Valley PR Blog

We don’t know what he did or didn’t do.

For many of us, Thriller was a large part of our childhood. I remember dancing around my family room for hours with my bro and sis.

I thought this was a blog for PR, not for personal opinions about the dead.

Actually Tyler, it’s my blog and I can write whatever I want — and pretty much everything I write is my personal opinion.

It is a PR topic – the spin underway is fascinating. I lived in Santa Barbara for several years. It’s a small town and those who work for celebrities talk. Locals knew what was going on but the locals in the jury acquitted MJ anyway. Thank you Len.

Good to know, but it’s still bush league to use someone’s death both as an opportunity for exposure and trash him at the same time.

And, according to the top of this page, this is a group blog, not just your own.

[...] Gutman of Valley PR Blog has proven himself one of these people. It’s one thing to talk of or even trash the dead, but [...]

Pat,

I don’t think it’s as spin as much as choosing to focus on his contributions to music and his charity work … regardless of your personal feelings, nothing was ever proven nor was any evidence produced that was significant. However, there was plenty of evidence that the man, unfortunately, left himself open to people who were focused on greed. “Spin” is when the facts are ignored and twisted to seem like something else; not when some facts are highlighted over others.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion, even if it is wrong. However, calling him a pedophile like this article so subtly did is really reaching down to one of the lowest points humanity can go. Never mind the sheer audacity and inappropriateness of posting hateful opinions on a professional, group blog…this is simply not a place for that on any level of professionalism or consideration of the others who utilize the blog, both for writing and reading.

And it’s funny how you can be so certain of the “activities” at Neverland just by being an area resident, and how you seem to be able to speak for everyone who lived around there.

I lived very close to Neverland for several years, and neither I, my family, or anyone in my immediate circle ever said anything like what you did … then again, maybe it’s because we were all much too busy with our own lives and working and going to school to keep a close eye on who came in and out of our neighbors’, just so we could contribute to our gossip circle that helps to (Oh my God! Did you see that!?) keep life exciting on a (barely) acceptable level.

Dang, it’s getting hot in here. Not one mention of Walter Cronkite?

Cronkite isn’t dead …

Marketing Sociologist -

Perhaps we should preemptively trash him too?

Fred Travalena died????

First, Len, totally with ya. I had some lovely reminiscing moments this week hearing his songs, but I celebrate his music, not him. He had produced little in the last few years but the kind of PR none of us celebrate.

Tyler, you’re chastising Len for the same reason he’s chastising Michael Jackson. You cannot separate a person from his profession.

IMO, mourning Michael Jackson this week is far less about him and far more about us. We mourn for a talented child who got lost, we mourn for the times in our lives the songs remind us of, long gone and we mourn because we intrinsically are drawn to wackadoodle stories these days. Its a great distraction.

And that is absolutely about PR.

What has happened to our society? One entertainer gets a week worth of focus while many states try to pass budgets. A plane crashes with more than 153 lives lost. Fierce freedom fighting in Iran. Liberation in Iraq. North Korea has a missile poised at Hawaii. Our nation’s economy is in shambles. Yet all you can find on the Internet is Michael Jackson. He’s sparked THE most heated debate ever on Valley PR blog. Michael Jackson’s death has reached more news coverage than John F. Kennedy, Robert Kennedy, Martin Luther King and many more. Have we truly become text-based Twitter-heads? Was Devo right? De-evolution? Have we truly arrived at the future predicted three years ago in the movie “Idiocracy”? I heartedly suggest anyone reading this leave immediately, turn off your TV and pick up a book like Bill Cantor’s “Experts in Action,” or Allen Center’s “Effective Public Relations” and do something to feed your mind. Public relations is about building reputations and images. Here’s a professional blog where the biggest focus is Michael Jackson. If you went to a professional blog for lawyers or CPAs, would you expect to see these comments? You wonder why the field is in trouble and dying like newspapers?

I am simply stating that MJ, by his own admission in court and out of court, had what normal people would call inappropriate relationships with young boys. It’s also pretty well documented that he paid off the first family that accused him of molestation and the second case was close enough to bring to court where his strange actions speak for themselves. The guy had demons.

Now, how will we remember him? That is the PR war currently being fought in the media and elsewhere. This conversation is very appropriate to what we do as PR folks. Personally, I choose not to revere him.

Oh, and it looks like Jeff Goldblum is also dead, as reported on Twitter: http://bit.ly/cHxEq

I believe he is personally responsible for letting dinosaurs roam the streets of San Diego, so I choose not to revere him as well!

Marketing Sociologist, you make a fine point. Our state nearly shut down last night, which seems to me would warrant a least a comment from the biggest PR blog in the Valley, but personal opinions about the dead seem to be more important.

Oh, and I’m listening to Punk Marketing and reading Ignore Everybody right now. That’s okay, right?

