The dehumanization of a person is the first step taken to desensitize the public of injustices they might face. Even worse, this method of desensitization numbs the moral compass, providing the public a sublime license to make ongoing abhorrent and unfair judgments. Case in point, the premise of information reported by the mainstream media is often dependent upon unreliable resources that include general opinions and propaganda, instead of hard facts and an attempt to uncover the truth. Often half-truths and falsehoods are encouraged through bribery payments to people with intent for them to be tempted to fabricate damaging stories about innocent individuals who pose a threat to the wealth and power of those in control. It is through this style of invalidated reporting and use of conspicuous propaganda techniques that destructive narratives are planted into the minds of the public to harvest unsavory agendas, promote division, ultimately destroying the lives of innocent subjects. There is no way to know precisely how much money the media wasted on the dehumanization and slander of Michael Jackson, but a conservative guess would be ‘millions of dollars’. Mainstream media was so vicious in their reporting, that both Jackson’s public image and personal life were deeply damaged by the continuous unwarranted character assassination that they put him through. We will not go into detail about the literally thousands of false claims in the media about Jackson, which include gross absurdities like sacrificing cows in Africa, or defecating and urinating himself in public. Instead we will focus on a few stories that the media ran that were specifically designed to portray Jackson as a pedophile. During Jackson’s 2005 trial, Roger Friedman of Fox News met with the Newt family who claimed that the National Enquirer offered them $200,000 to go on public record declaring that the twin boys of the family had been molested or improperly touched by Jackson when they were 11 years old. The Newt’s explained that the National Enquirer had learned that they spent two weeks at the Jackson’s Encino family home as guests back in 1985. Back then, the twin brothers Robert and Ronald Newt Jr. were aspiring child performers, managed by Jackson’s father, Joseph Jackson. When the first accusations against Jackson went public in 1993, Robert Newt and his father were contacted by Jim Mitteager, a reporter for the National Enquirer. They agreed to meet with him at the Marriott Hotel in San Francisco, where Mitteager made it known that he wanted to pay them to lie. <blockquote><em>“He said, ‘Say he grabbed you on the butt. Say he grabbed you and touched you in any kind of way,’</em>.<em> He told us he took all these people down. Now he was going to take Michael down. That he would really destroy him. He told us he took all these other famous people down. All the major people that had scandals against them. He said, ‘We take these people down. That’s what we do.’” </em> <em>“My dad said these dudes are offering this money to take Michael Jackson down. And the guy said, ‘Say he touched you. All you have to do is say it. But you might have to take the stand. You might have to go on ‘Oprah’ in front of all these people. You have to be prepared for this thing. Just say it. And we’ll give you money,’” </em></blockquote> According to Friedman the Newt’s had evidence of their story. They were in possession of a contract that was given to them by Mitteager and signed by David Perel, who was the editor of the tabloid at the time. The Newt’s refused to sign the contract and told the tabloid that they were not willing to accuse Jackson of anything. Friedman said the contract, written as a letter, is an agreement between the tabloid and the Newt’s for their exclusive story regarding their relationship with Michael Jackson, including information about his sexuality, his sexual contacts and attempts at sexual contact with Robert Newt and others. According to Robert Newt, Mitteager knew absolutely nothing had happened but wanted them to lie nevertheless: <blockquote><em>“He didn’t care! He was like, ‘Just say it and we’ll give you the money.’ And I was like, ‘He never touched me! He was really fishing and really digging. Think about it — most people you say it to, ‘We’ll give you this money,’ even if it’s not true. And they’d take it. He was trying to coach me — if I decided to take the money, what would happen. He said ‘You know, it’s going to be a huge scandal. You’ll probably have a lot of people not liking you. You’re going to be famous!’ But to me, you’d be ruined. And the truth is Michael didn’t do anything even close to trying to molest us.”