Michael Jackson dead

I heard the other day that Farrah Fawcett's deathbed wish was "for all the children of the world to be safe" - unfortunately for Mike!

R.I.P. Michael Jackson.

Just watched the memorial,I wonder whose death will be or was that big.
Frank Sinatra and Elvis are the only one I can think of.

Lady Diana was bigger by far.

With all the Michael pedo talk consider this. A pedophile CANNOT control himself. A pedophile will molest tens if not hundreds of children. I think the accusations against Michael were money grabs and nothing more. There is no way a pedophile is going to molest 2 children when there are thousands available to him. No way. Was he weird? No debate on that whatsoever. But in my opinion, he was not a pedophile.

Originally Posted by dteowner
Lady Diana was bigger by far.

You guys missed JFK--followed by Oswald being offed. Media was much more limited, of course, but there was nothing else covered for literally weeks.

Originally Posted by dteowner
Lady Diana was bigger by far.

Yeah I thought of her but I'm not sure she deserved all that attention,while MJ earned every single bit of it.

Originally Posted by magerette
You guys missed JFK--followed by Oswald being offed. Media was much more limited, of course, but there was nothing else covered for literally weeks.

Well if we count politics I think Lenin Stalin and Mao could easily be the winners,heck even Jesus

Originally Posted by Icefire
I think the accusations against Michael were money grabs and nothing more.

If he molested children, then you have to wonder where they all went, don't you? At his trial, only one came forward, and his credibility was less than zero according to the jury that acquitted him. Why couldn't his prosecutors produce any victims?

Nor do I believe that the civil suit that was brought against him was strong, despite claims by media pundits who saw it and describe it as "damning." Civil suits are filed by attorneys and always seem strong until they're responded to and challenged by other attorneys. As far as we really know, that case may actually have been weaker than the other one.

I don't believe MJ was a child molester, but he certainly did act inappropriately with children, which means he was naive but doesn't mean he was sick.

Originally Posted by Squeek
I don't believe MJ was a child molester, but he certainly did act inappropriately with children, which means he was naive but doesn't mean he was sick.

While I agree that most of the accusations were probably just money grabs, a grown man having non-related children sleeping in his bed is more than just "naive".

Originally Posted by JDR13
While I agree that most of the accusations were probably just money grabs, a grown man having non-related children sleeping in his bed is more than just "naive".

Completely agree - and anyone who thinks that a 40 year old sleeping with 10 year old boys who isn't their child is natural and normal … well, there is just something wrong.

Also, the fact that once again there are a million things more important happening yet we are on week two of all-MJ-all-the-time is just absurd … it is hard to think that there is even the smallest possible justification of a pop singer's death even falling in the top 20 news events with what is happening in the world right now.

i feel sorry for the people in these newsrooms that have to keep talking about it 24/7 by orders from above, have no choice at all, and have to pretend liket they care. Flip thru the news channels it's solid. They gotta be practically choking on the words by now.

But hey, that's what they do, we all have our crosses to bear. I hate my job, yet I keep doing it. Probably hardened by years of reporting politics, this may be a walk in the park for these people. At least you know exactly what youre gonna be doing all day and can prepare yourself accordingly.

it is hard to think that there is even the smallest possible justification of a pop singer's death even falling in the top 20 news events with what is happening in the world right now.

I disagree with you on that. If there is one person who donated a lot of his money (even if it might have been 1% it was an enormous amount) on charity for children so "that the world could be a better place for our children and our children's children" it was MJ

I watched the memorial and it was true what some said, you saw more the person then the entertainer( who was on the background) in all of this. I was touched but not sentimental, untill the last part where his brothers took the mic and I even let some tears when the daughter spoke, that was really touching. I am not ashamed to admit it, I had tears in my eyes then and that is something rare for me.

RIP MICHAEL

Having so many people judge you based on so little tangible factual information, must be exceedingly hard. On top of that, to be so obviously ruined during childhood and be so obviously caring as a human being - and THEN have to face being judged like that is, to me, unimaginable hell.