I should have finished my thought – With news media that focuses exclusive on Michael Jackson in detriment to other news stories. And they wonder why they are dying. Some newspaper journalism union said they did not want market research into what readers want. They KNOW what readers should read. They wonder why they’re in Chapter 11.

Excuse me, I’m leaving to listen to Radio Disney’s kids hour right now.

As usual Len, you have hit the nail on the head. I too enjoyed the Thriller years, but he totally lost me after that. When his ever changing physical appearance turned grotesque, it should have been clear to all that this was a demented, albeit talented, man.

It’s great to have your own forum, eh?

I’ve always admired your intellect Len, but your own legacy was knocked down a peg in my book with this one! Michael was a gift from God to humanity. Whatever demons haunted him were a mirror of society. At our worst we are critical, greedy and bigoted humans. At our best we are loving and forgiving and we appreciate true talent and beauty. The world has spoken and we mourn the loss of this great talent.

Why are so many people unaware that the presumption of innocence only applies in a court of law? Outside of that people are entitled to have any opinion they want about anything and express it. I think OJ is guilty and I’ve said so since 1994. Like Len, I think MJ was guilty of something. His and his accuser’s fingerprints were found on pornographic magazines in his home. Doesn’t necessarily mean that they looked at the magazines at the same time, but – What the HELL were kids doing looking at porn at the fricking Neverland ranch?! Anyone? Spare us the faux-indignation and pearl clutching. people. Your love for MJ’s music has nothing to do with him being a pedophile and a scumbag. Wagner wrote beautiful symphonies that are among of my favorites. A delight to the ears, truly. He was also a fascist and a virulent anti-Semite.

And another thing, it’s Len’s blog and he can write about whatever the hell he wants. If you think not enough attention is being paid to the state budget, by all means write about it in your own blog.

I like to pride myself on being able to separate an artist’s work from his personality, politics and personal life. Allows me to enjoy music, movies and other works of art even though I many not have much affinity for the artist himself (see Michael Moore, Mel Gibson, Rosie O’Donnell, Tim Robbins, Russell Crowe and a host of others).

It’s possible to appreciate MJ’s talent without condoning every one of his habits, choices or predilections. It is possible to be both a fine entertainer and a disgusting pervert … it’s called multitasking.

DonnaDiva – this blog became popular because of many contributors, not just Len. Notice the tagline even calls it a group blog.

I’m completely aware how the the presumption of innocence works. Is your name anywhere on this site besides as a commenter?

Wowza — the [dry] heated group blog is certainly living up to its name today.

Gotta go with Amanda on this one. Bill Goodykoontz wrote an article http://biturl.cc/ft that nicely echoes her sentiments. Particularly liked this quote:

“There’s a poignancy to all this, and an undercurrent of our own mortality. That’s the bottom line, isn’t it? Michael Jackson and Farrah Fawcett, two people who defined aspects of a generation – for millions, our generation – are dead. It’s yet another reminder that nothing lasts forever.”

As to the relevance of including this info on a PR blog…of course it belongs here, given the viral nature of how the news spread, eclipsing everything else that was going on at the moment (including one very grateful SC governor). Is it shameful that was the case? Perhaps. But that doesn’t change the fact that it’s how it went down, more make it any less interesting a case study into human behavior.

Finally, I find it interesting that the commenter who accuses Len of “doin’ it for the publicity” then attaches to his comment a link to a blog post that bashes Len’s opinion. Is this very act not a classic case of “doin’ it for the publicity”?

@Tyler — since you’re focused on the semantics of the tagline, perhaps you also noticed it says it covers “public relations, marketing, social media and current events.”

Certainly this post qualifies, at least, as a current event?

I understand how a group blog works, Tyler. I’m part of one myself. You are right, though. I’m but a lowly commenter on this oh-so-popular-thanks-to-your-contribution blog.

Anyhow, shouldn’t you be writing about Important Matters like the budget right now? Why are you still here, clutching your pearls over Len’s opinion of MJ?

My bad. Tyler isn’t even on of the bloggers on this site. What’s his point then?

I have a hard time differentiating someone’s work from their behavior. Why would I buy an album and enrich and enable someone who harms children? If I hear one of his songs on the radio, I change the station. The thought of him makes me sick. I’m not going to provide an audience for him to gain radio play royalties. Too often, people try to disassociate a body of work from the person who created it. They idolize the performer and are repulsed by the person off stage, or claim “it was never proven”. That is what is wrong with society. The focus should be on the person and their repugnant behavior, and anything produced by that individual should be cast in the that shadow. That way, we don’t idolize and revere a murder like OJ or a child molester and child rapist like MJ. He is no idol, he’s a pedophile that beat the wrap because he could sing, and because he paid off a victim who refused to testify against him due to a non-disclosure agreement. That is so wrong and a true reflection of how low our society has sank.

Wow! I gotta give credit to my fellow blogger, Len, for stirring up a storm. As a group blog, we all have the right/freedom to post as we please.