</em></blockquote> Friedman had another piece of evidence to back up the story, independent from the Newt’s. Apparently Mitteager had a habit of taping his conversations. After his death, his tapes were handed over to private investigator Paul Barresi. Those tapes, according to Friedman, included Mitteager’s attempted negotiations with the Newt’s. Sadly the nature of this story is not unusual and actually could be considered the norm in the media’s handling of the allegations against Jackson. In 1993, Jackson’s cousin Tim Whitehead disclosed on Geraldo Riviera’s TV show that he was offered $100,000 by a tabloid to say that Jackson was gay. In the same episode actor Alfonso Ribeiro, who as a child appeared in a 1984 Pepsi commercial with Jackson and who is best known for his role as Carlton on the television series The Fresh Prince of Bel Air, revealed that his father was offered $100,000 by a tabloid to say ‘anything’ negative about Jackson. Both Whitehead and Ribeiro firmly stated that they never saw Jackson act sexually inappropriate with any child and they never felt uncomfortable around him. But not everyone resisted the temptation of the media’s big bucks. Many of these people, however, were quickly ruled out as credible witnesses even by the prosecution’s low credibility standards. In 2003, Daniel Kapon was 18 years old when he, accompanied by his mother, contacted the Santa Barbara and Los Angeles Police Departments claiming he had been sexually molested by Jackson when he was a child. Kapon was represented by Gloria Allred, an attorney who had represented the Chandlers for a short period of time in 1993. The claim was that Kapon, much like Robson ten years later, had “repressed memories” of the molestation and therefore only recently recalled the abuse. The psychiatrist who helped Kapon “remember” was Dr. Carole Lieberman. Allred and Lieberman had filed complaints against Jackson earlier for the so called “baby dangling incident” and campaigned for Jackson’s children to be taken away from him. The police interviewed Kapon, but they didn’t find him credible. He described horrendously sadistic acts, kept changing his story and made impossible claims. Most importantly, when the police contacted Kapon’s father they learned that the boy had never even met Jackson. On May 28, 2004 the police closed the investigation stating that after an extensive investigation, which included hours of interviews with Kapon, they concluded that there was no evidence that any crime occurred and no charges would be sought. After the police had closed their investigation, Kapon sold his story to the tabloid ‘News of the World’. Reportedly, the tabloid paid him $500,000 for a video tape of approximately 30 minutes where he described the alleged abuse in graphic detail. On May 30, 2004, ‘News of the World printed the story of Kapon’s allegations, but failed to mention that the police had already investigated his claims and did not find them credible. The article was published two days after the police released the statement that the case had been closed, but at the end of the article, the reporter falsely claimed that the investigation in Kapon’s case was ongoing. Kapon later also filed a civil complaint against Jackson. To highlight the absurdity of the accusers that the media used as their sources, it is important to know exactly what Kapon accused Jackson of. Not only did he allege that Jackson had sexually abused him, he also claimed that a number of Jackson’s hit songs had actually been stolen from him, including songs from Jackson’s Bad album which was released in 1987 at which time Kapon was no more than two years old. Kapon also claimed that he fathered Jackson’s two eldest children and that his mother appeared in Jackson’s Thriller video. He said Jackson was “madly in love” with her, married her multiple times, and that the ceremonies were attended by Elizabeth Taylor, Celine Dion, Elton John, Paul McCartney, Beyoncé Knowles and Diana Ross. It may not come as a surprise that Daniel Kapon did not show up for his civil trial and that the case was thrown out of court in January of 2008. And then there is the case of Terry George who never filed a lawsuit against Jackson nor reported his allegations to authorities. However, he was a frequent source for British tabloid stories in the wake of the 1993 Chandler allegations and has since been at their disposal whenever a tabloid story about Jackson being inappropriate with children is required. George, who was a disc jockey at the time, gained notoriety on August 29, 1993, six days after the Chandler case was first reported in the media. He appeared in British tabloids claiming that Jackson had been inappropriate with him in 1979 when he was 13 years old and Jackson was 20 years old. George was a celebrity-obsessed teenager who regularly sought them out, sneaking into their hotels to meet them, asking for their autographs. He even hoarded photos and taped interviews of them. As