Latest on MJJC

Times 100 influential people of 2009

it's time magazine, that's why. besides, four of those listed are in the atv songbook, so MJ gets the last laugh.
 
Why be so upset ? nobody cares about these kind of biased lists ...you have to deal with the fact michael is in the black list of LOTS of people in this world ...

Live your passion for his music and him and dont give a shit of what people think or not....
 
forget michael WHY ISN'T MY NAME ONT HAT LIST!!! :anger:
 
lol i stop caring about these types of lists when rolling stone put mary j blige over mariah carey in best vocalist category. they are all biased anyway lol
 
michaelsson said:
lol i stop caring about these types of lists when rolling stone put mary j blige over mariah carey in best vocalist category. they are all biased anyway lol
Click to expand...

whaaaaa? over mariah?

yep..lol..putting up this thread was a waste of time. lol

no offence but ur asking a mental case magazine about their top 100.
 
vncwilliam said:
whaaaaa? over mariah?

yep..lol..putting up this thread was a waste of time. lol

no offence but ur asking a mental case magazine about their top 100.
Click to expand...


yea i was like wooooow, i dont like mariah and her voice maybe shot now but her throat was golden
 
Katzr2000 said:
Why isn't michael on this list?? Hes broke records with these latest shows, and deserves to be up there with the likes of prince and britney spears!!!

http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/completelist/0,29569,1883644,00.html
Click to expand...

He is not on the list because this list is issued in 2009, but it is for the previous, Jan to Dec 2008. I suspect that with this huge tour that Michael is doing, he will probably dominate quite a bit this year and will most likely show up on their 2010 list for the period 2009.
 
AllTheLovelyFlowers said:
He is not on the list because this list is issued in 2009, but it is for the previous, Jan to Dec 2008. I suspect that with this huge tour that Michael is doing, he will probably dominate quite a bit this year and will most likely show up on their 2010 list for the period 2009.
Click to expand...

I agree , but still...next year am sure they will be reluctant to put him in the list . If they do , then he will obviously be at bottom (lower ranking i mean..) of the list ...because michael Jackson HAS BEEN BLACKLISTED guys ...!!
 
I'm not going to lose any sleep over this lol. I mean I'm not really bothered about what Time think really, it doesn't affect me.
 
mo_rizwan said:
He got replaced by George W Bush.
Click to expand...

yep...and u know they don't like GW.

troubleman84 said:
Y'all get mad over the sh*ttiest stuff. Who CARES what a magazine thinks? :doh:

:lol:
Click to expand...

well...u know how MJ has been treated. so..we are the replacements for all the blackslisters. if MJ was treated more like U2 is treated, for example, by the media...nothing would bother us, cus we would have no prickly media to rail against. there would be no einstien law to worry about..u know...every action incites an equal and opposite reaction?
 
I don't believe that Michael is blacklisted. I think that is being a bit too extreme.

black·list play_w2("B0301500") (bl
abreve.gif
k
prime.gif
l
ibreve.gif
st
lprime.gif
)n. A list of persons or organizations that have incurred disapproval or suspicion or are to be boycotted or otherwise penalized.

tr.v. black·list·ed, black·list·ing, black·lists To place on or as if on a blacklist.
Click to expand...

If you are going to blacklist a celebrity, the last thing you want to do is report on their successes. We heard from almost every news outlet about the success of Michael's sellout shows at the O2. They may have not reported on it every single day and with a lot of fanfare, but they did report on it. Truth is, if they really wanted to stick it to Michael, they would have completed ignored his O2 announcement in both the US and the UK. But they did not.
 
AllTheLovelyFlowers said:
I don't believe that Michael is blacklisted. I think that is being a bit too extreme.



If you are going to blacklist a celebrity, the last thing you want to do is report on their successes. We heard from almost every news outlet about the success of Michael's sellout shows at the O2. They may have not reported on it every single day and with a lot of fanfare, but they did report on it. Truth is, if they really wanted to stick it to Michael, they would have completed ignored his O2 announcement in both the US and the UK. But they did not.
Click to expand...

That's because they couldn't ignore it. ^_^
 
AllTheLovelyFlowers said:
I don't believe that Michael is blacklisted. I think that is being a bit too extreme.



If you are going to blacklist a celebrity, the last thing you want to do is report on their successes. We heard from almost every news outlet about the success of Michael's sellout shows at the O2. They may have not reported on it every single day and with a lot of fanfare, but they did report on it. Truth is, if they really wanted to stick it to Michael, they would have completed ignored his O2 announcement in both the US and the UK. But they did not.
Click to expand...

well...that's grey..

the definition that you posted certainly fits what MJ has gone thru in the media.

and as far as media coverage goes..i think massive fan power gave the media no choice. i don't think media gets credit here. it is impossible to ignore when an artist gets the fan attention MJ gets. meanwhile i have not heard any tracks from invincible on the radio over the years, as often as i hear tracks from other artists' latest albums, even years later. a lot of times media outlets try to keep from mentioning MJ's name. if the fan reaction to MJ wasn't as it is, it would be far easier for the media to blacklist him the way they really want to.
 
AllTheLovelyFlowers said:
I don't believe that Michael is blacklisted. I think that is being a bit too extreme.



If you are going to blacklist a celebrity, the last thing you want to do is report on their successes. We heard from almost every news outlet about the success of Michael's sellout shows at the O2. They may have not reported on it every single day and with a lot of fanfare, but they did report on it. Truth is, if they really wanted to stick it to Michael, they would have completed ignored his O2 announcement in both the US and the UK. But they did not.
Click to expand...



