unfathomable: The Strange and Tragic Media Attacks on Michael Jackson and His Advocates

A recent article written by David Streitfield in the Times claimed that supporters of Mr. Jackson had launched a campaign to discredit the recently published Untouchable: The Strange Life and Tragic Death of Michael Jackson by Randall Sullivan. Choosing selected sentences from among negative Amazon reviews, Mr. Streitfield painted a portrait of an unreasoning attack, even comparing it to war on a battlefield as opposed to a reasoned debate and describing Mr. Sullivan as a "casualty." In fact, if you go to the website, the reader will find extensive, detailed reviews that pinpoint errors and inaccuracies in this book, including a review from the former physician of Mr. Jackson in Ireland, Dr. Treacy. However, without indicating that there existed any basis for dislike of Sullivan's book grounded in fact and reasonable criticism, Streitfield painted the negative reviews with a broad brush, dismissing them as part of an organized smear campaign, nothing more.

How can such mischaracterizations encourage rational debate? Is it helpful to promoting truth to set up strawmen arguments, distorting reality, and thus encouraging attacks on not only his supporters but also on Mr. Jackson himself, a man who is after all a globally recognized and highly awarded Afro-American artist, and a man who was the target for decades of media mockery, particularly in the USA and the UK.? This denigration of the advocates of a deceased artist, a Black man who rose from the steel-mill industrial town of Gary, Indiana, to entertain millions world-wide, who devoted $300 million to charity, who received literally hundreds of awards, is especially abhorrent on the holiday that we set aside to honor Martin Luther King, another Black American who suffered from hatred and bigotry. Is this kind of mean-spirited attack on the supporters of an artist of world-wide stature really what the New York Times is in favor of?

As a result of Streitfield's false and inadequate characterizations both of Sullivan's book and the objections made by Jackson advocates, literally 130 5 star reviews have been posted on Amazon in the 3 days since the article appeared in the Times. These are clearly from people who, having read Mr. Streitfield's misleading article, are simply trying to defend Mr. Sullivan from what they see as "a swarm of killer bees." In reading these reviews, one finds grossly offensive and abusive terms applied to Mr. Jackson, epithets that we are all familiar with from past decades, including, of course, the assertion that he was a "monster," "a freaky boy," and a child molester. Given the twelve-year pursuit of Mr. Jackson by the Santa Barbara D.A. Tom Sneddon, the millions of dollars spent on searches of Jackson's home, on questioning over one hundred children, the hotline, the website asking for witnesses to step forward, the concurrent FBI investigation, and the 5 month trial in 2005 in which Mr. Jackson was found not guilty, it strikes me that there is no chance that any evidence was overlooked, and yet people can still make this claim today? Is beating a dead horse the occupation of people who believe exactly what they are told by the media? It is a sad day for America and the New York Times when civil discourse among citizens and articles in newspapers stoop to the lowest levels imaginable, both in terms of facts presented and accusations hurled seemingly without thought. Isn't it time for a fresh look at Mr. Jackson and his advocates?

Mr. Sullivan has received the highest possible media presence in order to promote his book. He has appeared on TV interviews with Katie Couric and on Nightline. His book was excerpted in Vanity Fair. He has had favorable articles recently published in the New Yorker and now in the Times. It is a dream come true for authors to get this level of exposure. If the book is not doing well in spite of this, perhaps the fault lies in the book itself and not in the dislike of Mr. Jackson's advocates. As a person who has spent much time researching Mr. Jackson's life and art, I do not appreciate the continuing misinformation promoted by media power brokers. By distorting the truth about the valid objections made by Jackson supporters to Sullivan's book, the Times writer has done everyone a great disservice. A lack of accurate reportage fails your readers and thus fails to uplift the level of discourse. People require information that is true in order to make informed decisions. Lax and lazy reporting hurts the polis, taking us further away from our goals and ideals.
 
