It's all rather complex, really. It seems to be a mix of all sorts of different things, all rooted in prejudice. The first of these is the fact that Michael did not adhere to the stereotypes commonly placed upon people of colour by the media, etc. In other words, he behaved like a decent human being and did not fit any of their "categories." If you look at the presently successful African-American mainstream artists, they all seem to fit a certain "pattern," and methinks it's no coincidence. The most successful genre of music among the African-American community in the United States is rap--and what is rap music about? Gangs, violence, drugs, and sex. Artists who place scantily clad women in their videos (aka "their hoes") and portray drug use and the "pimp" lifestyle are glorified and pretty much deck the charts. They fulfill a basic stereotype that the white-dominated media has had about the black community ever since the times of jazz music--that black people were disorderly, frivolous, promiscuous, etc. Then, of course, who decides what's cool, hip, and trendy? Middle-aged, filthy rich WASPs and Jewish guys who control the major music labels and mainstream media.
When Michael released Off the Wall, he was just beginning to rise as a solo artist, and as someone else put it, he was very much "in his place", as far as they saw it. Yet, the racism within the industry was clear, especially given how much he had to struggle with Thriller projects like "Billie Jean", which MTV initially refused to air due to his skin colour and nothing else. The <i>Thriller</i> album, of course, is what truly skyrocketed Michael as an artist and it is in many ways a very important album/era because it broke down racial barriers and brought an African-American artist into widespread mainstream success across the entire globe--not only within his country, and it revolutionized the music industry forever by introducing the concept of a "short film" music video. You could imagine the humiliation MTV must have faced--prior to Michael Jackson, nobody really gave a damn about them, but it became a mainstream sensation thanks to Michael Jackson's videos above anything else. Imagine that--the guy you thought wasn't good enough for you is solely responsible for the fact that your business not only survived, but is thriving.
The fact that it was a black artist who struggled and in every respect fought his way into being properly recognized and breaking all the prejudices, in fact, changing an entire generation for the better, obviously angered those who still held prejudice within the industry. It was a black guy who was the most successful artist now, and it is a black guy who remains the most successful artist to this day. Elvis cannot begin to compare since he didn't even write his own material, and the Beatles proved themselves to be utterly pathetic as solo acts and could only hold their magnetic appeal as a group--but this new guy, this Michael Jackson, could not only stand on his own two feet and deliver revolutionary performances like magic, without the support of a band or a massive media campaign to hype him up--he stood there citing nothing but his pure talent as the reason why he deserved to be there. And guess what...he was black. Of course, the fact that this black guy, former Jackson 5 wünderkind, owned the catalogue of songs by white people's favourite band, probably didn't help them appreciate him.
The Thriller era seems to be what set the gears in motion for what would follow--it seems to me that Michael used <i>Thriller</i> as a way to gain mainstream attention, but the eras after Thriller would become even more important than it. Beginning from the BAD era with songs like "Man in the Mirror", we observe the message behind Michael's music begin to change from unimportant pieces like "Thriller" and "Billie Jean", to songs which were meant to be heard and had a very important message behind them. This trend only increased with subsequent projects like <i>Dangerous</i> which had songs about racial acceptance like "Black or White," and songs like "Why You Wanna Trip on Me," which denounced the frivolity of the media and their obsession with celebrity while completely ignoring real issues which are far more deserving of their coverage.
Let us not forget that obscure video, "Who is It?", which portrayed the dark side of prostitution. Why hasn't it seen the light of day, even now? We're in 2011, and I never saw MTV or any of the other channels play it in their Jackson tributes. Why not? Surely, the stuff we have out now, with 50 cent and his hoes, and Lady Gaga raping gay men, is much worse than anything seen on "Who is It?" Oh, yeah, because it's not degenerate garbage, and it actually has meaning and a relevant point to make, that's why.
It's easy to see how this would infuriate them--here is this black guy, the most successful artist of all time, breaking all the stereotypes they've worked so hard to reinforce through the media. Here is this Michael Jackson, who does not sleep around with multiple women (He's not sleeping around with any female which approaches him-- must be gay... asexual? a pedophile!), doesn't do drugs, doesn't drink in public or attend wild parties, doesn't promote violence or frivolity in his songs. Instead, he goes around helping people, loving animals, and being kind to people he meets, especially children. <i>How weird is that?!</i> Surely, he must be a wack-o-- ***** *****, as they dubbed him. I mean, the guy is obviously nuts!