an adult, George (who now amongst other businesses, runs a gay adult phone chat service) continues to present himself as someone closely associated with celebrities. According to George, he met Jackson in a hotel in February of 1979 while the Jacksons were on tour in the United Kingdom. He actually taped an interview with Jackson and his brother Randy, which was later aired on local radio stations. George claimed that Jackson asked for his phone number after the interview and then called him on a regular base for about three months. George alleged that during these phone calls Jackson was once inappropriate with him, speaking about masturbation as well as masturbating while he was on the phone with him. According to one of the tabloid articles, the phone contact ended when George’s parents realized that he had run up a high telephone bill calling to the United States, admitting in his own story that it was him who was stalking Jackson, and not the other way around. George said he then tried to reach Jackson from a phone booth but claimed that Jackson wouldn’t take his calls. George, however, continued to stalk Jackson. According to the article the final rejection came four years later when George tried to rekindle their alleged friendship when Jackson returned to London. George tracked him down and was even photographed alongside Jackson, but now Jackson’s management was around to issue the polite brush-off. In the article George concludes that Jackson rejected him because he was no longer a child. But this contradicts his earlier claim that Jackson refused to take his phone calls four years prior, when George was 13 years old. In a 2003 documentary entitled “Louis, Martin & Michael”, made by British broadcaster Louis Theroux, George spoke about his alleged “friendship” with Jackson. George proudly recalled his phone conversations with Jackson as a happy and joyful experience. When Theroux brings up his 1993 tabloid allegation that Jackson was inappropriate with him on the phone, George is reluctant to talk about it and claims that what was printed came out without his authority. When Theroux asks him if the story was true, George claims parts of it were true, but adds that papers twisted and sensationalized it. Then after stating he did not want to talk about it because it is well documented in the tabloids, he tries to go back to discussing what a great “friendship” he allegedly had with Jackson. The contradiction of the story being “well documented” in the tabloids versus the claim that tabloids twisted and sensationalized it, is not resolved in the interview and George makes no attempt to make it clear which parts of the story were true and which parts were not. In the Theroux interview, George also says that it is unfortunate that the focus of the media has been on this small detail of the story, when they had such a great “friendship” otherwise. We are to believe that when George went to the tabloid media with these claims, six days after the Chandler allegations became public, he did not know what impact this story would have and what people would focus on. But in fact, the masturbation claim was just what George needed to have his story be picked up and printed by the tabloid media in the first place and to lend George national and international notoriety. In January of 2005, George criticized tabloids on his website for rehashing his story from 1993 and he vehemently denied reports claiming that he would be a witness for the prosecution at Jackson’s upcoming trial. Despite his criticism and claim to Theroux that the original story had been released without his authority and sensationalized by the media, George chose to smear Jackson both in the media and in Martin Bashir’s slanderous documentary entitled “Michael Jackson’s Secret World” in February of 2005 where he rehashed the original story that was printed in the tabloids. Although the tabloid articles in 1993 claimed that George was ready to help investigators in the Chandler case, he never did. Based on Jackson’s FBI files, the FBI monitored George’s claims in the tabloid media, but the prosecution never used him. Either the prosecution did not consider him credible or he was not willing to repeat his claims under oath and subject himself to a cross-examination about these claims. In 2009, in the wake of Michael Jackson’s death, George once again made his rounds in the British tabloids, now posing as a “friend” of Jackson and recounting very questionable stories. According to a Mirror article from June 28, 2009, George conveniently claimed that just before his death Jackson called him out of the blue to apologize and make amends. He claimed they made their peace with the past and that he had forgiven Jackson for what happened. Not surprisingly, he had no evidence for this alleged phone