Re: Randall Sullivan's new book "Untouchable"

Victory22 said:
Can the fans try upvoting these reviews? If we could get 100 fans to do it, they'd be back on the front page

http://www.amazon.com/review/R3AL49Z63O1RZQ/ref=cm_cr_rdp_perm
http://www.amazon.com/review/RRSUGI...080211962X&linkCode&nodeID&tag#wasThisHelpful
http://www.amazon.com/review/R24N4Q...m?ie=UTF8&ASIN=080211962X&linkCode&nodeID&tag
http://www.amazon.com/review/R3RQOX...m?ie=UTF8&ASIN=080211962X&linkCode&nodeID&tag
http://www.amazon.com/review/R1SON8...m?ie=UTF8&ASIN=080211962X&linkCode&nodeID&tag
http://www.amazon.com/review/R1WJH9...m?ie=UTF8&ASIN=080211962X&linkCode&nodeID&tag

A member of my underground group said this: It's the only thing we can really do right now, if we frontpage the best responses to the book, perhaps these idiots will accept the fans have read the book and have real reasons to dislike it. It would only take 100 fans to put some of these reviews on the front page. Wow, some of them have been downvoted 150 times now! They really can't accept anything, it really is just about bashing MJ.
Click to expand...

Done.:yes:
 
Re: Randall Sullivan's new book "Untouchable"

Victory22 - voted. I'm so put off by Amazon, I feel like never purchasing from them again. I have been using Amazon primarily to buy MJ stuff. Why should I continue to give them business when they are showing their bias against Michael and his fans...I could probably buy the same stuff off ebay from independent sellers.
 
Re: Randall Sullivan's new book "Untouchable"

Rhilo said:
Victory22 - voted. I'm so put off by Amazon, I feel like never purchasing from them again. I have been using Amazon primarily to buy MJ stuff. Why should I continue to give them business when they are showing their bias against Michael and his fans...I could probably buy the same stuff off ebay from independent sellers.
Click to expand...

I agree, Rhilo, with that. I am tired of Amazon too and their mealy mouth bs and their stupid editorial editor Sara Nelson, who wrote a review for Sullivan on Amazon. I have bought a lot of MJ books from them too. I am going to look elsewhere next time--maybe ebay or Barnes and Noble or other sellers. ABEbooks. ?? I am sure we don't have to buy books from them.

Raven Woods has a great blog post on the NYT hit piece just up. Also I heard there is a crap article from Deborah Orr of the Guardian on this bruhaha re Cry Babe, NYT, Amazon. She is an MJ hater.

I don't even want to go back to see the mess the reviews of Cry Babe's book have made. Last time I checked there were 23 pages__or something like that--of reviews. This is all bs.
 
Re: Randall Sullivan's new book "Untouchable"

I say let the book sink into obscurity. It's on it's way. It's down in the #10,000s. That's the biggest punishment for Sullivan.
 
Re: Randall Sullivan's new book "Untouchable"

la_cienega said:
That journalist is so determined to try and get this book selling well, why?

And trying to only focus on the "bad" reviews from MJ fans - what about the obvious reviews from people who have read it who have been deleted, and the reviews from 5 star people who have obviously not read it? Reviews sent in by this terrible journalist himself.

And the coroner states he has a nose, why is this some weird "truth" we can't determine?

He seems happy the book's "score" is "evened". His goal was obvious. If this journalist isn't a friend of Sullivan's I'd be gobsmacked.
Click to expand...

^^Actually this journalist sounds like a kid in grade school, saying, "they did this to us, and we hit them back, yeah we win." What exactly did he win here. He claims after the article people rushed to write 5 star reviews. He did not have to say they did not read the book, because his statement makes any intelligent person grasp that they did not, and the review was done for retaliation. I thought you wrote a book to help people decide to buy or not buy it.

He writes about what is in the 1 reviews, when anyone can check out the 5 reviews and see their content is not better than some of the 5 reviews. Hey, and about the story about the guy who knew Randy used people to get ahead and lie about them--Sorry I want to know that about an author. I want to know if this guy is ethical in his writing and I could believe his story. If he is a cheater, most likely his story will have a bunch of lies in it too. So, even if that information is not about the book, I would use it to judge the author's character & the potential truth of his work.
 
And I just noticed this, re: the hoax confession:

The Jackson family insisted that it was authentic, though, and after Jermaine Jackson arranged its dissemination in cyberspace Jordie’s “ confession” achieved a kind of de facto substantiality.
Click to expand...

What an idiot! He claims Jermaine was the one who "disseminated" it into cyberspace - nonsense.

It was posted by someone on June 26th and spread from there, Jermaine had nothing to do with it.

Yes he mentioned it later, but he was definitely not the one to post it or spread it.

