This week see's the airing of the heavily talked about Michael Jackson documentary Leaving Neverland that see's two accusers detail, over four hours, their stories of abuse at the hands of the infamous singer.
The documentary has seen a huge reaction and is seeing swathes of people turn against the musical legacy Jackson left behind after his death ten years ago. The singer was dogged by allegations for roughly fifteen years, culminating an a high profile court case that found him Not Guilty on all counts. In the years after that outcome he worked on new material and began to turn his public persona around building up to his massive arena comeback tour, the one he never got to perform.
Many who have seen the documentary have talked about how harrowing they have found it and the strong emotions they now have about Jackson. However, his estate (as you'd expect) has move aggressively to denounce it. Normally this would be something to brush over however there is a counter argument that fuels the fixation the documentary has drawn. It was worked on for over two years and yet makes no attempt to present any balanced argument or assessment of the information and stories being brought against Michael, and it doesn't fact check the claims either instead providing an accuser focused emotion targeted representation.
It's a complicated tale.
We know a lot about Jackson's life and there are some really... not alright aspects about it not least how close he was to the children who visited Neverland Ranch. However, there has never been any definitive evidence of physical wrong doing on the singers part despite many attempts to investigate or catch him out. If you know of an incident or piece of evidence that implicates Jackson it has near certainly been clearly discredited at some point, you likely didn't hear about it though because the media's relationship with Jackson was so antagonistic also.
There's an often discussed psychological component to Jackson as well, his history and troubled star childhood known to fuel his later personality and insecurities. What we are seeing this week is a two fold situation where two accusers will levy deeply traumatic accounts of abuse against Jackson but also have a myriad of evidence that suggests they are liars and opportunists. The second situation to consider will be that in the modern era there is a growing line of thought that accusers deserve to be believed however the countenance to this is that it also means Guilty till Proven Innocent... or potentially, maybe in Jacksons case Guilty Despite Proven Innocent.
What makes this interesting is that the documentary airs mid-week meaning we can share our thoughts and assumptions on Jackson before it airs then again after.
So, what are your current views on Jackon's legacy, psychology and potential guilt?
The documentary has seen a huge reaction and is seeing swathes of people turn against the musical legacy Jackson left behind after his death ten years ago. The singer was dogged by allegations for roughly fifteen years, culminating an a high profile court case that found him Not Guilty on all counts. In the years after that outcome he worked on new material and began to turn his public persona around building up to his massive arena comeback tour, the one he never got to perform.
Many who have seen the documentary have talked about how harrowing they have found it and the strong emotions they now have about Jackson. However, his estate (as you'd expect) has move aggressively to denounce it. Normally this would be something to brush over however there is a counter argument that fuels the fixation the documentary has drawn. It was worked on for over two years and yet makes no attempt to present any balanced argument or assessment of the information and stories being brought against Michael, and it doesn't fact check the claims either instead providing an accuser focused emotion targeted representation.
It's a complicated tale.
We know a lot about Jackson's life and there are some really... not alright aspects about it not least how close he was to the children who visited Neverland Ranch. However, there has never been any definitive evidence of physical wrong doing on the singers part despite many attempts to investigate or catch him out. If you know of an incident or piece of evidence that implicates Jackson it has near certainly been clearly discredited at some point, you likely didn't hear about it though because the media's relationship with Jackson was so antagonistic also.
There's an often discussed psychological component to Jackson as well, his history and troubled star childhood known to fuel his later personality and insecurities. What we are seeing this week is a two fold situation where two accusers will levy deeply traumatic accounts of abuse against Jackson but also have a myriad of evidence that suggests they are liars and opportunists. The second situation to consider will be that in the modern era there is a growing line of thought that accusers deserve to be believed however the countenance to this is that it also means Guilty till Proven Innocent... or potentially, maybe in Jacksons case Guilty Despite Proven Innocent.
What makes this interesting is that the documentary airs mid-week meaning we can share our thoughts and assumptions on Jackson before it airs then again after.
So, what are your current views on Jackon's legacy, psychology and potential guilt?
Comment