call and once again we are just supposed to take George’s word for it. George used the opportunity to promote a website he set up in 2005 called ‘Gone Too Soon’, curiously bearing the name of a Michael Jackson song, but having no association with Jackson. No other child has ever claimed that Jackson masturbated while on the phone with them. Several recordings exist of private phone conversations Jackson had with children, as people often taped their telephone conversations with him without his knowledge and consent, but no tapes have ever shown that Jackson behaved inappropriately with children. On the contrary, all of his taped phone conversations with children are very innocent in nature. Terry George was never able to present evidence for his claims either, on the other hand there is plenty evidence of his opportunism. Although the likes of Kapon and George never made it to the stand, the prosecution did not shy away from using people who were previously paid monetary rewards from tabloids for their slanderous stories. Most of the people called in support of the prosecution’s “prior bad acts” allegations at Jackson’s 2005 trial were witnesses of this nature. Blanca Francia, Ralph Chacon, Adrian McManus and Kassim Abdool all had to admit on the stand that they were paid by the tabloid media. Phillip LeMarque, another ex-employee, also admitted to have asked tabloids for hundreds of thousands of dollars for his story. Bob Jones, Jackson’s former public relations man, wrote a sensationalist book about Jackson and admitted he did it to make money because he was broke. On the stand he admitted that the salacious story about Jordan Chandler and Jackson that he included in the book, which was the reason why he was called to testify, was fictitious, making the prosecution regret calling Jones as their witness. There are former employees who did not appear at Jackson’s trial as prosecution witnesses but instead made their rounds in the media and were richly compensated for making slanderous claims. The “Hayvenhurst 5” as dubbed by the media, not to be confused with the “Neverland Five”, was a group of bodyguards that included Leroy Thomas, Morris Williams, Donald Starks, Fred Hammond and Aaron White, who formally worked at the Jackson family’s Encino home. In November of 1993 they went on Diane Dimond’s televised news program ‘Hard Copy’ and claimed they were fired because they “knew too much” about Jackson’s relationship with children. Mary A. Fischer’s wrote in her 1994 article for GQ Magazine: <blockquote><em>“Purporting to take the journalistic high road, Hard Copy’s Diane Dimond told Frontline in early November of last year that her program was “pristinely clean on this. We paid no money for this story at all.” But two weeks later, as a Hard Copy contract reveals, the show was negotiating a $100,000 payment to five former Jackson security guards who were planning to file a $10 million lawsuit alleging wrongful termination of their jobs.”</em></blockquote> The bodyguards never reported to authorities that they saw any inappropriate behavior by Jackson towards children. In fact, they admitted they never saw anything inappropriate in their depositions given to the police. Their lawsuit was thrown out of court in July of 1995. A Filipino couple, Mariano and Ofelia Quindoy, who worked for Jackson between 1989 and 1990, sold stories to the tabloid media in 1993 in the wake of the Chandler allegations, claiming that they quit because they were so disturbed by what they witnessed Jackson do with children. However, they were not disturbed enough to report what they saw to the authorities. In actuality, a lawsuit they filed against Jackson claiming he owed them $283,000 in overtime reveals that the real reason they left their employment with Jackson was because of disagreement about their wages and conflicts with other employees. The Quindoys gave a television interview about a year before the Chandler allegations, in which they never mentioned any impropriety by Jackson towards children. In that interview they described Jackson as “the shyest person in the world”. Additionally, the couple was also interviewed in 1992 by Allan Hall, a reporter from the British tabloid ‘The Sun’. Hall also attested to the fact that at the time they had nothing bad to say about Jackson: <blockquote><em>“The Sun drew up a contract for $25,000 and I spent some time with them in Los Angeles doing the Life and Times with Michael Jackson… [They] didn’t have a bad word to say about the guy, not one bad thing… Nothing, absolutely nothing. That he was just a kind man with children.” </em></blockquote> Hall also said: <blockquote><em>“They are two people that I would not trust at all. And I think that they have really gone to town to do Michael Jackson down for the mighty dollar. Now they see money being offered around again and they want some more.”