I just watched this thing today on VH1 where it is now in heavy rotation. Now, I am not a MJ fan or anything, and I do think the guy has some problems, but this thread is not about MJ. Its about this fucking guy who made this show about him.
Was it just me or did it seem to anyone else that this guy was out to prove that Jacko was Wacko instead of presenting an untainted picture of him? I got this feeling from all of his little “commentaries” about the kids and stuff. He also seemed to show only small blips of MJ acting nutty or weird shit at a time. Like he took a 5 sec seen with Blanket and showed that, when there was actually 3 hours of “normal” footage though.
I think MJ is right that this thing was edited specifically to make him look nuttier than he is. I think this guy took advantage of his all access pass to MJ. This “journalist” is the reason that MJ stays out of the public eye.
Now I am not saying that MJ doesn’t have some serious problems. I don’t think it is as bad as the public thinks it is, but he does have some demons to deal with. But this fucking toolbox who pieced together this documentary probably damaged MJ’s already fragile public trust beyond repair.
I bet we never see MJ outside the tabloids after the aftermath of this doc dies down.
Eh. I thought the documentary started out as an openminded view into MJ’s life, with the journalist increasingly becoming overwhelmed by all the weirdness. In the end, he had no choice but to condemn at least some of MJ’s behaviour. And wouldn’t you say he was right in estimating that the MJ we saw in Berlin was a totally different man from the quiet reclusive MJ we saw in Neverland?
Yeah. The guy does have problems. And he needs help. But I think he took a big step in inviting someone into his life like this after all these years and I think he was taken advantage of.
MJ does have problems and needs help, but I think this guy told MJ that he was planning on painting a totally different picture of MJ when he was putting this together just so he could get next to him. I think he lied to him and told him whatever he wanted to hear just to get his mitts on the “scoop”. MJ seems very gullible and I think he was coerced into this somehow.
I am curious to see this Fox special with MJ’s rebuttal and extra unseen footage.
He did start off as being very unbiased, open minded. the documentary wasn’t to provide details of Michael’s normality, but to show what his life was like. Just remember, for all the good parts left out of Michaels behaviour, there could possibly more examples of bizarre behaviour.
A friend of a friend was part of the production crew (so I’m told, but have the sodium chloride handy just in case). Apparently, he didn’t even want to feed the baby, but they insisted.
Well, to me, it appears he didn’t even know how to feed the baby. He was jiggling him all around and had half the blankie in the baby’s mouth along with the bottle.
In a nutshell yes. I don’t think there is anyway MJ would have agreed to this thing unless Bashir painted a totally different picture of what this was going to accomplish for MJ. I can hear the conversation when they made the deal:
Bashir: This will be good for your public image MJ. People will see how you live and see that you are a real, caring person. Not the Wacko in the tabloids.
I have even less sympathy for parents who send their children off for sleep-overs with a (non-related) man, much less a man who has been accused of child molestation and who calls his home “NeverLand.”
Let’s face it - it’s nigh-on impossible to make a balanced documentary about someone like Michael Jackson. It was going to become a puff piece or a weirdness fest. Personally, I think a puff piece would have been far more sickening.
the entire place is a children’s seduction land. Having read the deposition from the child who has accused MJ, it seems credible to me.
and, even if I didn’t believe it, I would not send my child off to sleep in the same bed as MJ. ever. under any circumstances.
When I’ve read the list of ‘prohibitions’ for folks who are on parole for child molesting, I note such things as “may not be w/ x # feet of schools, parks, amusement parks, playgrounds, public pools” may not own/possess childrens’ toys, clothing etc.
and this man takes kids on spending sprees to toys stores, lives in an amusement park etc.
Do I have proof that he’s a molester? Nope. But there is ample evidence that he lives in exactly the manner that a child molester would love to, if they had sufficient funds.
proof? no and I don’t pretend to claim that it is. however it is also an excellent reason to not send your child there.
My last post was in response to Diogenes, not PLisa, of course.
Don’t get me wrong: I have no sympathy for child molesters, either. I do, however, have a lot of sympathy for people who are so accused unjustly. It’s an evil accusation to make when it isn’t true, and thus our insistence on proof should be appropriately strict. So far what I have read on his case is:
He’s never been convicted of child molestation.
He’s never been charged with child molestation.
According to [url=]this article, he wasn’t even accused of child molestation by the child who was eventually to be the source of the claim until after said child had been dosed with a hypnotic drug (sodium amytal) under the supervision of his father who was out to ruin MJ’s career. Prior to the childs allegation, the only one accusing Jackson was the boy’s father, who by his own admission never witnessed any sexual misconduct by Jackson.
So while I’d agree that concern is warranted, I’ve seen nothing that warrants condemning him as guilty, as so many people have. If their condemnation is unwarranted, then it constitutes a far more grievous wrong than anything MJ has done.
True. He also lives in exactly the manner that a child would love to, if they had sufficient funds. There seems to be a good deal of indication that this is his motivation instead. Still, I guess that’s not proof, either, is it?
Kids these days might be maturing more slowly, but when I was twelve back in the olden days, I knew better than to take a bath with a grown man. My momma would have slapped us both.
I know you didn’t. I was merely clarifying that my point didn’t constitute proof of anything, either. Both interpretations of his motives are still open, is what I meant. That he’s living a child’s dream or a child molester’s dream doesn’t prove which it is. They’re both still possibilities.
You’re certainly entitled to decide where you’re willing to allow your children to spend the night, as are the parents of MJ’s guests. They’re not, of course, under any more obligation to abide by your standards than you are to abide by theirs.
Not having children myself, I can’t speak from experience; but I’ve a hunch I’d lean more in your direction as a parent than the Culkins’. If Mike wants to have a slumber party with my kids, he’s going to have to have one with me, too. At my house. With video cameras. If he wants to have an innocent night of fun under those circumstances, then maybe I’d consider it.
You know, I’m suddenly (but mostly idly) curious: which would you have considered to be more harmful–bathing with a man or being hit by your mother? 'Cause if it was just bathing, you know…I don’t see how hitting would be better.