Sorry this journalism is just beyond bad. Nothing he says is correct, absolutely everything he says has huge gaping flaws in it. I can't even understand where so much of his info comes from, he clearly just makes up a huge bulk of it.

Now thanks to the New York Times we're not even allowed to question it, because we're a nuisance if we do.

He could also answer why he said that I am Josephine Zohny when I'm not and have never claimed to be, and why he claimed the Floacist's blog was set up to obsessively stalk and harass Jordan Chandler, when it was not.

If I had faith in Deborah I'd ask her to point these things out to him, but I don't.
 
Last edited:
Re: Randall Sullivan's new book "Untouchable"

LaCienega don't be misled. He gives this wrong impression of the blog, for example, to paint a picture of deranged, rabid fans. This is supposed to make you discouraged and prevent you from attacking his "facts" in an intellectual way or to make others see you/fans as robots so that they will not take your critiques/analysis seriously. This is a popular attack method of unscrupulous people who cannot win by real facts & by intellectual discourse. People become discouraged and then give up, which is what the person really wants.
 
Re: Randall Sullivan's new book "Untouchable"

Petrarose said:
LaCienega don't be misled. He gives this wrong impression of the blog, for example, to paint a picture of deranged, rabid fans. This is supposed to make you discouraged and prevent you from attacking his "facts" in an intellectual way or to make others see you/fans as robots so that they will not take your critiques/analysis seriously. This is a popular attack method of unscrupulous people who cannot win by real facts & by intellectual discourse. People become discouraged and then give up, which is what the person really wants.
Click to expand...

Oh I know, I just can't believe he's allowed to get away with it.

It's laughable to claim the fans have a "Jordan Tracking Blog" and the citation he uses is this:

http://floacist.wordpress.com/2007/09/20/time-flies-when-youre-living-off-of-michael-jacksons-money/

He claims it was posted after MJ died, it was not.

He claims it urges readers to send in sightings about Jordan and posts various hang outs of his, it does not.

He claims the entire blog was set up for that one very specific use, it was not.

But if THIS is all they have to show how the Chandler's need to live underground, it says a lot. If this is the worst of the fans Sullivan can muster, it says a lot. (reminds me of the Chandler's claims about how they lived in fear of their lives after being shot at and almost run over, when the reality was they only had one crazy fan throughout that whole time)

I thought it was funny Sullivan said denying the Jordan confession was real was something he knew would upset fans - how stupid does he think we are? If he's paid one bit of attention to fans he should know none of us here uses or believes that. He takes us for complete fools.

The only problem I have with what he said about it was how he claims Jermaine was the one to spread it and that's a bold face lie. I don't even know where he got that from, some crazy made up story on a hater blog where they blamed Jermaine? I have no idea. But it takes a LOT of stupidity to try and even make that claim, because you'd need to believe Jermaine had posted the message, or tweeted it, or something, and it's patently untrue, and should be obvious it's untrue. Imagine how big a story it would have been if Jermaine had been the one to share it and it turned out to be untrue. He's a complete idiot.
 
Last edited:
Re: Randall Sullivan's new book "Untouchable"

^^He seems to be on a hate fest. His issues and citations should be about his book. Not about what fans are doing in other areas. Again I say he sounds like a kid in elementary school. Sullivan is supposed to be a great reporter & look how low he is stooping. He must have been like this all the time, which makes me think that information the fan wrote about how he tell lies and uses people is true. It comes out in his statement. He knows nothing about that blog and came up with yet another tacky lie.

It gives me such a great feeling that a man with so much media clout & exposure could not even sell his book after taking full advantage of prime time TV, inflated paper reviews from Vanity & reporters, book signing, use of reporter pals to attack his non-buying audience, & had to go crying in the public sphere & make a fool of himself.

Overall, it can be said this man had everything and still LOST. Oh I forgot, he had little of value about his subject & despises his audience. Goodbye Mr. Bond.


Let's see you revenue from this book Sullivan--can't be that good....
 
I'd love people remembering, admiring, considering relevant, influential and loving Michael for centuries just like Wolfgang Amadé Mozart. He was born 257 years ago and it happens everything I mentioned previously; however I'm afraid with this kind of bullshit surrounding him, he may be remembered also for it. Those racist parasites must die to not happen...
 