HIStory would only make things worse. HIStory was in many ways a very angry album, and rightfully so. They attempted to distort his image because they couldn't comprehend him--and used the Chandlers' situation to advance their agenda. The Evan Chandler extortion case during the Dangerous era was like an early Christmas for them--they purposely ignored all the tell-tale signs of an extortion attempt, such as, why is this being treated as a civil case instead of a criminal case? You can't settle out of court during a criminal case, and if what they wanted was justice for their molested son, they should have pursued a criminal case complete with a criminal investigation, so that Jackson, if found guilty, would have to serve time in prison, never be allowed to be near children again, etc. etc. etc. That seems to be like the logical thing to do, and you don't need to be a Harvard lawyer to see this is the course of action you must take if you truly want justice to be served. So...why didn't they do it? Oh, yeah, because a criminal case won't grant you monetary compensation if the defendant is found guilty, and it leaves no chance to "settle out of court" and get a sum of cash to stop a trial you knew you weren't going to win in the first place, because nothing of the sort ever happened and the only reason you're being given the time of day in court is because the District Attorney happens to be a corrupt jerk who is most likely, judging by his general behaviour and actions, a white supremacist. One ought to question as well, why Sneddon felt so passionate about "protecting" children from Michael, when in his own districts, Catholic priests were molesting as many as 34 boys, some as young as 7:
http://www.bishop-accountability.org/news/1993_12_01_Mydans_11Friars.htm
and
http://www.skeptically.org/onreligion/id10.html In the second link, it is noteworthy that a call to Sneddon's office regarding the misconduct of the Catholic priests in his district was "not immediately returned." If Sneddon is such a crusader for the sexual innocence of children everywhere, why did he fail to act accordingly when prompted to by people who were calling his office regarding 34 counts of child molestation perpetrated by Catholic priests? Why did he waste ten years of his life chasing ghosts regarding the Michael Jackson case, when it was evident that his attention was needed elsewhere, where children were really suffering at the hands of abuse?
The media fails to bring these things to light because it's neither sensational nor lucrative. It is far more profitable to "expose the darkside" of Michael Jackson, conveniently ignoring everything that exists to refute their claims, such as the fact that the Chandlers pursued a civil case and were thus only looking for money, and that Sneddon, despite everything, kept the investigation open even after the Chandlers walked away with their sum, hoping to find someone else to testify against Michael Jackson in Jordy Chandler's place. Ten years cruising the world in search of other "victims", and nothing of the sort ever happened--the only people who ever said anything was out of place were people who were coincidentally just fired from working for Michael Jackson and were looking to smear his name, and people who wanted to sell their lies to the tabloids for money. Blanca Francia comes to mind--if what she said she witnessed during her stay at Jackson's place is true, why didn't she contact the police immediately? Why did she "witness" this and keep silent about it, only speaking about the incidents when selling her story to the tabloids? She is either a demented sociopath who is worse than a pedophile, or a complete and total liar in search of a quick buck. Neither makes her out to look good, but methinks the latter is obviously the case here.
Then, of course, there's the inevitable comparison between Michael, who was very much innocent of the ridiculous allegations filed against him, and Roman Polanski, a known pedophile rapist who fled the country when he was being tried for the drugging and sodomy of a young girl. How come one is constantly ridiculed and abused by the media, and the other, despite his notable guilt and cowardice, still hailed as a great film director and largely left unscathed as far as his legacy goes? If I recall correctly, Polanski still makes films and has yet to "be brought to justice" for his crimes--why haven't they aggressively pursued him the way the Mossad pursued Adolf Eichmann, not giving a s--t about international laws and just kidnapping, trying, and convicting him for his crimes? I always found it ironic that he made a holocaust film (The Pianist, a horrible film starring mediocre Adrien Brody, in 2002) and won numerous academy awards for it...yet, no one seemed to care about the fact that its director was a pedophile who fled from justice like the Nazis he attempted to demonize in his film. Why doesn't it seem to matter that Polanski is a proven pedophile in the court of public opinion, whereas Michael who was a victim of nasty extortion attempts and nothing more is constantly viewed as "guilty" in the court of public opinion? Could it be because Polanski is white and Michael is black?