I was pretty derisive of Michael Jackson until literally just the last few days. Watching old interviews and footage of him, I arrived at a completely different point of view, and now feel only empathy and sorrow for what he became. He looked so good and happy in the 70s – what on earth happened to him after that?

There’s the old saying you can’t kick a dead dog, but in this case I think Len raises a good point – discussion about the kind of PR image/legacy that results when a celebrity dies. It’s fascinating (and sometimes repulsive) to watch. It particularly seems to happen when someone dies young.

If anything, it makes us stop and reflect on what our own PR image will be when we go….

Turns out Tyler writes about feminists and how much he despises them on his blog. Color me shocked at that. He also bemoans the fact that “ladies” today aren’t dressing to please him and learning how to cook for him.

I seem to have made it my mission in life to piss off arrogant, entitled males on the internets these past couple days so no point in stopping now.

Love Jennifer H’s comment. The media has missed one of the greatest spin games in political history focusing on Michael Jackson. Sure I spent South Carolina taxpayers’ money during a budget crunch to visit my babe in Brazil, I’m sure we’re going to hear soon if the media quits covering Michael Jackson and gets back to serious stories. “It’s a love story,” Governor Mark Sanford spins it. Sure, a love story that begins at the end of a male member we won’t mention, but the Michael Jackson photo above is referencing it.

Here’s a lovely pearl from Tyler’s blog, in a post called “I’ve always wanted to know…”:

“…why black dudes like LARGE women. Not curvy ladies, but straight up fat bitches.”

You stay classy, Tyler.

Why you were “idolizing” (isn’t that a sin in the Bible?) Michael Jackson, you also missed a great comment from the 2012 presidential campaign Republican front runner, when she said she could beat President Barack Obama in a race – she was speaking of a sprint, foot race, but don’t you love those public relations double entendres PR people used to practice before they were paying exclusive homage to Michael Jackson?

While I don’t claim to be a PR pro (only married to one) I can say this. Since his death his song and album sales have been soaring. So I do believe that while his death is tragic, and incredibly sad there is definitely a PR spin going on for financial gain. (BTW way to go honey for stirring up crap and only being home 24 hours!)

You need to learn to read. Check my post on feminism and let me know where those phrases came from.

And knock off the personal attacks.

Tyler,

You’re asking Donna to knock off the personal attacks after you called me bush league? Dude, how about we agree to disagree? I think MJ is at the very least guilty of inappropriate actions with children and though perhaps I should have inserted the term “alleged” into my comment about him being a child molester. Now I’m going to head to Starbucks and order me some Jesus Juice!

Tyler, my comment clearly stated the name of the post on your blog where that comment was. It was on the post entitled “I’ve always wanted to know.”

Here’s the post in it’s entirety:

“I’ve always wanted to know…

…how women with muffin tops can walk out of the house showing them off. WTF is wrong with them?

…why black dudes like LARGE women. Not curvy ladies, but straight up fat bitches.

…why when it’s the girl that just wants sex things seem to be on shakier ground. When it’s the guy both sides know where they stand.

…why I still like Matchbox 20. Does that mean I need to grow up?

…why I haven’t done the things I wanted to do. What’s the harm in trying?

…why I’m not rich and successful yet. I don’t get what I’m supposed to doing, so it seems a better idea to just wait until I do. Which is completely ridiculous.

…English is not our national language. Let’s vote it in.”

Intellectual heft AND eloquence in one charming package. That’s you, Tyler.

I’m puzzled as to how Tyler interprets what I’ve posted about him as a personal attack. Tyler, dude, it’s YOUR blog. YOU wrote the stuff. Own it.

Hm, now Karl Malden is dead. Bad times for celebs!

http://www.azcentral.com/ent/celeb/articles/2009/07/01/20090701karl-malden.html

PR Fight! If you are turned off by Len’s commentary, than turn the channel. Better yet, analyze state budget concerns (in your blog) if you believe that raises your intellectual position or elevates your good citizen status. It’s pompous (and self-serving) to suggest that because Valley PR Bloggers are consumed with Michael Jackson, they aren’t worried about or aware of other matters. Under the First Amendment, we as individuals can decide what is a meaningful discussion (and where), and say and read what we want. In fact, all this makes me want to pick up a copy of People magazine. I might even check out awfulplasticsurgery.com. That’s because I can’t find my copy of “Don’t Worship False Gods,” which includes Michael Jackson, marketing and PR experts, and state legislators.

DonnaDiva- tell me where I say women should dress to please me and they should cook for me. I’d love to see it. You can’t tell half-truths. And yes, man-hating feminists are a scourge, just like racists are.

Len- I said you were out of line posting this post on this group blog. That’s it. Never really said I even disagreed with you.

Okay Tyler. From your blog post entitled “What happened to femininity?”:

“I’m all for equal rights. I think ladies should earn equal pay for equal work, they should be given the right to choose and have every right to look any way they want.