</em></blockquote> Glen Veneracion, the Quindoys’ own nephew and a law student at the time, came forward in 1993 and denounced his aunt and uncle as opportunists: <blockquote><em>“I just feel bad that this is happening. I’m ashamed. I’m ashamed to be related to these people. I’m ashamed for the people in our country. It’s an embarrassment It really is.” </em> <em>“What disturbs me the most out of all of this is that they waited so long. Why did it take them three years to come up with these allegations? That’s what really is disturbing. If this was true, they should have come out with it a long time ago instead of jumping on the bandwagon. They never said that Michael was a pedophile, they never said that Michael was gay, so I don’t know where this is coming from. I find it shocking. It’s very disturbing to me.” </em></blockquote> Veneracion said he was willing to testify against his relatives if the case went to court. After the Chandler case went public in 1993, the Quindoys did not contact authorities but instead went to the tabloids with their allegations. In the 1994 documentary called ‘Tabloid Truth: The Michael Jackson Scandal’, Diane Dimond revealed that the Quindoys wanted $900,000 for their story at first and then went down to $500,000. News of The World reporter Stuart White disclosed in the same documentary that the Quindoys wanted $250,000 from his paper. Authorities eventually contacted the couple as a result of those tabloid stories. When asked why they did not turn to authorities with the information they claimed to have, not even after the Chandler allegations went public, their answer (and keep in mind that Mariano Quindoy was a lawyer in his own country) was: “we were just witnesses, not victims”. The Quindoys also tried to shop a book deal. In their attempt to get publishers interested they claimed they had “secret witnesses” that they formerly withheld from the District Attorney. In addition to paying people for false allegations, the media also did their part to mislead the public with their biased reporting on the Jackson criminal proceedings. During the 2005 trial much of the media reported only on the salacious claims of the prosecution witnesses while failing to report that these same witnesses were totally discredited during cross-examination. Although the paid-for falsehoods mainly came from tabloids, the ‘legitimate’ mainstream media hardly differed in their reporting on the Jackson trial. The so-called “credible” media often used, and still continues to use these tabloids as their sources when it comes to their reporting on Jackson. In November 2003, following allegations of child molestation by Gavin Arvizo, 70 police officers descended upon Neverland Ranch salivating at the thought of finding evidence against Michael Jackson. Despite decimating every room, drilling open safes and 24 hour news coverage from vulturous news media - nothing was found. Even though no real information or evidence was available, CBS, ABC and VH1 immediately released specials regarding the allegations. Under the guise of the media interviewing so called "experts", the prosecution began taking questionable, if not borderline illegal measures to secure the conviction of an innocent man whom they were unable to capture a decade earlier. Not only did the media ignore and seemingly not care about these unethical practices by law enforcement, they gleefully reported misinformation from 3rd party "sources" and gloated about Jackson's apparent "fall from grace". This is the behavior the public came to expect throughout the entire investigation, trial and even after the verdict. Upon Jackson’s arrest, his mugshot was shown worldwide by media channels and tabloids who mocked the photo whilst ignoring the abuse suffered by Jackson at the hands of police officials. No photos were shown of his bruises, no mention was made of his being locked in a toilet covered in feces. The Jackson-hating media bandwagon finally had their punchline, and they were going to use it. Throughout the trial, the outstanding work of the defense team was deemed so irrelevant many reporters did not even stay to hear it. They cared for and only reported about the prosecution. The money was in forcing the narrative of Jackson being guilty. The truth was not important, as it did not sell. Cross examination that shredded the prosecution was unknown to the public, evidence proving Michael's innocence was not to be discussed. After all, an innocent man would not benefit these media vampires financially. Given this attitude, and determination to withhold the facts of the case, it is hardly surprising that the public was taken aback when the jurors delivered a "Not Guilty" verdict on all 14 counts. To any normal person, the court’s ruling