Maybe he did something, maybe he didn't - we have absolutely no way of knowing.

But when I look at him during live interviews or recordings, I see nothing but the most gentle person trying to cope with reality. He's going to be innocent until proven guilty in my eyes.

Beyond that, he was a magnificent artist - one of the greats. This is coming from someone who isn't a fan of commercial/pop music.

May you find rest as you are now.

Dartagnan you are right: innocent untill proven guilty.
I can't believe for a second that he would do something like that.

And consider this: would you be bribed if someone molested your child? I wouldn't not for all the gold in the world. That person would pay for what he did by dying or jailtime, not by money

Originally Posted by titus
Dartagnan you are right: innocent untill proven guilty.
I can't believe for a second that he would do something like that.

And consider this: would you be bribed if someone molested your child? I wouldn't not for all the gold in the world. That person would pay for what he did by dying or jailtime, not by money

To be quite honest, I haven't followed the case closely - because my respect for the american judicial system combined with the quality of its media is so limited, I find myself having more reliable information by having basically none at all.

All I need to do is look at the guy to establish more than a reasonable doubt.

I'm not saying it's all that different from other kinds of media or systems of justice, I'm just saying it's worse than most I'm familiar with.

Couple of thoughts:
- Sadly, everyone has their price …
- Innocent or guilty I don't know, but anyone who let their kid hang with him after 1993 is definitely guilty of dubious parental judgment - it is no different than letting your kid go on a camping trip with a boy scout leader who had been accused but not convicted of child abuse. Oh, not really, because in that case the person wouldn't ever be allowed to serve in that capacity again.

Anyway, I think it is nice to remember him for his life as a performer. My kids have been enjoying Thriller this past week.

But my point is this - sure he was a major pop star, and donated highly, but what percentage of news coverage does hat earn him? 75% of news coverage and ~90% of all 'special news magazine' time? That is extraordinarily excessive and cheapens the deaths of others and the actual news going on.

Originally Posted by txa1265
But my point is this - sure he was a major pop star, and donated highly, but what percentage of news coverage does hat earn him? 75% of news coverage and ~90% of all 'special news magazine' time? That is extraordinarily excessive and cheapens the deaths of others and the actual news going on.

I'm hoping the memorial will mark the end to most of the news coverage. I'm not gonna hold my breath though…

You are right there is a lot of other important news too, but sadly he is a case like Lady Di: couldn't get the press of her in life nor in death, and this will probably be the same.

There will probably be enough scandalous news rearing his head even after his dead.

But you are right: time for the important news again and that this becomes just one of the little topics.

Originally Posted by txa1265
But my point is this - sure he was a major pop star, and donated highly, but what percentage of news coverage does hat earn him? 75% of news coverage and ~90% of all 'special news magazine' time? That is extraordinarily excessive and cheapens the deaths of others and the actual news going on.

I don't think there's anyone here thinking the media handles this kind of thing wisely, but how the media treats dead stars is hardly relevant to what you think of the stars themselves.

I'm concerned only with Michael Jackson in this case, not how the media or anyone else cares to talk about him. I don't feel I know him - AT ALL - I've just watched enough live video of him interacting with others to see in his eyes, what I feel is necessary to give him the benefit of the doubt. I don't watch TV anymore, but when I did, I generally didn't listen to the coverage itself - just the person or persons in question. The interpretations of the media is not of interest to me, but if they have some facts at hand that isn't in dispute, then one has to consider them, naturally. Sadly, they rarely paint a complete picture and all journalism is biased.

In my mind it's a misplaced sentiment to feel anything antagonistic towards a person who is dead, just because the media chooses to focus on him. Besides, if this didn't generate revenue - you can be 100% certain it wouldn't be covered. Essentially, by watching TV when it's on - you're actively supporting what you claim to have a problem with.

Whether or not he actually molested anyone will probably never be known, but that doesn't change the fact that there was definitely something *wrong* with him.