But every damn time I see you girls in pants–usually jeans–and a t-shirt, a little part of me dies inside. What happened to dressing like women? Why not sundresses (awwwww yeah)? Why not skirts? I’m not asking that you wear hooker heels and miniskirts every day, I’d prefer you didn’t, but what’s wrong with sundresses and a pony tail?

For years you ladies have fought to be more like men. For years you’ve asked us to get in touch with our feelings, but when it comes down to it, you want manliness. You want a rugged guy who can take charge when he needs to, be a man when you need him to be.

We get nothing. We get a generation of women raised by their parents with no idea how to cook, how to dress and how to keep up your half of the arrangement. I can cook, I can clean and I can dress, and far too many ladies I meet can barely take care of themselves. Ladies, you want me to cook and clean, you’d better be good at doing man things.”

DonnaDiva, you are really, REALLY annoying. I’m quite aware of what I wrote. Is re-posting my blog in the comments section seem worthwhile? Good god, way to go completely off-topic.

But Tyler, I’m having a good time right now, and that’s all that matters.

FYI, Tyler, if you want me to stop posting quotes from your blog it would be helpful if you’d stop asking me to show you where you said something on it. Just sayin’.

Ah. I know you’re type, Donna. Len, I still think you’re wrong.

DonnaDiva,

You are clearly taking things on Tyler’s posts out of context. If this is the same rational thinking that you applied to the MJ stories, then no wonder the media was able to gobble you up and spit you out with whatever it needed to convince you of to sell headlines.

Len,

I am quite aware that this is “your blog” (still a group blog, though) and that this is a current topic, and does revolve around PR to an extent. That being said, you obviously pride yourself on being a man who can communicate ideas and write them out in clear fashion – something you have successfully done many times on this blog.

That being said, I have to ask why is it (apparently) not possible to discuss the PR underway – and even acknowledge the allegations and inappropriate relationships – without resorting to vile comments and essentially mocking the dead with (”Oh my God! Len is so witty!”) comments, followed by (”Haha! Did you see that? He winked! Oh he’s a sly one!”) emoticons?

Part of being a true writer is being able to use your words to adequately express thoughts and issues while – when needing to – maintaining a professional balance. Yes, it takes more work to get your point across this way, and I would largely have little issue if this was a personal blog. But it’s not – just because it’s “yours” doesn’t make it personal given the context of most of the writing here, the tagline, the description and how it has been promoted. It is yours, but professional.

No one is saying you have to “revere” the man, but for professional discussion, there is a line.

So, I’m asking, why can you not have a professional, truly-engaging and beneficial look and discussion at the PR workings underway right now, without resorting to slandering the dead and name-calling?

And please, if you will, answer this question directly without trying to spin it, go off-topic, or throw it back at me. That seems to be how people around here “deal” with questions, and it’s hurting your reputation pretty fast.

William, in what context would the phrase “strait up fat bitches” be appropriate to you?

Ah. I know your type, Donna. Len, I still think you’re wrong.

Sorry for the spelling error, I meant ’straight’.

Also, William, given that the context of that phrase was Tyler wondering why black men like the “straight up fat bitches”, would you care to explain why I’m unfairly criticizing him?

I know yours too. And I’m rubber and you’re glue.

Donna – to paraphrase Len, it’s my blog and I can do whatever I like with it. If you don’t like it, don’t read it. Notice it is under my name only. Straight up fat bitches would refer to angry women who are more than a bit chubby. If you need me to explain any other terms, please ask away.

“Part of being a true writer is being able to use your words to adequately express thoughts and issues while – when needing to – maintaining a professional balance. Yes, it takes more work to get your point across this way, and I would largely have little issue if this was a personal blog. But it’s not – just because it’s “yours” doesn’t make it personal given the context of most of the writing here, the tagline, the description and how it has been promoted. It is yours, but professional.”

Wow. I had no idea of the grave seriousness of this PR blog.

No need, Tyler, you do a very capable job of expressing your views.

Hm, now Gannett is cutting 1400 newspaper jobs! Bad time for print pubs!
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=akQlyUshJpjs

Thank you so much for your advice, Donna. Perhaps I’ll express my views about you in a future blog post. So glad to have met you, you’re quite an example.

DonnaDiva,

I never said you were unfairly criticizing – I said you were taking out of context. Those are two very, very different terms.

But you are now resorting to one-liners, changing the topic, and then (once somebody else responds to you ON THE TOPIC) mocking the debate in and off itself.

People who can’t debate change the topic or angle at will or usually begin to mock at the seriousness of the topic when they can’t defend themselves and then finally resort to “Oh I don’t have time for this” approach. You have done 2/3. When you actually care to respond to items IN CONTEXT and DIRECTLY, then we can speak further. What you’re doing right now results to little more than flaming and trolling.

