Latest on MJJC

Skin-whitening creams found in Jackson home

Status
Not open for further replies.
dancemasterman said:
fine go for it guys. Have your little rant and have fun having something to hate. Next you guy's are going to claim that MJ was really still dark black at the end and the media just altered the photos to make him look white.
Click to expand...


dancemasterman - I have read quite a posts on this board over the years and yours in the first one that felt like a knife to my heart.

Most of us here are rational, intelligent people. None of us would even imply that Michael did not have white skin. None of us. What an awful, awful thing to say!

No one who has challenged you in this thread has even implied that we would even consider 'blaming' the media for Michael's appearance. But I do take your point that as fans we may take things too personally.

But you know what? When you love someone and you see them mis-represented, mis-quoted, maligned, mocked and scorned you tend to get a bit sensitive about it. When people who are not celebrities find themselves under the microscope, they always cry out about how unfair the coverage they receive is. How it does not show the truth. How it is sensationalised.

This is not a Michael Jackson problem. This is a media problem. And instead of the media being smug and arrogant, it is time for them to step up to the plate and admit to being a LARGE part of the problem. Not going to happen I know but it is our responsibility as the PUBLIC to call them out on their BS. Every time.

Members here do it on behalf of Michael.
 
vncwilliam said:
aren't you going for the jugular, right there, as you claim we are? how about questioning those in the media who love having someone to hate? for the journalists, you use the word 'bias'. for us, you use the word 'hate'. that's interesting.
Click to expand...

I'm yet to meet even one single journalist or student who is majoring in journalism or communications who hates Michael Jackson.

Now that I think about it, I'm yet to meet even a single one of them who doesn't like his music a lot. I really only personally know about 20. Not even one of them is what people here think journalists are like.

Bias is leaving out certain facts to prevent somebody from forming a specific conclusion and paying attention to certain facts that are not as relevant as they appear in a certain context.

Hating people is when you seriously dislike somebody. I think it's pretty safe to say you guys pretty much hate journalists across the board unless they put forward a very strong bias in favor of Michael Jackson.
 
TheChosenOne said:
dancemasterman - I have read quite a posts on this board over the years and yours in the first one that felt like a knife to my heart.

Most of us here are rational, intelligent people. None of us would even imply that Michael did not have white skin. None of us. What an awful, awful thing to say!
Click to expand...

If that felt like a knife to your heart, than you sort of need to re assess your priorities. And it was sarcasm. I don't actually think people here doubt he was white.
in appearance.
 
dancemasterman said:
as I said you don't understand how the bias works. The respectful choice is not always the one that brings ratings. I'm not saying it's right. I"m just saying that's how they choose what they choose. They don't care if it helps MJ or hurts him. People here often claim that the media's priority is to hurt MJ. Really they don't care either way.

Most in the journalism industry in private don't like to devote so much time to celebrities. They are more passionate about serious issues that affect the world. They only end up doing because they have to in order for their outlet to compete with the other outlets.

Behind every passionate journalist is a rich investor with a brief case calling the shots.
Click to expand...

i have seen the articles of SOME passionate journalists, that are trying to right the wrongs they have done, at MJ's expense. and they don't worry about the money. Aphrodite Jones comes to mind. how is she feeding her family, right now? she doesn't seem to be complaining. is she automatically not passionate?

and i have seen a couple of others..and yes..they are reduced to one copy, and a small website...but that website is on the net. and we all see it, cus we look for it. and it's trying to do justice for MJ. the fact that the mainstream doesn't pick his article up, and copy and paste it numerous times, doesn't seem to be worrying him. is he automatically not passionate?

again, you seem to imply that capitalists should worry about money. there are proofs that the opposite is true. there are companies that decide they will do anything for money, who are going out of business. so, maybe, nobility is not overrated, after all?
 
dancemasterman said:
I'm yet to meet even one single journalist or student who is majoring in journalism or communications who hates Michael Jackson.

