Michael Jackson - trick or treat?

[bettysyourauntie]

How do you feel when Michael Jackson’s music is played on the radio following the recent documentary where two individuals accused him of serious child abuse?

Though he was never convicted, the stories told in great detail were compelling. It’s hard to imagine these as fake. As far as I’m aware these individuals were not trying to blackmail his estate, and while they may have hoped for financial compensation (and got some?), the public exposure is high risk and an emotionally heavily price to pay.

Since, whenever I hear his music I have to turn off the radio or switch station. I can’t shake off these stories which may also apply to so many others suffered pain and trauma under his hands and his creepy ‘generosity’ freak show.

@GoodVibesHere there was?? Categorically guilty?

I care less now he is dead because he isn't gaining anything by his music being played?

No

I don't remember any of his songs being about inflicting pain.

I also didn't find his accusers 'compelling'. His behaviour was fucked up and pretty disgusting, especially when he dropped these kids but their parents' behaviour was also disgusting and fucked up. He was a very weird man!

I enjoy his music because I don't believe in cancel culture. Do you also want cancel Coco Chanel, Elvis, Mother Theresa, Andy Warhol, Henry VIII, Alfred Hitchcock, Henry Ford, Winston Churchill, Charlie Chaplin ...? In America people are about to vote in a convicted felon 🤷‍♀️.

Bit of a weak argument. Neither Huw Edwards or Al-Fayad present the same dilemma as they didn't produced art. Possibly with Huw Edwards there's an argument about showing news clips of him. (BBC has begun to remove some of its archive footage and an episode of Doctor Who featuring his removed from iPlayer.) But it's not the same situation.

However, there are a huge number of artists you can chose from as your example. Sadly.

Michael jackson was a very public example of what happens when you pimp out your kid to the music industry and then lose control

Personally I believe mcally culkin (sp)

How can YOU be sure it happened? I don’t know either way. I was a fan of Michael Jackson from the early days, still enjoy his music now. I believe in two sides to a story, I’ll listen to both, then make up my own mind, I don’t blindly believe everything I hear.

He was found not guilty

I agree with you OP. It’s not that I think it should be banned (as far as I am aware, no music is in the uk, so it’s not even a thing) but I don’t understand why radio stations play him and particularly find it inappropriate at children’s discos in resorts in southern Europe where it always seems really popular!

im not in the slightest bit fussed about arguing innocence until guilty. Sex offenders are everywhere, the likelihood that he was an offender is overwhelming imo

I think he probably did do something wrong but I don’t need artists to be beacons of virtue to enjoy their work.
There’s not many out there who don’t have rumours of shady behaviour attached to them, maybe not to Jackson levels but still.

I rewatched Rosemarys Baby last week too, 5 * perfect movie. Am very happy to separate art and artist personally.

@ichundich what do you mean by 'Cancel Culture'? If someone is most likely guilty of raping kids should we continue to blindly respect and promote his work? I take your point if you feel strongly he is NOT guilty. But morally you should "cancel" the influence of violent, criminals and all sorts of predators.

Remember Jimmy Savile?

@AnImaginaryCat whether it's Art or not, is missing the point.

Exactly this ⬆️

I am the same as you OP. I loved Michael Jackson and had most of his albums but I now no longer listen to his music. It is a shame for me personally as I think he was an incredible talent, but I also believe that he was a paedophile and I can't separate those two things, so I turn it off if I hear his songs on the radio.

I also don't listen to R Kelly. You are right that I compare it to watching Jimmy Saville on TV. I can see the argument if you don't believe MJ abused children but if people suspect that he did and are still listening to him..... I find that extremely uncomfortable.

I'm not policing anyone else's listening habits.....but personally am voting with my feet.

I think if you stopped listening to music because of something bad, illegal or inappropriate the artist has done, then there'll be nothing left to listen to. Only artists I absolutely cannot listen to now are Lost Prophets. That one is sick beyond belief.
(Not a Michael Jackson fan anyway and have no opinion on whether he was guilty or not, just very very weird)

Where do you get "most likely guilty" from? His not guilty verdict? People coming out saying they were forced to lie? People categorically stating as adults that it never happened?

I'm not a "fan" but even a quick Google puts your most likely guilty opinion in doubt

I have the theme tune to Jim'll Fix It in my head now, probably will be humming it all day!

I’ve had similar thoughts/internal struggle to you, OP. It doesn’t sit comfortably with me, but at the same time I bet we all watch Harvey Weinstein’s films.

Sorry!!

That's exactly my point and how I feel and act. Good to know I am not alone.

Oh wow, so if someone had accused your husband / son / dad of being a sex offender you'd be happy with people cancelling even if they were found not guilty? Might as well get rid of our justice system then.

Reasons mj could be innocent;

Here are other specific details presented in "Square One" that challenged the allegations:

1. Jordan Chandler's (1st accuser) Description:

• The documentary highlighted that Jordan Chandler allegedly described Jackson as circumcised
• Medical examinations during the investigation reportedly showed this description was incorrect
• This was presented as a crucial piece of evidence since an abuse victim would likely have accurate knowledge of this detail

1. Phone Call Recording:

• The documentary featured the recorded phone conversation between Evan Chandler and David Schwartz (Jordan's stepfather)
• In this recording, Evan Chandler allegedly discussed his plans before making any abuse claims public
• Specific quotes suggested he was focused on getting a film deal and money from Jackson

1. Money Trail:

• The documentary tracked specific financial problems of some accusers before allegations
• For example, the Arvizos had previously been involved in a JC Penney lawsuit
• Details about the Safechuck family's financial situation before their allegations were presented

1. Wade Robson's Previous Testimony:

• The documentary highlighted Robson's strong defense of Jackson in the 2005 trial
• Showed specific examples of his public statements defending Jackson up until 2011
• Presented timeline of his career difficulties before changing his story
• Detailed his failed attempt to get a job with Cirque du Soleil's Michael Jackson show

1. Kitchen Scene Discrepancy:

• One accuser described abuse in Neverland's kitchen at night
• The documentary showed that the kitchen was heavily staffed 24/7 with workers present at all times
• Former staff members testified about the constant activity in that area

1. FBI Files:

• The documentary presented specific details from the FBI's 10-year investigation
• Showed that agents monitored Jackson even in other countries
• Highlighted that over 300 pages of FBI files contained no incriminating evidence

More reasons;

According to the documentary, one of the most significant timeline discrepancies involved James Safechuck's allegation about being abused in the Neverland train station. Here are the specific details:

1. Safechuck's Claim:

• In the "Leaving Neverland" documentary, he claimed he was abused in the Neverland train station between 1988-1992
• He specifically mentioned being abused in the upstairs room of the station when he was around 12-14 years old

1. Construction Records:

• The documentary "Square One" presented construction permits and documents showing the train station wasn't built until 1994
• Construction was completed and permitted in 1995

1. Timeline Problem:

• By 1994-1995, when the station was actually built, Safechuck would have been 16-17 years old
• This contradicted his own testimony about when the abuse ended
• The documentary presented this as evidence that the memory couldn't be accurate since the location didn't exist during the time period he specified

This discrepancy was seen as a significant piece of evidence challenging the credibility of certain allegations, as it appeared to demonstrate that at least this particular memory couldn't have occurred as described.

Terrible person, terrible music.