Great! Now all those guys with Catherine Zeta Jones fetishes (the ones in mom and dad’s basement playing Guitar Hero) will be slowing down the Internet as they follow the death of former Streets of San Francisco star Karl Malden.

Again the media’s attention will be riveted away from issues like Mexico’s drug lords response to Hillary Clinton, Al Franken joining the senate, what Gov. Mark Sanford’s Brazil babe looks like, did he use taxpayers’ dollars, Hilary Duff joining Gossip Girls, the fall ABC schedule and Hayden Panettiere (I can actually spell it!) not promoting her new movie, I Love You Beth Cooper (http://tweenmusic.blogspot.com/2009/06/hayden-panettiere-missing-vanessa.html and http://tweenmusic.blogspot.com/2009/06/hayden-panettiere-lacking-promotion-for.html).

All we’ll be hearing about is Malden’s will, where he will be buried, how Streets of San Francisco DVD sales shot up to the #1 slot on Amazon. How he and Marlon Brando appeared in movies together. TMZ will have “all Malden all the time.” Every primetime network, including CNN, will have nightly specials about Malden’s life for the next seven days, I’m sure. They’ll feature his movies, and may even discover a video of him practicing for his NEXT movie.

No one will discuss Walter Cronkite’s health, or how unemployment numbers are up and the nation’s economy is in the same shape the USSR’s was when they were involved in Afghanistan, because EVERYONE will be fixated by Karl Malden’s death. Seriously, I knew someone who had to execute a legal contract last Friday but no one in the office could help him because they were “morning Michael Jackson.”

When did we become a nation of dolts? What’s going to happen when – OMG – Mick Jagger dies? – or Mary Kate Olsen?

Whoops, that mourning, not morning.

IOW, William, you have no substantive defense of Tyler’s comment about black men and “straight up fat bitches”. Furthermore, I already did address the topic of Len’s post, in my very first comment. I don’t feel the need to say anything more about it, but what the hell, I’m feeling generous today:

I believe that MJ was a child molesting creep who wrote and sang some good songs.

I personally find that people with overblown senses of entitlement who can’t handle other people disagreeing with them often resort to faux indignation and pearl-clutching behavior in an attempt to shame and silence their critics.

Backatcha Tyler, I eagerly await the trackback of your post in my blog. I have no doubt you will live up to the level of, um, thinking that you routinely display in your writings.

Tyler & Donna: Have you guys ever heard of Usenet? You should check it out. I think you’d both enjoy it.

Len: Enjoyed the post. Keep up the great work.

Donna,

Thank you for your on-topic response; it is appreciated.

First off, on the issue with Tyler: You seem to fault me for having “no defense of Tyler’s comments.” That is extremely, spot-on accurate, as I never claimed, anywhere, to have any defense of them (so I’m not quite understanding why you would fault me for not providing evidence or reasoning I never claimed to have). However, whether I agree or disagree with something, I’d like to think that my reading comprehension skills have reached the point that I can point out when opinions used to slander someone, such as Tyler, are taken way out context, or when the deductions you claim from reading these posts are out of context. Again, “defending” someone is very, very different from acknowledging when something is out of context. You accuse me of the former when I only did the later; and both of those are vastly different.

I could go on about my viewpoints on Tyler’s comments, but I’m not going to do that. Why? Because this is off-topic. I do not believe on adding needless fire or trolling blogs or message boards; I prefer to stay on-topic as much as possible. Tyler’s viewpoints have nothing to do with this conversation or original blog post – this is something that you brought into play on your own as a diversion from the main discussion, out of your own anger at Tyler. If you truly wish to discuss this in more detail, I’d be happy to – but you need to either do that in the comments of Tyler’s original post on his blog or make your own blog comment about it – there it would be appropriate.

Back to the issue at hand, neither I nor Tyler ever said that you or the original poster were not entitled to your opinions. I fully believe you are – I stated that above earlier. The talent of Michael Jackson or the personal life of Michael Jackson were never really the main points of my disagreement on this blog, or from the looks of it, Tyler’s disagreement on this blog. Again, I’m not sure where you are getting this from – but while this is semi-related to the discussion, it is clearly *not* the discussion at hand, and why we were upset. This is yet another example of a diversion that you have created, on your own, on this blog.

The issue, as I see it, was the appropriateness of such an emotional and hateful posting to be placed on a PROFESSIONAL GROUP blog. We already addressed the matter at great length of “this is my blog and I can say what I want”, but now we’re focusing on my most recent question to Len. Please see my above post, addressed to Len, for this full question.

My comments and viewpoints on this blog have to do with just that – where negative opinions of the dead and slandering are/are not necessary in order to facilitate a mature, professional discussion of PR spin. That has nothing to do with Tyler, nothing to do with child molestation, nothing to do with anyone’s talents.

I more than invite you to respond in context to the questions I asked Len, and to keep it on topic. Other than that, I really don’t desire to go down anymore distraction-oriented rabbit trails with you.

