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.”

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

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.”

“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.

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.

“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?”

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.

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.