would have been enough. To the media however, who had desperately attempted to lynch Jackson, and who had ignored that all citizens are presumed innocent until proven guilty, this verdict was not only a slap in the face - but an insult to their powers of manipulation and a loss of billions. At the announcement of the verdict, a white dove was released from captivity for each not guilty verdict; a symbolic and visual representation of truth coming to light and the media losing its grip on its ability to control the masses. And so, the onslaught of misinformation, manipulation and flat out lies was ramped up several notches. The verdict was not a true one, instead it had been “bought” by either money or Michael Jackson’s “influence” by being famous. The jury surely were idiots, or simply love struck fans. This, was the media’s new narrative. To quote media analyst Tom Rutten: <blockquote><em>“So what happened when Jackson was acquitted on all counts? Red faces? Second thoughts? A little soul-searching, perhaps? Maybe one expression of regret for the rush to judgment? Naaawww. The reaction, instead, was rage liberally laced with contempt and the odd puzzled expression. Its targets were the jurors... Hell hath no fury like a cable anchor held up for scorn.” </em></blockquote> To the media, Michael’s acquittal was their loss. And they had zero intention of bowing out gracefully. <blockquote><em>“Not Guilty by reason of celebrity”,</em></blockquote> said Nancy Grace. <blockquote><em>“This is a woman who has no life”</em></blockquote> Said Bethany Marshall, leveling a scathing personal attack on one female juror who dared to find Michael innocent. <blockquote><em>“Teflon Monster.”</em></blockquote> Wendy Murphy called Jackson. She also stated that the jury needed IQ tests. Adding further to her pile of manure she later stated: <blockquote><em>“I really think it’s the celebrity factor, not the evidence. I don’t think the jurors even understand how influenced they were by who Michael Jackson is... They basically put targets on the backs of all, especially highly vulnerable, kids that will now come into Michael Jackson’s life.” </em></blockquote> Legal analyst Jeffery Toobin stated that the <em>“prior bad acts” testing was “effective evidence”.</em> This was despite several of the boys mentioned as “victims” stating categorically under oath that nothing untoward had ever occurred during their time with Jackson. According to Toobin the only reason the defense won, was because <em>“they could tell a story, and juries, you know, always understand stories rather than sort of individual facts.”</em> <blockquote><em>“Are you sure that this gigantically renowned guy walking into the room had no influence at all?”</em> asked Diane Sawyer.</blockquote> The Washington Post concluded that <blockquote><em>“An acquittal doesn’t clear his name, it only muddies the water.”</em></blockquote> And both the New York Post and the New York Daily News ran the headline <blockquote><em>“Boy, Oh Boy!”.</em></blockquote> Diane Dimond said in her final New York Post article about the trial. <blockquote><em>“He walked out of court a free man, not guilty on all counts. But Michael Jackson is so much more than free. He now has carte blanche to live his life any way he wants, with whomever he wants, because who would ever try to prosecute Michael Jackson now?”</em></blockquote> Jane Moore was one of the more determined media lynch mob. <blockquote><em>“If the jury agree Janet Arvizo is a bad mum (and she IS)... How did they let Jackson off?”</em> <em>“Michael Jackson is innocent. Justice has been done. Or so the loony tunes gathered outside the courthouse would have us believe.”</em></blockquote> She went on to question the jurors’ mental capacity and dismiss the American legal system as ‘half-baked’. <blockquote><em>“Nothing and no one truly emerges as a winner from this sorry mess,”</em> she finished, <em>“least of all what they laughably call American ‘justice’.”</em></blockquote> Jackson’s fans were deemed “sad, solitary dick-wits” by the lovely Ally Ross. Scottish mouth piece Lorraine Kelly went particularly low by stating <blockquote><em>“Don’t forget the kids still at risk... Jacko’s own.”</em></blockquote> And continuing further with her bullshit, she stated that Michael Jackson was <blockquote><em>“a sad, sick loser who uses his fame and money to dazzle the parents of children he takes a shine to.”</em></blockquote> Does this sound like a media fairly reporting on a trial and its outcome? Or more like a group of vindictive, petulant sycophants who lost their juicy story and therefore decided to throw their toys out of the pram? Is media not meant to be unbiased? Are facts irrelevant? The sad truth is that, to those in the media, facts never have and never will be relevant when they have papers to sell, viewers to gain and clicks to accumulate. The only dignified response came from Robert Shapiro, telling viewers that they should accept the jurors’ decision because the jurors were from <blockquote><em>“a very conservative part of California and if they had no doubt, none of us should have any doubt.”