When looking at all the injustice, Michael had all the right to be angry. Thus, HIStory was born, with songs like "D.S." exposing Sneddon's abuse, and songs like "Tabloid Junkie", telling it how it is regarding tabloids and their obsession with scandalous headlines. Then, of course, there's the infamous "They Don't Care About Us," exposing the racism and brutality of the police in the infamous prison version video, which is still banned from television in the U.S. and also failed to show up on any Jackson tribute programs after his death in 2009. Surely, it should have been released by now, especially given the massive popularity of the song among Michael Jackson fans. It doesn't show meaningless violence, in contrast to videos like Eminem's "3 A.M." in which he is shown murdering various people as a serial killer, and Gaga's "Telephone", in which she and Beyonce murder an entire restaurant's worth of people for no reason whatsoever. The violence it does portray is real and worthy of public notice. Then, one ought to question, why are these two videos permitted to be shown on television despite their violent and meaningless nature, while Michael Jackson's meaningful social commentary remains largely obscure and off the airwaves, even on his own tribute programmes? When they "premiered" a video which was over 15 years old finally, they chose the Brazilian version instead of the Prison version, which still remains unseen in American tv channels, as far as I know. Even the Brazilian version remained unseen for a long time. Why? Because it's ugly--it exposes the poverty in third world countries (Brazil), poverty which is a direct result of the subtle imperialism and exploitation first world countries like the United States continue to participate in. The riches and designer clothes come at a price--and that price is human lives. As for the prison version, it's obvious it was more personal, and it was also a commentary of the racism involved in the American justice system--a bias against black males, portraying them as criminals and unworthy of sympathy, one-dimensional, incomprehensible creatures who are static and stereotypical, rather than the complex human beings they are.
It is noteworthy to add that one of the reasons given for banning the TDCAU videos was the "Jew me/sue me/ everybody do me/kick me/ **** me/ don't you black or white me," verse. It hardly seems like reason enough to ban a whole video--why not just leave out that particular verse, or censor the offensive words like in any other music video. Why don't we ban every video in which the offensive racial slur known as the N word is uttered? Isn't it just as bad to say that, if not worse, given the fact that African-Americans had to suffer under so much oppression from whites and that word bears nothing but ugliness and pain for them? What kind of message is it sending to young African-American children, that this word the likes of the Ku Klux Klan used to oppress and demean their ancestors, is now being used as a staple of "black" culture as popularized by the white-dominated music industry?(aside: It seems horrendously sick, and I am glad Michael never used that word to refer to anyone, nor to make light of it. They certainly have a great role model in him.) Why can a music video containing the N word be shown with the word taken out, and one with the other offensive term taken off the air completely citing one verse as the reason to trash the whole thing? It's madness, and that was obviously only used as a pathetic excuse to not show a relevant video exposing the racism there is against African-Americans globally and nationally. Then, of course, they tried to twist his image and accuse him of being anti-Semitic for the verse, and for his HIStory trailer. He was accused of having it mimic the 1935 Nazi film Triumph des Willens (directed by Leni Riefenstahl) on his Primetime interview with Diane Sawyer, only to cause nothing but sensationalism and detract from the importance of the album's content. Moreover, he was very plainly not anti-Semitic, since he would later confide in Rabbi Shmuley (who turned out to be a backstabber, but that's beside the point), and prior to the 1993 incident, he associated with the Chandlers, who were Jewish--if he was anti-Semitic, why bother with them to begin with? He showed them nothing but kindness, and even after everything he just moved on with his life and never attacked them for ruining his life out of pure greed, which is not something most people can say they would have done.
It seems clear to me that the more he broke the stereotypes they were attempting to uphold, the more he deviated from "the norm," the more aggressively they pursued him, labeled him, slandered him, attacked him, and ultimately...killed him.