Re: Randall Sullivan's new book "Untouchable"

la_cienega said:
I thought it was funny Sullivan said denying the Jordan confession was real was something he knew would upset fans - how stupid does he think we are? If he's paid one bit of attention to fans he should know none of us here uses or believes that. He takes us for complete fools.

The only problem I have with what he said about it was how he claims Jermaine was the one to spread it and that's a bold face lie. I don't even know where he got that from, some crazy made up story on a hater blog where they blamed Jermaine? I have no idea. But it takes a LOT of stupidity to try and even make that claim, because you'd need to believe Jermaine had posted the message, or tweeted it, or something, and it's patently untrue, and should be obvious it's untrue. Imagine how big a story it would have been if Jermaine had been the one to share it and it turned out to be untrue. He's a complete idiot.
Click to expand...

Jermaine is one of the Jacksons that heavily mentioned the hoax confession during his book interviews. So even though he did not start it, he helped it to spread it. Although later on he said he wasn't referring to it and he had other sources of info for that claim.

However Sullivan thinking he is writing that the alleged confession is not real would upset the fans is a total BS. Not only fans were aware that it wasn't true and were highly annoyed that Jermaine and Katherine were repeating it at interviews. In a Q&A with Jermaine, MJJC / I told him it was a hoax and published / circulated it. Therefore it clearly demonstrates that we were very well aware the so called confession was fake / hoax / false / lie and we had no qualms about making it known. So sorry Sullivan you are once again clueless and wrong.


Here's the Q & A below. We sent this question around November 2011 and published the Q&A at February 2012.

MJJC: Are you aware that the internet blog where Jordan Chandler retracted his allegations against Michael is a hoax? In TV interviews you and Mrs Jackson when defending Michael from the child abuse allegations use this argument to prove Michael's innocence and because it is false it has the opposite effect of making viewers continue to question the accusations against Michael. There are so many good arguments to support Michael's innocence and it is extremely frustrating for fans and extremely damaging towards your brother when an argument which is clearly a lie is used.

Jermaine Jackson: I don't know what Internet blog is being referred to??

Michael's attorney Tom had a witness that was prepared to testify that Jordan Chandler had told him the allegations were untrue (should he have appeared as a witness in 2005) The boy had privately retracted it, and Tom was going to prove it. I think that's as good as any argument can get!
 
Re: Randall Sullivan's new book "Untouchable"

ivy said:
Jermaine is one of the Jacksons that heavily mentioned the hoax confession during his book interviews. So even though he did not start it, he helped it to spread it. Although later on he said he wasn't referring to it and he had other sources of info for that claim.
Click to expand...

I know, but Jermaine only actually spoke about it in November 2009 - months and months after it came out. He never helped to arrange to have it "disseminated it into cyberspace." It went viral on June 26th, and it had nothing to do with the Jacksons or anyone else in MJ's real world. Jermaine mentioning it months and months later doesn't have anything to do with it going viral on June 26th, and he certainly never "arranged" it or helped spread it when it first came out. It's a misrepresentation of what happened, and one of the many many many ones Sullivan makes. He can say Jermaine mentioned it as though to give it credibility, but that's different from what he claimed, he made it seem like Jermaine orchestrated it.

I know, he's clueless about the fans. He lists all our blogs in his citations, even though in every single one we all document the allegations and why they're BS and we don't just say "Jordan confessed after MJ died, so it's all not true!" I've never seen a major MJ blogger try to claim that. It was so condescending how he said that, like he felt we were all clueless and naive. But that tone about us reeks through every page.

I doubt he's even read most of the MJJC interviews, he's one of the most out of touch journalists regarding MJ or in fact social media I've ever seen.
 
Last edited:
Re: Randall Sullivan's new book "Untouchable"

^^ He does this purposefully. One of you posted a blog which I looked at, and it seems Sullivan did not give complete URLs for his references. It appears that his source section is not complete. That tells you he does not even want readers going back to check these things. He picks out some words in a blog, like confession, disregards the whole context of the words and rewrites it. What pisses me off is when I think how the professors were so severe about such things when I was in graduate school. In our research papers we couldn't write this; we couldn't change that, and on & on. Here you have people being paid to do things that we in a classroom couldn't even do. It makes no sense!!! Sullivan & his cohorts disregard all the rules & their editors approve it.

We may have to get a type of person who can document & expose them like in the Watergate story.
 