</em></blockquote> With all the hoopla surrounding Leaving Neverland—the so-called ‘documentary’ in which two admitted serial liars portray Jackson as an insatiable child molester—the media once again seems to have forgotten about the presumption of innocence and the burden of proof. If Jackson were still alive, libel and defamation laws would prevent a film like this from airing. But because Jackson is dead, anyone can say whatever they like about him. His family, his children and his Estate are powerless because defamation doesn’t apply to the dead in the United States. The truth, or lack thereof, is completely irrelevant. Leaving Neverland has drawn all kinds of praise from those who claim to have seen it. <blockquote><em>‘Powerful. Shocking. Emotional. Compelling.’</em></blockquote> These are some of the buzz words most frequently used to describe the child porn movie disguised as ‘documentary’ where Robson and Safechuck detail the alleged sexual acts they claim they have participated in. <blockquote><em>‘This will change the way you think about Michael Jackson’</em></blockquote> is another commonly spouted line. <em>‘Gut-wrenching’ </em>became the de-facto term that every media outlet decided to use when referring to the film, a term taken straight from the press release by Kew Media Distribution, who is behind the global distribution of Leaving Neverland and its sale to all other territories. Verbatim quotes of the press release to describe the film can be found in more than 2,000 articles online. <em>‘Gut-wrenching’</em> also became a favorite among the blue ticks and general commentators on Twitter and other social media outlets. In many instances, news sites were claiming that Leaving Neverland had been described as 'gut-wrenching' by viewers but the actual source for this claim was the press release that they had directly received from KDM. When asked whether the film presents any proof or compelling evidence beyond the word of the two admitted perjurers who are currently asking Jackson’s estate to pay them hundreds of millions of dollars, the response is usually the same: <blockquote><em>‘Just watch the film.’</em></blockquote> Fairness, balance and even basic journalistic ethics seem to have no significance when it comes to Michael Jackson. The majority of the media outlets do not feel the need to fact-check even the most slanderous stories they run with. Their decades long quest to dehumanize Jackson has made them able to not only report on these vicious deceptions, but also to get away with it. The media does not investigate anymore and journalism is dead. Instead, the mainstream media is a well-oiled propaganda machine firing on all cylinders that tries individuals in the court of public opinion. Jackson is probably the most maligned, most slandered celebrity of all time with a narrative built around him in the media that can only be described as an alternate “reality”. The truth is censored, and the lie becomes the truth. In this atmosphere, media outlets like Vanity Fair -which is by many considered a respectable and credible media outlet- can run articles by author Maureen Orth with ridiculous lies about Jackson, and these articles then become a reference point for many – including social media influencers, and other magazines and newspapers. As the old propaganda law says: <blockquote><em>“Repeat a lie often enough and it becomes the truth”.</em></blockquote> The malice, the unfairness, the one-sided, biased reporting, the lack of basic fact-checking, the outright lies, circulated and repeated as the truth, or even the discredited people who were paid to lie have been widely accepted by the desensitized public. The dehumanization of Michael Jackson, the extremities in the media’s reporting, made people more likely to accept the unfair media treatment of Jackson, and others. Jackson was different and his eccentricity made him an easy target for opportunists who would use his vulnerabilities against him to make money. He broke free from the Hollywood plantation in the late 1980’s because they wanted him to reinforce a certain stereotype that would keep America divided. But he got bigger than they anticipated and busted out of all their roles. The media has been hunting him ever since. His unwillingness to play the game, his popularity, his wealth and his influence posed a great risk for the status quo. He was brought down by those who needed him to powerless with the very thing he fought to prevent.
Unlock with Patreon