Invincible, his final album project, was unfairly received and under-recognized among critics in the mainstream music industry. Why? Because it came during an era in which pop music was transitioning to take a backseat to the newly mainstreamed rap genre. The 2000s saw an explosion of hip-hop centric artists and videos, as never before witnessed, in the mainstream. What were they singing about? Hoes, and booze, and pot, and the gang life. <i>Invincible</i>, with relevant songs like "Cry," and "The Lost Children," and songs which voiced his strength against the constant attacks against him such as "Unbreakable," "Threatened," and "Privacy," clearly had no place in the in-between era with the fading of 90's pop (irrelevant and frivolous songs about sex and love), and the up-and-coming hip hop revolution (irrelevant and frivolous songs about sex and drugs.) Neither Britney Spears nor Eminem were singing about lost children, that's for certain.
Since his work and lifestyle failed to reflect the stereotypes the media seems so determined to push on society and culture, Michael Jackson was brutally attacked, ridiculed, and abused for being...himself. It's unfair, and he retaliated by exposing them and the racism which still existed in the music industry--as we recall from his speech denouncing Tommy Mottola as a racist and "a devil." During the early 2000's, he took a break from music to be a parent, yet still remained at work making music and doing relevant things such as speaking at Oxford University in 2002. The Jackson speech at Oxford is one of the most amazing speeches I have ever heard in my life--and certainly unique in that it is the most caring and sincere, heartfelt, and desperate plea for attention to real issues given by a pop star in modern times. These things, of course, get minimal media coverage, as do the majority of his philanthropic efforts, which were many and heroic--such as that kid he saved during the HIStory era, who would not be alive today had Michael not found a liver to replace his failing one. He said it himself, "he does as many hospital visits as he does concerts." Yet, the press never covered it, and he still did it. The hypocrisy is rampant: here is this guy who is running around saving kids with failing livers and delivering toys to orphanages around the world, for no press at all...and on the other side, there's superficial and unworthy Beyonce whose charitable efforts despite her celebrity only extend far enough to be in a Hamburger Helper commercial, and Gaga, whose only noteworthy contribution has been sponsoring some MAC lipstick to help people with AIDS. In essence, their names are used to get other people to help, so in reality they're doing nothing other than loaning their celebrity to the cause--and yet they're looked at as heroes or kind people when in truth it's nothing of the sort and they only want good publicity. Michael, on the other hand, actively pursued philanthropy despite the lack of press coverage because he felt it in his heart--and yet all they can churn out regarding him are stories about whether or not he bleached his skin, or how odd he is. It's a disgraceful reflection of journalism, the media, and society as a whole.
Then, after all that, the 2003 allegations came, and they horrendously distorted everything, ignoring all the tell-tale signs once more, such as the discrepancies in the prosecutors' testimonies, and the time-space conflicts (i.e. they claimed to be held hostage when there are receipts of transactions they made at the time, which show them being elsewhere and not hostages by anyone's definition of the word.) Of course, there's also the constant changing of the story--the original didn't involve them being held hostage, for example. How does one forget being held hostage? I would think, were I talking to the police about wrongdoing on somebody's part, that being held hostage would be at the top of my priority list of things to mention. Yet they failed to do so...why? Because they were liars. Messereau completely destroyed their flimsy attempts at portraying themselves as victims, and exposed them for the gang of extortionists they were, citing their history against JCPenney and the Arvizo mother's scamming of a newspaper's readers by lying about her son's medical insurance for his cancer treatments and pleading for "help" (aka money) from the readers to pay for the costs.
The media seemed to ignore that, and put people who have a debatable reputation regarding journalistic integrity and past acts of deviation from it, such as Diane Dimond with her Canadian Boy incident, at the center of the Jackson trial coverage. Of course, then, one would get a distorted picture, a completely false picture, of the days' events. Aphrodite Jones seems to be among the few who did not follow the anti-Jackson model, and set out to expose the corruption of the media in regard to the 2005 Jackson trial coverage in her relevant and curiously out-of-print book, <i>The Michael Jackson Conspiracy.</i> It is curious how publishers refused to publish a well-researched book exposing the dirt on all the media coverage, while having no qualms about printing rubbish such as Diane Dimond's be careful who you love (I won't even give that rag the privilege of capitalization and italics which accompany a book title.)
There is very obviously an anti-Jackson strain, especially in the very racist American media. I think my post has highlighted the possible reasons why Michael's sole existence has frustrated them so, and why even after his death, they won't let up on tarnishing his legacy.
