rsw22
Proud Member
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2011
- Messages
- 760
- Points
- 0
Is it not time to have a spokesperson for MJ?
It seems that with the endless chain of "former" all appearing on TV to make their cash off Michael and to some extent slander him, no one is speaking in his defence on a daily basis, or giving any different side.
A lot of misinformation is generated, which unfortunately many fans will believe because no one says otherwise.
To have fans knowledgeable that these people are fraudsters and conartists who have manipulated Michael, and just discussing this info internally, does not help. It reminds me of a story about some townspeople, knowing that one of them was spreading misinformation to the public contrary to what had been discussed, but failing to talk to the public and only grumbling among themselves.
The Jackson family will not bother to issue statements in defence of Michael over such people, in any case, they know very little about them.
The same applies to teh executors
Former spokespeople like Ramone would only do that if they were getting paid to do the PR job.
For MJ, that leaves one group, his fans who know the truth.
If Elvis had passed away in the internet age, i bet his fans would have been proactive with the information they knew when others came out to spread all kinds of misinformation
Before we let former associates and the media totally re-write who Michael was for future generation of fans, ttwo or three responsible large fans clubs can team together and form an agreement to work only on a specific issue and draw up guidelines.
They can agree to work as an umbrella to speak on behalf of MJ fans, which will give them a say and a clout.
A separate press release website can be set up and statements issued, and also on some occassions, sensible fans, cleared by this umbrella group, can request a say on some of these programs. They should opearate under guidelines to avoid media exploiting or twisting their words, and if it happens, the press release site is there to highlight what was said and what was twisted or edited out. They can insist to do their interview segements with a camcorder or audio tape recording what they say to assist this.
And they will just volunteer their time.
That way, when fans get upset at the likes of Deiter and Schmuley, teh fan community can have a say.
Schmuley going about parading how close he was to MJ, ininuating all stuff and that he cut off friendship in 2003 would bring a whole new meaning if a fan community umbreall group released a press statement highlighting something like thi
--------
Rabbi Schmuley is no different to the several self-serving con-artists that wiggled their way into Michael Jackson's life over the years under the veil of being something which they were not.
Rabbi Schmuley sought to misuse Michael Jackson's trust and his title as "Rabbi" to get Michael to discuss issues with him on audio tape. At no point did Michael ever give Rabbi SChmuley any written authorisation to disclose private conversations.
Rabbi Schmuley met Michael in 2000 and by 2001, Michael had severed ties with him after learning of Rabbi Schmuley's corrupt past, including being dismissed from a London synagogue for his book "Kosher sex" and also misappropriating money donated by individuals to a charity Michael had set up.
Rabbi Schmuley did not severe ties with Michael in 2003 as he falsely presents but Michael severed ties with him in 2001, yet for this short period, he seeks to parade himself as an expert on Michael's 50 year life.
Michael never appointed him as a spiritual advisor, a "moniker" many people try to use to get media airtime, and only discussed with him issues at the time on what Michael believed was a friend to friend basis, as one would hold discussions about topics with someone of a given profession or faith. Michael would discuss films with film actors, Music with musicians, and it follows that he would discuss life and religious issues with a rabbi. That does not qualify Schmuley as a spiritual advisor, in the same way discussing music with a musician does not qualify them as Micheal's music producer or director.
Rabbi Schmuley was introduced to Michael Jackson by Uri Geller, the same man who introduced Michael to Martin Bashir, and by February 2003, these are all the profit-motivated publicity-seeking people with negativity that Michael had cut out of his life.
Rabbi Schmuley has not had contact with Michael for 9 years and all his opinions and commentary should be held within the context of the above as he now seeks to profit from writing a book off tapes that Michael never authorised to be released.
Any claims that proceeds would go to charity should be looked at with the same critical eye as funds that were meant for Michael's charity got diverted elsewhere by Schmuley as this is another attempt to profit off Michael's fans with claims of charity, just as Bashir misled Michael that what he was doing would be for charity.
It should also be noted that NBC has paraded themselves as the champion of negative or unflattering Michael Jackson documentaries.
In 2003, after Bashir's documentary, they enagaged in this by producing a documentary of their own
In 2003, they sought to derail Michael's rebuttal documentary to Bashir's slander.
In 2004, they produced a slanderous documentary that prompted Thomas Mesereau to issue a statement concerning Michael's right to a fair trial
After 2005, they had a photo of Oprah and MJ with a caption asking readers who they would prefer dead
And in 2009. they dedicate an hour to Rabbi Schmuley's tapes and his injected opinions and insinuations when they could not dedicate a few minutes to positive Jackson material or books.