Now that I think about it, I'm yet to meet even a single one of them who doesn't like his music a lot. I really only personally know about 20. Not even one of them is what people here think journalists are like.

Bias is leaving out certain facts to prevent somebody from forming a specific conclusion and paying attention to certain facts that are not as relevant as they appear in a certain context.

Hating people is when you seriously dislike somebody. I think it's pretty safe to say you guys pretty much hate journalists across the board unless they put forward a very strong bias in favor of Michael Jackson.
Click to expand...

Before you reply to someone's post, it's usually a good idea to actually READ what they wrote - you being a journalist and all. The person who you quoted did not state that journalists 'hate' Michael Jackson.

You are accusing others of being irrational, when you yourself exemplifying this more than anyone else. You have so far labelled fans on here 'religious', been extremely condescending and even ridiculed them for not agreeing with you.

Jackson fans are not a special breed of human-being. They have a brain and use it, just like you. Respect that and others opinions, otherwise why post the article in the first place? It's useless playing the 'journo' card, when anyone who specialises in business, marketing, finance, law, etc etc, could easily claim their opinion to be definitive on matters relating to Jackson in those disciplines.

Did you not realise the headline would create some passionate debate on here? Of course you did, that is why you posted it imo.
 
dancemasterman said:
I'm yet to meet even one single journalist or student who is majoring in journalism or communications who hates Michael Jackson.

Now that I think about it, I'm yet to meet even a single one of them who doesn't like his music a lot. I really only personally know about 20. Not even one of them is what people here think journalists are like.

Bias is leaving out certain facts to prevent somebody from forming a specific conclusion and paying attention to certain facts that are not as relevant as they appear in a certain context.

Hating people is when you seriously dislike somebody. I think it's pretty safe to say you guys pretty much hate journalists across the board unless they put forward a very strong bias in favor of Michael Jackson.
Click to expand...

i already know that there is no difference between your definition of bias, and your definition of hate. you think first impressions are everything? you don't think people are subtle,(with their hammers)? are you really absolutely sure of your assessment of the people you meet? you don't think they might want to impress you?

right now, it's hard to take your assessments, of the people you meet, seriously, when you, yourself come across as delighting in personal attacks of fellow members.
 
vncwilliam said:
i have seen the articles of SOME passionate journalists, that are trying to right the wrongs they have done, at MJ's expense. and they don't worry about the money. Aphrodite Jones comes to mind. how is she feeding her family, right
now? she doesn't seem to be complaining. is she automatically not passionate?
Click to expand...

No they aren't not being truthful with you again. In life it was profitable to try and bring Michael Jackson down. Now that he is dead it is now profitable to lift him up. Sadly to say when you see journalists suddenly acting like they loved him all along, they are acting. They are following the dollar like they always did.

I do not believe that money justifies the actions of capitalism in the least. I myself am a socialist who believes that money and capitalism is the root of most of the world's evil. The coverage of MJ's life is only one tiny example among millions of other examples.

I am simply admitting that often times a journlaist's hands are tied. If you lose out on the ratings to your competitors you guy off the air and your competitor's stay on. Many in journalism are ver passionate about politics and they feel that they can do more good staying in business than they can by allowing their opponents to run the whole show by themselves.

You know what I mean? You pick and choose your battles. As a journalist I will often have to cover stories I don't even care about. Why am I going to do it? So I can cover the political stories I do care about. I am doing it to make a difference. In order to overall make any difference I'm going to have to carefully pick and choose my battles.

In case you are wondering no I will not have to cover MIchael Jackson. At least I hope not. MJ is not the reason I'm going into journalism. Poverty, war, suffering, and depression are the reasons I am going into this field.
 
Um who cares? We know that Michael used these creams for his vitiligo. What are they trying to prove?
 