Oh James, I’m TOTALLY doin’ it like Usenet today! I’m nursing a bad cold but I’m having so much fun I’m almost forgetting how sore my throat is.

That was quite the screed, William. Methinks I’m not the one who’s being a tad too “emotional” here.

Also William, do you realize that you typed the phrase “…facilitate a mature, professional discussion of PR spin…” in earnest? (And no, I’m not taking it out of context)

Again, instead of responding to the questions raised and having a mature discussion, you simply dismiss the debate with a (to you) witty comment, again quoting me out of context, as I never said you were being “too emotional.”

Frustrating, but I’m sure you’ll have 2-3 more back-to-back trolling comments to follow up with this post, as well. Great way to fail at debate.

I’m done with you until you can produce something half-way intelligent and in context.

To James Archer: Mr. Archer, I am contemplating becoming Phoenix public relations’ next Vince McMahon. I think we should set up a Phoenix WWE bout to benefit some charity. Any charities up for this? It’s better than a jail-a-thon.

The event could be held in conjunction with WWE WrestleMania in February. We could get a 944 tie-in to guarantee losing millions. I even have a name “Phoenix Smack down in Phebruary.”

So let’s have our “wrestlers” egg each other on as they will before WWE comes to Phoenix in Phebruary.

LOL Len I said the same thing on Facebook and got people’s “offended” remarks back! I will just repeat what I said to them. First off I feel bad for the family of anyone who dies good or bad, famous or un-famous it still hurts. However with that said I will never understand how mass media and the majority of Americans choose to be obsessed with celebrities and their death. I say what about all of the Americans that have died protecting our way of life and freedom of speech from the far past till now. No celebrity would have ever become who they were and no person would have has their life affected by these celebrities if it wasn’t for all of the American veterans. We have the right to grieve on a blog or in the streets because we LIVE in America. Just look at the situation with protesters in IRAN, they can’t even protest their government!!! So before you go on your rant about Michael Jackson, remember you freedom wasn’t free and try holding a candle light vigil for the people that really matter to this country. I too love myself an MJ song but he is no god or idol worth worship, my energy is spent on remembering true heroes of this country and Happy Forth of July!!!!

Quoth William:

“You are clearly taking things on Tyler’s posts out of context. If this is the same rational thinking that you applied to the MJ stories, then no wonder the media was able to gobble you up and spit you out with whatever it needed to convince you of to sell headlines.”

I’d call that defending the guy but YMMV.

Ok Tyler, I’ve held off all week from saying anything but you had to do it huh?

(click link)

While I am really enjoying the banter that my husband’s blog seems to be generating (and Tyler I would have a lot of words for you away from this blog better hashed out over coffee. I would like to point you all to Amazon’s music top ten album sales–and they are all Micheal Jackson. So getting back to the PR spin of the situation–and it is spin, realize that someone is making millions of dollars from his death (not to mention the hundreds of millions of dollars when he was alive.) So I guess the old saying goes “There is no such thing as bad PR.”

We ALL need to contact NBC. They did a NON-Michael Jackson story – how dare they!
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/31694824#31694824

About my comments on this post or the two out of 250+ blog posts that donnadiva went back three and six months to grab?

Tyler, how many times does a person have to wonder aloud (or in writing) why black men like “straight up fat bitches” for people to know pretty much everything they need to know about him?

Pray tell, have you ever had the cojones to approach a group of African-American men to ask them that? I mean, you certainly aren’t shy about letting us “ladies” know exactly what you think of us.

Donna — enough. If you’d like to continue this talk, feel free to tear me apart on my blog or write a post of your own on the subject and we’ll chat there. I’ve written tons of offensive things, why does this offend you? Are you a straight up fat bitch who’s into black guys? You have my email and know how to reach me. I look forward to continuing this somewhere else.

Tyler, when you’re in a hole it’s a good idea to stop digging.

I really will leave you alone after this. Before I do I’m going to attempt to (patiently) explain something to you: You made the very first comment on Len’s article, which was to chastise him for expressing a personal opinion and as you put it, trashing this dead multi-millionaire who allegedly molested children. Because you linked to your own blog, I read some of your posts and it didn’t take long for me to find some pretty damn offensive stuff that you have posted. My aim in exposing your comments (you pay attention too, William) was to make a “take the beam out of your own eye before condemning the mote in your neighbor’s” point. It’s not that hard to figure out, and no amount of blustering by you or pedantic parsing by the likes of William obscures my point.

Anyhow, toodles.

Donna,

Regardless of whatever point you were trying to prove, you clearly steered things off-topic several times, and avoided any real questions pertaining to the meat of the discussion about posting such opinions on a professional blog. That question, really, was the genesis of everything I posted and the majority of what Tyler posted.

Somehow, you’d rather address your own off-topic posts and generate arguments that you think you can win rather than addressing the true nature of the discussion.