Such are the executives and producer's attitudes at NBC who have nothing positive to produce about Michael without injecting some form of slander.
It seems that with the endless chain of "former" all appearing on TV to make their cash off Michael and to some extent slander him, no one is speaking in his defence on a daily basis, or giving any different side.
A lot of misinformation is generated, which unfortunately many fans will believe because no one says otherwise.
To have fans knowledgeable that these people are fraudsters and conartists who have manipulated Michael, and just discussing this info internally, does not help. It reminds me of a story about some townspeople, knowing that one of them was spreading misinformation to the public contrary to what had been discussed, but failing to talk to the public and only grumbling among themselves.
The Jackson family will not bother to issue statements in defence of Michael over such people, in any case, they know very little about them.
The same applies to teh executors
Former spokespeople like Ramone would only do that if they were getting paid to do the PR job.
For MJ, that leaves one group, his fans who know the truth.
If Elvis had passed away in the internet age, i bet his fans would have been proactive with the information they knew when others came out to spread all kinds of misinformation
Before we let former associates and the media totally re-write who Michael was for future generation of fans, ttwo or three responsible large fans clubs can team together and form an agreement to work only on a specific issue and draw up guidelines.
They can agree to work as an umbrella to speak on behalf of MJ fans, which will give them a say and a clout.
A separate press release website can be set up and statements issued, and also on some occassions, sensible fans, cleared by this umbrella group, can request a say on some of these programs. They should opearate under guidelines to avoid media exploiting or twisting their words, and if it happens, the press release site is there to highlight what was said and what was twisted or edited out. They can insist to do their interview segements with a camcorder or audio tape recording what they say to assist this.
And they will just volunteer their time.
That way, when fans get upset at the likes of Deiter and Schmuley, teh fan community can have a say.
Schmuley going about parading how close he was to MJ, ininuating all stuff and that he cut off friendship in 2003 would bring a whole new meaning if a fan community umbreall group released a press statement highlighting something like thi
--------
Rabbi Schmuley is no different to the several self-serving con-artists that wiggled their way into Michael Jackson's life over the years under the veil of being something which they were not.
Rabbi Schmuley sought to misuse Michael Jackson's trust and his title as "Rabbi" to get Michael to discuss issues with him on audio tape. At no point did Michael ever give Rabbi SChmuley any written authorisation to disclose private conversations.
Rabbi Schmuley met Michael in 2000 and by 2001, Michael had severed ties with him after learning of Rabbi Schmuley's corrupt past, including being dismissed from a London synagogue for his book "Kosher sex" and also misappropriating money donated by individuals to a charity Michael had set up.
Rabbi Schmuley did not severe ties with Michael in 2003 as he falsely presents but Michael severed ties with him in 2001, yet for this short period, he seeks to parade himself as an expert on Michael's 50 year life.
Michael never appointed him as a spiritual advisor, a "moniker" many people try to use to get media airtime, and only discussed with him issues at the time on what Michael believed was a friend to friend basis, as one would hold discussions about topics with someone of a given profession or faith. Michael would discuss films with film actors, Music with musicians, and it follows that he would discuss life and religious issues with a rabbi. That does not qualify Schmuley as a spiritual advisor, in the same way discussing music with a musician does not qualify them as Micheal's music producer or director.
Rabbi Schmuley was introduced to Michael Jackson by Uri Geller, the same man who introduced Michael to Martin Bashir, and by February 2003, these are all the profit-motivated publicity-seeking people with negativity that Michael had cut out of his life.
Rabbi Schmuley has not had contact with Michael for 9 years and all his opinions and commentary should be held within the context of the above as he now seeks to profit from writing a book off tapes that Michael never authorised to be released.
Any claims that proceeds would go to charity should be looked at with the same critical eye as funds that were meant for Michael's charity got diverted elsewhere by Schmuley as this is another attempt to profit off Michael's fans with claims of charity, just as Bashir misled Michael that what he was doing would be for charity.
It should also be noted that NBC has paraded themselves as the champion of negative or unflattering Michael Jackson documentaries.
In 2003, after Bashir's documentary, they enagaged in this by producing a documentary of their own
In 2003, they sought to derail Michael's rebuttal documentary to Bashir's slander.
In 2004, they produced a slanderous documentary that prompted Thomas Mesereau to issue a statement concerning Michael's right to a fair trial
After 2005, they had a photo of Oprah and MJ with a caption asking readers who they would prefer dead
And in 2009. they dedicate an hour to Rabbi Schmuley's tapes and his injected opinions and insinuations when they could not dedicate a few minutes to positive Jackson material or books.
Such are the executives and producer's attitudes at NBC who have nothing positive to produce about Michael without injecting some form of slander.