There's a undertone to this article, almost seems like they're trying to belittle him in some way. Wasn't this already known in the beginning, why report it again, why now? It also has a sentence in there about Murray going back to retrieve the creams, to keep the world from knowing of Michael's "secret". It seems almost like damage control for Murray, to make him look like the good guy even after his carelessness that led to someones death. That, and there really was no reason to print Murray wanted "to keep the world from knowing", when Michael had already made it public during the Oprah interview that he suffered from Vitiligo. So again, it almost seems they are trying to save face and paint a picture at the same time.
 
MoonWalkinYiddo said:
Before you reply to someone's post, it's usually a good idea to actually READ what they wrote - you being a journalist and all. The person who you quoted did not state that journalists 'hate' Michael Jackson.

You are accusing others of being irrational, when you yourself exemplifying this more than anyone else. You have so far labelled fans on here 'religious', been extremely condescending and even ridiculed them for not agreeing with you.

Jackson fans are not a special breed of human-being. They have a brain and use it, just like you. Respect that and others opinions, otherwise why post the article in the first place? It's useless playing the 'journo' card, when anyone who specialises in business, marketing, finance, law, etc etc, could easily claim their opinion to be definitive on matters relating to Jackson in those disciplines.

Did you not realise the headline would create some passionate debate on here? Of course you did, that is why you posted it imo.
Click to expand...

I don't want to dignify your personal attacks against me so I'm not going to respond to them.

HOwever you are stereo typing music fans. It's not like all MJ fans are the same. Contrare I am a perfect example. I'm going to be a journalist. Many MJ fans hate journalists. Some of them don't. You see much debate here at the community.

Like fans of all musicians, some fans use their brains. Some view things through a religious perspective.

If your wondering why I posted the article I posted it because this is the news and happenings section so I post all MJ related MSNBC articles. And yes I did anticipate that people here would act like they did.
 
dancemasterman said:
No they aren't not being truthful with you again. In life it was profitable to try and bring Michael Jackson down. Now that he is dead it is now profitable to lift him up. Sadly to say when you see journalists suddenly acting like they loved him all along, they are acting. They are following the dollar like they always did.

I do not believe that money justifies the actions of capitalism in the least. I myself am a socialist who believes that money and capitalism is the root of most of the world's evil. The coverage of MJ's life is only one tiny example among millions of other examples.

I am simply admitting that often times a journlaist's hands are tied. If you lose out on the ratings to your competitors you guy off the air and your competitor's stay on. Many in journalism are ver passionate about politics and they feel that they can do more good staying in business than they can by allowing their opponents to run the whole show by themselves.

You know what I mean? You pick and choose your battles. As a journalist I will often have to cover stories I don't even care about. Why am I going to do it? So I can cover the political stories I do care about. I am doing it to make a difference. In order to overall make any difference I'm going to have to carefully pick and choose my battles.

In case you are wondering no I will not have to cover MIchael Jackson. At least I hope not. MJ is not the reason I'm going into journalism. Poverty, war, suffering, and depression are the reasons I am going into this field.
Click to expand...

i have a very short answer for that. everybody cries out for their freedom of choice. then they cry out again, when they say they had no choice.

everybody has a choice, in this situation.

who are you going to blame, when it all is said and done? yourself, for your choices, or somebody else, for your choices?

what you are saying is like saying 'i had to sell drugs to feed the family, with hopes of getting into a legit business, later.

you really don't know your future, so you might as well start off, noble.

like i said, a lot of journalists are going out of business, anyway, so they might as well do the right thing. apparently, the wrong thing isn't necessarily helping them. a quick fix holds no promise.
 
Last edited:
dancemasterman said:
I don't want to dignify your personal attacks against me so I'm not going to respond to them.

HOwever you are stereo typing music fans. It's not like all MJ fans are the same. Contrare I am a perfect example. I'm going to be a journalist. Many MJ fans hate journalists. Some of them don't. You see much debate here at the community.

Like fans of all musicians, some fans use their brains. Some view things through a religious perspective.

If your wondering why I posted the article I posted it because this is the news and happenings section so I post all MJ related MSNBC articles. And yes I did anticipate that people here would act like they did.
Click to expand...