Re: Randall Sullivan's new book "Untouchable"

Here is the latest letter from MJTN...

Irony and Hypocrisy...

For far too long big media operated basically unfettered in its demonization and mischaracterization of Michael Jackson. This was done purposefully for profit using spurious means including paying for stories, misquoting, misrepresenting, inventive editing, subtle hints in visual presentation, and by the age old fallback...lies. First Amendment rights and simply giving the public what it wants were, and still are, a convenient cover for what has become a prime example of character assassination.

Randall Sullivan revisits and rehashes a good deal of old, familiar fiction in his purported biography, Untouchable: The Strange Life And Tragic Death of Michael Jackson. He tells us that he spent three years researching and gathering information. Well, so did we. Some of us were new to this effort and some of us walked through the fire with Michael from the start. Now, Sullivan and his media cronies find themselves confronted and challenged and clearly don't like it. We don't believe they were prepared for the objections: passionate, knowledgeable, intelligent objections.

Now that Sullivan's book has only sold 3000 copies of the 16,000 shipped, he must blame someone to justify the lack of sales. He enlisted the help of his media friends to complain about the number of poor reviews of his book at Amazon. In a recent article in the New York Times by David Streifeld, the fans have been blamed for swarming the book with reviews of one star.

"Swarming A Book On-line" by David Streifeld
www.nytimes.com/SwarmingABookOn-line

The New York Times writer takes the Michael Jackson Community to task for what is, in his view, censorship. The New York Times article prompted a spate of 5 star reviews on Sullivan's book at Amazon in retaliation...85 in just one day, many of them openly acknowledging they had not read the book but do not want the fans to prevail. In a follow-up article, David Streifeld acknowledged the battle of the reviews. He called out one particular review for slandering Sullivan but seemed to be lacking in outrage over the slander that is very prevalent in Sullivan's book. He seemed quite proud of himself for his role in this "censorship" game.

The response is predictable...crazy fans organizing to bury a book, misuse a review site, practice thought control on an unsuspecting public...balderdash. It is none of the above. Whether one is semi-militant and vocal or quietly determined to oppose an ongoing meme, speaking up by writing it down is a responsibility for those who seek to set the record straight.

Raven in her "All For Love Blog" has written an excellent and detailed piece about Sullivan's book, The New York Times' articles and the resulting mess at Amazon. We support Raven wholeheartedly in her views and could not have said it better.

"I'm Tired, Really Tired of Manipulation!"-Michael Jackson-2001
http://www.allforloveblog.com/?p=7666

We won't be quiet or intimidated by dismissive accusations. Michael Jackson deserves, finally, to be factually defended as fully as possible, as often as necessary. Sorry, Mr. Sullivan, your current tactic fails. We are here to stay.


MJTruthNow www.MJTruthNow.com
 
Re: Randall Sullivan's new book "Untouchable"

^^ Good. Now it is Sunday. Wasn't the first retaliation article done over the weekend? Let's see if there is a new one today, unless David is out to lunch? Is this book supposed to sell in England?
 
Re: Randall Sullivan's new book "Untouchable"

Petrarose said:
^^ Good. Now it is Sunday. Wasn't the first retaliation article done over the weekend? Let's see if there is a new one today, unless David is out to lunch? Is this book supposed to sell in England?
Click to expand...

Despite of the attack on fans' opinion on the book being reprinted in British newspapers, such as the Telegraph and the Guardian (So who is leading a campaign here? Why is it such an important issue that newspapers all around the world write about it? Aren't there enough problems in the world to cover? Or maybe, just maybe it's Sullivan's PR team that is behind it?) it does even worse on UK Amazon. Currently it's at #69,000: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Untouchable...6035/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1359320454&sr=8-1

Maybe British readers aren't as easy to lead on by their media as Americans?
 
Last edited:
Re: Randall Sullivan's new book "Untouchable"

I'm glad he's not doing that well as he expected despite help of his frends and hideous shameless attack against fans on amazon or in general. :devil:
 
Re: Randall Sullivan's new book "Untouchable"

la_cienega said:
...

Now thanks to the New York Times we're not even allowed to question it, because we're a nuisance if we do.
...
Click to expand...

See, that's what's interesting. If fans question the media narrative (or in this case, a single person) - it is being held up as 'truth'.
But, it is the fans who are being called the "MJ thought police". (D. Orr)

Who's policing whom??

