Interesting interviews on Radio 2 a moment ago. First with the Director and then with Jackson's nephew and it's interesting how little the interviewers are willing to push on the allegations but how much easier they find pushing on the defence. If Jackson's nephew is correct in what he's saying then the directors interview alone contained inaccuracies that the documentary also contains and he added other info that would be interesting to see verified as it would raise questions about the allegations that would need answering in any case.
-
-
I'm halfway through Part Two now and it's hard to imagine the final section will offer anything meaningful, it's deep into the latter end of Jackson's trials and them explaining why they 'lied' for him. I've seen comments from people who posted on social media saying stuff like 'I'm 10 minutes in and it's already heartbreaking' which sums up the emotional play elements and the confirmation bias most viewers would take into watching the film. It's at least 45 minutes before anything negative at all is even uttered so if you're affected that quickly you've gone into it planning to be.
Assuming the end ties up as the rest of it has been I think, regardless of Jacksons guilt, it's actually a pretty poor piece of film making. It's also a very poor reflection of the media based on their reaction to it, there is more than enough about just the documentary itself to scrutinise and it's beyond irresponsible not to. The argument that this isn't a documentary of the case, it's just a platform for victims to voice their experiences is a poor one especially when they're using that voice to speak about such serious allegations, it's a basic responsibility of the filmmaker to check their facts and the way this actively avoids holding them to account for their claims is pretty shady. There are counter claims about every claim in this but you won't hear about them in here.
It all rests on the idea that a proportion of people cannot believe that anyone would lie about such a serious matter when the reality is that they would and they do. So you're left with two allegations (the allegations take up maybe 10 minutes of the 4hrs) and in some corners a lynch mob mentality response.
I don't know, it's definitely a drive by piece of filmmaking. The laugh is, I couldn't at all rule out Jackson being dodgy but this thing doesn't move the needle on that subject one bit.
Apparently it avg'd 1m viewers in the US so it seems destined not to impact Jackson's legacy once it's forgotten. The next time we hear about it will be the update on their appeal over the $1bn+ they want from Jackson that the film never mentions...Comment
-
I can't help but feel a little uncomfortable that one family cries about the parents splitting up 25yrs ago but give nothing but blank faces and odd smirks when detailing potential child abuse tooComment
-
OMG! so that scene at the end of Leaving Neverland where Wade Robson is burning gifts Michael Jackson gave him- is FAKED! He sold his real items for $. Now if that doesn't tell you this is all about $$$$$ ���� @HBO @danreed1000 https://t.co/sMHbGeKapa
— TheWigSnatcher (@TheWigSnatcher1) February 23, 2019
See, this is why I'm mindful...Comment
-
You cant trust wade robson. The FBI didnt find one peice of evidence in 8 years of investigation. There is no proof.Comment
-
Finished this last night and as expected the last 45m don't contain anything particularly relevant that you don't already know going in. In the end there's two angles to this. The first is that these are serious allegations being levied and as such they must be deeply investigated, I can't help but feel (based on the last few days reveals) that it would prove more illuminating on the accusers than it would Jackson which is probably why authorities are still being left out of this and why they get booted out of the courts so quickly. The second is that without any evidence or non-immediate family supporting testimony to their stories there's nothing new here at all. The documentary is blatantly biased, omitting of many known facts, questions nothing, accounts for nothing and so is no different than the years of newspaper tabloid myths that have been put out about Jackson.
The media really is the worst bit, if he's innocent then their complicit in verdict by media. If he's guilty they're complicit in confusing the case against him and therefore supporting his abuse of children... and they're still doing it ten years after his death.
In summary, I don't feel any different than I did before. There's cause for concern but this documentary (which is a stretch of a term) is sensationalist rubbish and doesn't move the argument. I need to stop reading the programmes thread in Era as well, it's so immensely mind numbing to read wall after wall of echo chamber posts from users who are too scared to question anything that goes against the hive mind mentality the GAF furore created, it's a sign of how clueless that forum is that they constantly refer to themselves as progressive when really they're an old fashioned 1800's lynch mob.Comment
-
One of Michael's nephews has been in the UK talking about the documentary with journalists. He really urges people to look into the accusers history before just believing what's stated in the documentary. One of the accusers actually went to court defending Michael back in 2005, when he was 22-years old, and was the 'star witness' to testify in Michael's defence. Now he's changed his tune.
When you look at every aspect of the situation with Michael and Neverland, it feels very unlikely that Michael could have been abusing children. There are so many details that make you think there's little chance Michael could have been an abuser when there were so many people involved in his life and the general running of Neverland.
I'm not an expert on the situation, but when so many people involved with Michael could have spoken out years ago, and the FBI failed various times to find evidence against him, I don't think it would be fair to say Michael was definitely a child abuser. There's still doubt.
The documentary has got people discussing the matter again, so maybe we'll get other people speaking out against Michael. Maybe some celebs or family members. If not, I will continue to not feel sure about what really happened.Comment
-
I think because of the child appealing nature of Neverland they over focus on it, even in the documentary they talk about it as though it was a grooming den and yet Michael only lived there for a number of years out of which he often wasn't on site. Most of the abuse allegations would have taken place away from Neverland ranch massively increasing the likelihood of Jackson having been caught or witnessed by others yet that never comes up, just a fixation on Neverland which Wade himself only ever visited a handful of times.Comment
-
So it turns out Robson never actually owned Michael's Thriller jacket at all, the one he had was his own custom made copy.Comment
-
And shockingly it all falls to pieces under the slightest bit of scrutiny.Comment
-
Brilliantly, here's Reed showing he's either lying about Robson burning genuine Jackson items or displaying that he performed absolutely no due diligence or fact checking even on his own subjects in making the film. See, even if they were abused it's stuff like this that undermines the entire testimony and shows Reed is a hack and may have just helped bury the voices of abuse victims. Irresponsible doesn't even begin to cover it.Comment
-
I've not watched the documentary and don't think I will ... but the reaction in the press has been almost universally pro-doc, as it it's official confirmation of wrongdoings.Comment
-
Yep, which is very revealing about how they approach these kinds of stories. It sets in an incredibly dangerous standard where evidence and verdicts mean nothing, basically like Asura said - the Matthew Kelly effectComment
-
So from what I'm reading, all the media believe this is holy grail of documentaries. It 100% shows MJ was guilty and he should be removed from history. More over its some kind of piece of art.
However, people with any intellectual capacity to investigate the facts (obviously not the media) can see cracks and in some cases completely dismiss it.
It sounds like utter balderdash to me.Comment
-
Even if it were 100% true (and I don’t have much reason to doubt it - all these years later, I can’t see any victim having much to gain by lying but I haven’t seen it and it’s not hugely relevant), this is not the platform. TV and films are written, formed, edited, scored to add drama, to make points hit hard, to make things seem important and to sell ideas. And when it comes to documentaries, two different filmmakers could edit the very same footage and have you coming away with opposite views. If the documentary was all about how MJ was innocent, I’d be saying the same thing although that would feel like it has little reason to exist whereas this can stir up drama. If I was a betting man and was to put money on his guilt or innocence, I know exactly which way my money would go but that has no bearing on this. This is not the platform.
Feels like a large portion of the world needs media literacy training when it comes to television events.
Edit: slight addendum to this, I said I couldn’t see what anyone would have to gain by lying and that aroused my curiosity to just did a quick google search and came up with this CNN article from 2013. Check out the last few paragraphs: https://edition.cnn.com/2013/05/07/s...aim/index.htmlLast edited by Dogg Thang; 08-03-2019, 20:01.Comment
Comment