Again, you don't actually read what I or anyone else has written. I would love for you to quote where I have said that all MJ fans are the same. In fact, I said the opposite.

As well as that, you claim I made personal attacks against you, when you quoted one of my posts and insinuated that views against journalists on here were 'religious' - thus you made a personal attack.

Anyway, it's obvious you are here on some journalistic crusade (as you pointed out with your perceived response to the article above), so am not going to bother replying further.
 
vncwilliam said:
i have a very short answer for that. everybody cries out for their freedom of choice. then they cry out again, when they say they had no choice.

everybody has a choice, in this situation.

who are you going to blame, when it all is said and done? yourself, for your choices, or somebody else, for your choices?

what you are saying is like saying 'i had to sell drugs to feed the family, with hopes of getting into a legit business, later.

you really don't know your future, so you might as well start off, noble.

like i said, a lot of journalists are going out of business, anyway, so they might as well do the right thing. apparently, the wrong thing isn't necessarily helping them. a quick fix holds no promise.
Click to expand...

Do you buy gasoline knowing that profit is often used to commit acts of terrorism? Do you buy products at Wal Mart knowing that the products are manufactured by slaves? Do you drive your car to work knowing that the fumes are destroying the environment?

Do you have a choice? You can try to paint me as not being noble but dedicating my life to fighting poverty and bringing about world peace is about as noble as it gets. I think choosing not to while knowing I have the ability to affect these issues would be very cowardly of me.

If I have to choose between defending one celebrity or defending millions of poor people from assault by health insurance companies or oil compaines or whatever. I'm going with the greater good.
 
MoonWalkinYiddo said:
Again, you don't actually read what I or anyone else has written. I would love for you to quote where I have said that all MJ fans are the same. In fact, I said the opposite.

As well as that, you claim I made personal attacks against you, when you quoted one of my posts and insinuated that views against journalists on here were 'religious' - thus you made a personal attack.

Anyway, it's obvious you are here on some journalistic crusade (as you pointed out with your perceived response to the article above), so am not going to bother replying further.
Click to expand...

that was not a personal attack. I feel that people here do not go on facts or reality but rather are faith guided. And yes I did read what people wrote otherwise it would be difficult to respond to your specific sentences.
 
TheChosenOne said:
dancemasterman - I have read quite a posts on this board over the years and yours in the first one that felt like a knife to my heart.

Most of us here are rational, intelligent people. None of us would even imply that Michael did not have white skin. None of us. What an awful, awful thing to say!

No one who has challenged you in this thread has even implied that we would even consider 'blaming' the media for Michael's appearance. But I do take your point that as fans we may take things too personally.

But you know what? When you love someone and you see them mis-represented, mis-quoted, maligned, mocked and scorned you tend to get a bit sensitive about it. When people who are not celebrities find themselves under the microscope, they always cry out about how unfair the coverage they receive is. How it does not show the truth. How it is sensationalised.

This is not a Michael Jackson problem. This is a media problem. And instead of the media being smug and arrogant, it is time for them to step up to the plate and admit to being a LARGE part of the problem. Not going to happen I know but it is our responsibility as the PUBLIC to call them out on their BS. Every time.

Members here do it on behalf of Michael.
Click to expand...

:clapping:
 
Michael Jackson had cream to lighten skin stored at his house

what is big deal that they find cream for his skin i just through i post it i hope is o.k



Michael Jackson had cream to lighten skin stored at his house

michael-jackson-pic-getty-399599067.jpg

​
A stock of cream to lighten skin were found at Michael Jackson's home after he died, it was revealed last night.
The star always insisted his complexion paled because he suffered from vitiligo.
The 37 tubes of skinwhiteners hydroquinone and Benoquin could have been to even out his flesh tone - as vitiligo can create patches.
The find was revealed in search warrants that came out for the first time since Jackson's death from a drug overdose in June, aged 50.
Police also found four bottles of anaesthetic.

here is link:http://www.mirror.co.uk/celebs/news...ten-skin-stored-at-his-house-115875-22141740/
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top