I don’t call that “blustering”, I call that staying on topic; something you haven’t done once in this entire line of comments. If you want to complain about Tyler or myself, make a blog about it and we’ll debate there. Otherwise, do yourself a favor of integrity and participate in the discussion and questions that exist, rather than trying to add flames to the argument that you *want* to exist, but doesn’t.

My question, quite simply, is this: why can’t you stay on topic?

OK, I am calling a truce and asking DonnaDiva, Tyler Hurst and William J. Nash-McAdam to agree to move on to other topics.

Again, this is my blog, and it is also Dan’s blog, and Linda’s blog, and Angelo’s blog, and Charlotte’s blog. We do not screen anything each other writes and we have placed no limits on what we can or cannot blog about. We generally stick to the “four corners of PR, Marketing, Social Media & Current Events.” and without question this post falls into at least two of those categories so let’s dispense with the “is this appropriate for Valley PR Blog” stuff.

Next, the opinions expressed by me on this blog are mine and I take full responsibility for them. I am of the opinion that Michael Jackson, dead or alive, is at the very least guilty of inappropriate behavior with children and if you followed the trial or news at all you can surely see that these are not isolated incidents but in fact a pattern over many years. So it is MY opinion that he’s a pedophile.

The point of my original post was and remains — how will he be remembered and what, if anything, is happening in the aftermath of his death to shape his legacy. Have an opinion on that? Go ahead and post a comment.

Len, I will move on and thank you for your post. However, can you please directly answer my question that I posed to you several posts above?

I feel that since my question is directly related to your original post that it should, hopefully, be addressed directly and in context.

We can agree to disagree (I’m fine with that!), but I’m not interested in your personal opinions of Michael, as that question stated. My questions relates more to blogging and slandering in a professional environment and what is/is not appropriate.

Thank you.

Here is my question again, Len, as I know it can be hard to find amidst all the comments. It has more to do with the content of discussion than opinions:

“So, I’m asking, why can you not have a professional, truly-engaging and beneficial look and discussion at the PR workings underway right now, without resorting to slandering the dead and name-calling?”

[...] But, the point of this post is neither to garner sympathy nor to gripe about the budget or lege. I happened upon a site called the Valley PR Blog, one of whose writers is a friend and fellow resident of the Tuke, Len Gutman. Len wrote a post about Michael Jackson and the power of PR to transform a troubled legacy posthumously. I happen to agree with Len but one of the commenters, a charming fellow named Tyler Hurst, didn’t. So I started responding, and then he started responding and then hilarity ensued. [...]

Jeff,

The answer to your question is: I can have a “professional, truly-engaging and beneficial look and discussion at the PR workings underway right now, without resorting to slandering the dead and name-calling?”

In this case, I chose to augment my discussion of the Jackson situation with a personal comment about whether or not I think he abused kids. It’s my prerogative to offer said opinion and your prerogative to not read this blog or my posts.

As for this being slander, I plead innocent to that charge. Slander is “an untruthful oral (spoken) statement about a person that harms the person’s reputation or standing in the community.” A, my comment was written and B, I don’t think my opinion could slander Mr. Jackson anymore than he already has been in his short time on earth.

You could argue that what I said was libel (an untruthful statement about a person, published in writing or through broadcast media, that injures the person’s reputation or standing in the community) but then again it’d be hard for Mr. Jackson to sue me given his current state and even if he were alive his status as a celebrity opens him up to a much broader definition of libel. In order to prove I was libelous he’d have to prove he wasn’t, in fact, a child molester. And while he is certainly not a “convicted” child molester, he’d have a hell of a time proving he wasn’t in a civil case against me.

By the way, I didn’t call him a child molester or a pedophile in my post — I simply said he “abused children.” I think dangling your infant over a balcony alone qualifies him even without all of the allegations of molestation. And by the way, there have been numerous allegations beyond the famous case, logged quite nicely online at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People_v._Jackson among other places.

I also think OJ was guilty of killing his wife and that Lee Harvey Oswald didn’t act alone. I guess I have now libeled Mr. Oswald and Mr. Simpson. Dear me.

William, Len’s opinion of Michael Jackson is integral to thesis of his article. But you want him to talk about what you want to talk about, which would neuter his point and, frankly, not even be a discussion worth having.

“So, I’m asking, why can you not have a professional, truly-engaging and beneficial look and discussion at the PR workings underway right now, without resorting to slandering the dead and name-calling?” And…your point? The “PR workings underway right now” are being directed (in large part) toward rehabilitating MJ’s legacy because a lot of folks think he was a child sex predator! Imagine that!

I see you as attempting to take this discussion off topic every bit as much as you claim I am. If you don’t think MJ was guilty say that but cut the “holier than thou” crap.