I think the definition you give for the word fit realy well to the treatment michael has been suffering from for years ...

Its difficult to talk about him , pronounce his name in public (friends , familly etc... ) without being mocked or attaqued ...

His talent is no longer recognised after Thriller , when before all the scandals he was a genius , suddenly after the scandals his music is crap after Thriller ..

He is known or at least suspected as a pedophile , a freak or whatever ...

His figures , records and accomplishements are twisted even in OFFICIAL papers like the Guinness ...

Most of the lists which are published about music celebrity or celebrities dont include him , or at the best they include him at the lowest rankings when before all the scandals he would have with no doubt been at the Top if not the 1st ...

When you talk about the O2 , yes they reported it heavily , but... along with coments like " people buy the tickets for his past ..., we wonder for his shape he will cancel lot of dates ..., U2 smashed his record etc..." not to give credit to the facst and only the facts ...

I call it being blacklisted for me ...
 
serena williams said:
I think the definition you give for the word fit realy well to the treatment michael has been suffering from for years ...

Its difficult to talk about him , pronounce his name in public (friends , familly etc... ) without being mocked or attaqued ...

His talent is no longer recognised after Thriller , when before all the scandals he was a genius , suddenly after the scandals his music is crap after Thriller ..

He is known or at least suspected as a pedophile
His figures and accomplishements are twisted even in OFFICIAL papers like the Guinness

When you talk about the O2 , yes they reported it heavily , but... along with coments like " people buy the tickets for his past ..., we wonder for his shape he will cancel lot of dates ..., U2 smashed his record etc..." not to give credit to the facst and only the facts ...

I call it being blacklisted for me ...
Click to expand...


i agree...and the constant pedophile part and constant repetition of the trial and his 'acquittal' as opposed to being found innocent, is a work of 'genius'. it's designed to forever make Michael a pariah. too 'bad' his fans don't agree.
 
vncwilliam said:
well...that's grey..

the definition that you posted certainly fits what MJ has gone thru in the media.

and as far as media coverage goes..i think massive fan power gave the media no choice. i don't think media gets credit here. it is impossible to ignore when an artist gets the fan attention MJ gets. meanwhile i have not heard any tracks from invincible on the radio over the years, as often as i hear tracks from other artists' latest albums, even years later. a lot of times media outlets try to keep from mentioning MJ's name. if the fan reaction to MJ wasn't as it is, it would be far easier for the media to blacklist him the way they really want to.
Click to expand...


We have exactely the same thoughts and posted at the same time ...lol
 
Maybe he didn't get on it because he didn't do anything influential this year? Aside from a quick recovery time from a massive trial, Michael hasn't done anything really influential since 2001.
 
Mystic said:
Maybe he didn't get on it because he didn't do anything influential this year? Aside from a quick recovery time from a massive trial, Michael hasn't done anything really influential since 2001.
Click to expand...

then, one of two things..maybe they should call it the most influential people of 2008, because MJ did do someting influential in 2009, just a couple of weeks ago. apparently, it was VERY influential.


or...they should wait till the end of 2009 to make that list.
 
vncwilliam said:
whaaaaa? over mariah?

yep..lol..putting up this thread was a waste of time. lol

no offence but ur asking a mental case magazine about their top 100.
Click to expand...

Jeezzz sooorrry!! I was only asking, if you don't care or have anything to add then don't read or respond.

AllTheLovelyFlowers said:
He is not on the list because this list is issued in 2009, but it is for the previous, Jan to Dec 2008. I suspect that with this huge tour that Michael is doing, he will probably dominate quite a bit this year and will most likely show up on their 2010 list for the period 2009.
Click to expand...

Finally a sensible answer. Didn't think of that.

troubleman84 said:
Y'all get mad over the sh*ttiest stuff. Who CARES what a magazine thinks? :doh:

:lol:
Click to expand...

I'm not angry.I posted this as discussion not complaint.But I do think people should care more about Michael getting the recognition he deserves, and recieving more positive press.
I don't see what you guys have against this magazine as well, after all the order of the list is decided by the public. People who get near the top is cos their fans are voting for them.
 
Time magazine never gives MJ his due, so I don't expect him to ever make their influential list. Them not mentioning him a couple of years back when they did their special "icons of all time" issue shows this. Even Rolling Stone will throw MJ a bone and include him in some way on their lists, but not Time magazine.
 
AllTheLovelyFlowers said:
He is not on the list because this list is issued in 2009, but it is for the previous, Jan to Dec 2008. I suspect that with this huge tour that Michael is doing, he will probably dominate quite a bit this year and will most likely show up on their 2010 list for the period 2009.
Click to expand...

My exact thoughts. Agreed.
 
Katzr2000 said:
Jeezzz sooorrry!! I was only asking, if you don't care or have anything to add then don't read or respond.





Finally a sensible answer. Didn't think of that.



I'm not angry.I posted this as discussion not complaint.But I do think people should care more about Michael getting the recognition he deserves, and recieving more positive press.
I don't see what you guys have against this magazine as well, after all the order of the list is decided by the public. People who get near the top is cos their fans are voting for them.
Click to expand...

..i was only having fun cus of the mariah carey thing...lighten up..
and it's not just the fans..it's the editors. they have undue influence in this magazine. it's a political magazine.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top