MJs fans are simply doing what they can to stem an gigantic propaganda machinery that has been running for decades, all focussing on the destruction of ONE MAN and what he stands for. And MJ fans use the tools they have available.
Apparently MJ fans must have been quite successful at making themselves heard because now media seems hellbent to go after fans who disprove the narrative of "Michael, the freak". Quite insightful. Michael is no longer here, so now his fans are being used to muddy the waters.

If that's not "thought police" on behalf of the media - I don't know what would qualify.
 
Re: Randall Sullivan's new book "Untouchable"

Michael will be remembered for years to come. People will be like Sullivan who? The more he complains and the more childish he acts the worse he looks not the fans. It's about him not us. He can't stand that his book failed. As a fan I will take the hits from people like this because in the end his book was a flop. He didn't succeed in what he wanted.

Michael was loved and is loved more than hated in this world. Sometimes it may not feel that way or look that way but I know it's true. Otherwise people wouldn't be fascinated or influenced by him and his music and work still sells strong. My hope is that the newer fans and people that start to love his work and music will see that a lot of things written about Michael was tabloid garbage. People will want to seek the truth. Michael's legacy is strong.
 
Re: Randall Sullivan's new book "Untouchable"

Pace that is it exactly ^^. That is why I often say, no one should be afraid of the name calling from the media, because it would be used regardless as a tool to control our actions. A typical person will refrain from certain actions if they know they will be labeled negatively, which Randall & company know, so they do that to fans. You are right--our actions must be working since there is a mad rush to send in the attack team from papers from other countries as well.

Respect Glad the book is not doing well in Europe either. It would be interesting to see how much was mailed out & how much was sold in England.

Something else, Sullivan seems bent on showing that some fans have not read his book and are discouraging others to not buy it, as though this is a unique thing in the world. This happens with book/non book issues all the time. You go to church/work/school/party/club meeting/standing outside on the sidewalk/walking in the store & someone or a group comes up. They tell you about a negative issue or procedure affecting a group/animals/plants/children and ask you to sign a petition.

What happens: (1) Millions of thousands of people sign without asking for a complete document to read outlining the issues, and they tell OTHERS.

(2) They ask you for money & large numbers again give some change or bills with no in-depth knowledge of the policies. They have been only told.
(3) Sometimes you are given a pamphlet about the issues, but again this is not having a complete picture, and again people help to put a stop to the negative results.
(4) You were a child, like I was once where the teachers said in such & such a country they have famine because the government is doing XYZ & we need to write a letter or can everyone give a penny to help? We all run home at age 8 & beg our parents for some change. Again we were only told something & have not even read the whole story, so why are we acting to stop something that is negative?

It is very simple, Sullivan, in society there will always be humans who expect that certain people who come to them with information is telling them the truth. We expect the teachers/leaders/people in our clubs, etc., who have the same interests as us, to tell us the truth about KEY issues affecting the group & then we act. Not everyone is going to say "Send me all documents about this issue ASAP & then I will help, although several people do.

This means that some fans expect that if certain members read a book & pinpoint drastic errors in a book about Michael, the members' information will be generally correct, & they can act on it. This does not mean that certain fans will not want to verify the information themselves. However, in general, everybody on Earth are not acting like researchers. Further, you only have to look at the Vanity piece to know about the tabloid aspect of the book & then you find out that even some people named in the Vanity release had to say that what Sullivan said about them is not true. How much more evidence do you have to have to know this book is not something Michael would accept as truth about his life, and discourage people to stay away from it?

This is all typical behavior and no fan should feel ashamed because they have not read this book & have discouraged others from buying it.
 
I was reading comments on Telegraph and this one caught my eye, brilliant

judson666
01/24/2013 11:35 AM
Amazon must be laughing hysterically now -- though it should be very concerned that a pillar of its business model is under attack. What began (presumably) as an open forum for customers to review books has morphed into a sand box brawl. Does anyone believe that this recent spate of 5-Star reviews versus 1-Star reviews is spontaneous? No, it is just a shouting match over an invisible fence – all about a book that is not really worth the effort.

