Re: Katherine Jackson May Be 'Oprah' Bound
seriously?
Michael doesn't need to be defended the most at this moment, in case you haven't noticed it's fashionable to love Michael after his death.
In order for them "to want to defend" their dad, it means that "they need to know why he needs defending", isn't this even worse? especially when we know that Michael shielded from what the media says. Do you think that the family sits down the children and says "Oprah said this and that , did this and that" and the children are like "oh no I have to defend my dad"? Isn't that a cruel scenario for 13-12 and 8 year old kids?
Absolutely! Michael is not "under attack" now, as he was during other times. Regardless, this should not be the role of
children, especially kids as young as these. As young-adults, maybe they would want to make statements, but Michael's death is still very recent.
I've seen a variety of viewpoints here, but primary I think should be mindfulness of the phrase "
What would Michael do/want?" for his children. That is not very complex, is it? and we already have quite a good idea of what his desires would be given his past shielding of the children from the public? Despite fame and fortune at a young age, Michael suffered damage from being in the public eye as a child -- he talked about this MANY times (including in the song "
Childhood.")
I think it's more than obvious that his plan for his children was to preserve their precious childhoods, as much as possible given his extreme celebrity.
A guardian has the right to raise the children in his/her charge according to his/her own decisions. However, one would expect that any guardian would wish to raise the children as closely to the "absent" parent's ideals as possible.
There is no known universe where Michael would have had his children interviewed on Oprah. . . not EVER, given Oprah's cruel stance on Michael and child-molestation accusations in the past. This is something the children will have to deal with
for the rest of their lives, and sadly, the fact that Michael was acquitted by a unanimous jury doesn't seem to matter to some people. Michael's goal was ALWAYS to shield these children from public scrutiny. In this Katherine has failed, regardless of what we may think of her as a person.
Whatever else they are as a family, the exploitation of children is in this family's background, and Michael had a very DIFFERENT idea about how his own children should be raised. The children may have participated in the decision to be interviewed, but yet could have no real understanding of the implications, or the cruelty that can occur as a result of such exposure that leaves them open to discussion and speculation.
I, for one, and disappointed that Katherine made this decision. Surely she KNOWS this is not what Michael would have wanted. Yes, she has the right to do this. SHOULD SHE? IMHO, No, she shouldn't.