A.E Housman wrote a poem entitled “To the Athlete Dying Young.” It eloquently discusses the idea that it’s advantageous to pass away at your pinnacle–people have a tendency to idealize things in the face of loss or tragedy. Famous or not, we like to remember the good when people pass away-especially if they happen to be a super star that embodied wild teenage fantasies (I’m guessing-it was a little before my time).

In MJ’s case, it would be rational to maintain a balanced perspective of his overall life, both personally and professionally. Realistically, rationality is a small player in this situation as death has a tendency to be emotional-especially when it unexpectedly hits a national icon.

I believe the media frenzy associated with MJ’s death (and life) is based on the core elements of mythic criticism. People need a hero and they will ignore the bad, cling to the good, and allow it to sweep them away into a state of emotional bliss. This emotional bliss gives them a nice break from the daily stress of today’s problems–away from things like the unemployment percentage, world wars and another politician’s failure. It is nostalgic reminiscing that is selling those records and the PR team is feeding its fans exactly what they want to hear. While the public should be thinking about more serious things, it simply doesn’t feel as good.

Because MJ was arguably one of the most influential musicians of our time, it is natural that this event is taking center stage. It’s an emotional distraction a majority can embrace.

To sum up, I agree with Len that the take on MJ should be more objective but am I surprised at the slant things have taken–I’m afraid not. The people will always call for a “king.”

p.s. Len, congrats on picking a topic that really gets people interested!

Len,

Personally I feel this whole issue needs to be buried, no pun intended, but as a music writer for media including Billboard, Associated Press, UPI and The Denver Post, I will say, first, I am not emotionally invested in this issue as others seem to be, especially local news media that have taken a vacation while they run 24-hour Michael Jackson stories, but I RESPECTEDLY disagree with you. My belief is the whole child molestation matter boils down to Santa Barbara County District Attorney Thomas Sneddon.

This from Reuters:
“Jackson’s Lawyers Say Prosecutor ‘Blinded by Zeal’

10/07/2004 6:42 PM, Reuters
Dan Whitcomb

“The California district attorney prosecuting Michael Jackson on child molestation charges is “blinded by zeal” and “personal animosity” and must be removed from the case, lawyers for the performer charged in court documents made public on Thursday.

“Jackson’s attorneys argue in the papers that what they called Santa Barbara County District Attorney Tom Sneddon’s vendetta against their client had made him insert himself into the investigation improperly, act unprofessionally before a grand jury and leak information to reporters.” http://ca.music.yahoo.com/read/news/12177459

Now from that fountain of trust and truth, Wikipedia:
“He (Sneddon) is most notable for twice investigating Michael Jackson on child sexual abuse allegations in 1993 and 2003. The first criminal investigation was closed with no charges. Police cited lack of evidence after Jackson settled the civil suit out of court for $20 million and the alleged victim ceased cooperating with investigators. The second set of allegations against Jackson resulted in a long trial, which ended in Jackson being acquitted on June 13, 2005. According to Jackson, his supporters, several media sources and several former prosecutors, Sneddon had, or at least appeared to have a vendetta or personal dislike for Jackson.Sneddon was criticized for referring to Jackson as “Wacko Jacko”, and also for his “We got him” remark after Jackson’s arrest despite having gathered limited evidence against Jackson.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Sneddon

If I really gave a rat’s XXX about the whole matter, I’d say Michael was a persecuted man. Now, let’s get on to intellectual pursuits – start with my bashing Arizona State government, http://marketingsociologist.blogspot.com/2009/07/that-government-is-best-which-governs.html

Thanks for the entertainment on a Wednesday, first day of the last half of 2009, Len. Here’s a story about losing nearly half-a-million jobs per month for the past 29 months, and a prelude to Charlotte Shaff’s wonderful blog entry here, “Do You Have a Plan?” http://marketingsociologist.blogspot.com/2009/07/bad-news-on-doorstep.html

Me: Yeah. It’s Too Bad That Farrah Fawcett passed the same day as Michael Jackson. No One Is Gonna Remember Farrah Now!

Anonymous: Yeah. Just Like Michael Jackson To Steal The Spotlight From Someone Else. Difference between the two?! Farrah is going to HEAVEN.

So…What your saying is…Michael Was NEVER convicted of ANYTHING but is going to hell cause of what HE MAY have done?! NOW…I agree somewhat…Why did he pay MILLIONS to keep a family quiet, if he did nothing wrong?!

Where is the line?! If you pay people off, are you NOT GUILTY?! Confused. So should we HATE Michael for what he MAY have done?!
Judge not that ye be not judged.

Judge: To discern, to distinguish, to form an opinion, to compare facts or ideas, and perceive their agreement or disagreement, and thus to distinguish truth from falsehood.”

Therefore, when you say that your neighbor is a “good person,” you are passing a judgment (forming an opinion) just as much as when you say that the thief is a “bad person.”

Lookin’ at the man in the mirror

Comments

Add your Comment

Categories

Recent Comments

Blogroll

Online News

Tweetroll

Design & Strategy