Many books have appeared about Michael Jackson over the years. Some are forgotten, others still float somewhere between soft porn and tabloid-crap-for-dollars, and a very few are laudable. That is tragic because it declares that so many have written so much for so long about one man - yet said so little of substance about him. On the laudable end, Joe Vogel's book, Man in the Music, is a standout – and available from Amazon. Warning: it is a book for grownups and music lovers of all ages who want to understand 'what made Michael Jackson tick'. It is not a book for lovers of tabloid proctology.

Randall Sullivan's book (released Nov 2012), over which word-war now wages , debuted to modest-to-lackluster reviews by the cognoscenti, and the expected rash of talk show appearances by the author titled as journalist and contributor to Rolling Stone magazine. Sullivan has a good publicity machine, but not a good product. We consumers should be mindful that between publicity and product might exist a deep emptiness.

The book is BIG and contains lots of words. No argument there. However, when a topic like Michael Jackson’s life has been a media cash crop for decades, I expected the next harvest to provide a bounty of breakthroughs and discoveries from previously untilled acreage. Instead, I got the leavings of dysfunctional family machinations, surgeries, disappearing noses, etc. I was left starving.

I suppose Sullivan could identify a breakthrough as his personal declaration that Michael Jackson was innocent of child molestation. As we know, that was decided years ago in court by a judge and a jury of Jackson’s peers aided by a defense presented by Thomas Mesereau. The verdict was broadcast around the Earth in every language -- hardly news except to hermits, cave dwellers or those who stubbornly resist the truth of it.

Even so, an acknowledgement of that verdict by a respected journalist might carry extra weight. HOWEVER, Sullivan quickly followed his statement with, (his words), ‘Jackson is a presexual, likely going to his grave never having had sex with man, woman or child’. So, Michael Jackson gets from Sullivan a supportive pat on the back, quickly followed by a castrating stab in the genitals. Apparently, Jackson is not allowed both his innocence and his physical manhood intact. He must be neutered so doubters can feel more comfortable with him. Sullivan describes his book as a sympathetic treatment of Jackson.

How is this backhanded, lopsided, wonky statement sympathetic, factual or fair to Jackson or to those reading a biography expecting information they can trust about his life? The answer: It isn’t.

Lesson Learned and Hope for the Future: Michael Jackson’s biography will NOT be written by fans, friends, family, fabulists, or tabloid proctologists. His hard-won and well-deserved legacy is forming to replace the free-floating, profit-driven hysteria that drags on his memory. New biographers will emerge to write his big and panoramic story – all of it -- for new generations of readers eager to learn.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/...ets-should-look-at-the-man-in-the-mirror.html
 
^That was a GREAT comment! Describes the book perfectly and why it isn't worth a dime!

I suppose Sullivan could identify a breakthrough as his personal declaration that Michael Jackson was innocent of child molestation. As we know, that was decided years ago in court by a judge and a jury of Jackson’s peers aided by a defense presented by Thomas Mesereau. The verdict was broadcast around the Earth in every language -- hardly news except to hermits, cave dwellers or those who stubbornly resist the truth of it.
Click to expand...
Right on! This is the ONLY strong point in this book and what drives certain fans and T-Mez to keep on trying to get us to buy it. As if Jones book wasn't good enough. -_-


Even so, an acknowledgement of that verdict by a respected journalist might carry extra weight. HOWEVER, Sullivan quickly followed his statement with, (his words), ‘Jackson is a presexual, likely going to his grave never having had sex with man, woman or child’. So, Michael Jackson gets from Sullivan a supportive pat on the back, quickly followed by a castrating stab in the genitals. Apparently, Jackson is not allowed both his innocence and his physical manhood intact. He must be neutered so doubters can feel more comfortable with him. Sullivan describes his book as a sympathetic treatment of Jackson.
How is this backhanded, lopsided, wonky statement sympathetic, factual or fair to Jackson or to those reading a biography expecting information they can trust about his life? The answer: It isn’t.
Click to expand...
^ Exactly! And because of that I don't understand the support this book is getting from certain fans and T-mez! o_O It's embarrASSing at this point and just makes me wonder....
 
Re: Randall Sullivan's new book "Untouchable"

^ I still don't get Tom Mesereau either, that book does nothing to prove or stating Michael's innocence. He said Michael was presexual but insinuates Jordan was his lover. :puke: Aren't Jordan and Gavin cases equally important to point out both were shameless attempts to get money from him? To millions of us, both cases are important.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top