Wednesday, January 7, 2015

Last week on one of my many trips, to Barnes and Noble, I saw the new special edition of People out this month.   Briefly skimming it in line, I saw 2 pictures of Michael, plus he is on the cover, so I bought it.    Since then, I looked through it and read the captions on the pictures.

Initially positive...

"The scope of Michael Jackson's fame is like the idea of infinity:  hard to wrap your head around.  In 1984 alone, PEOPLE ran five covers, 73 photos and 33,205 words (we counted) on what seemed an unstoppable, untoppable creative tsunami.  The spotlight eventually shone on darker aspects of the King of Pop's Neverland empire, but the fascination with him never waned.  Even after 2009 death, it lives on."  Photographed by Dilip Mehta, 1991.

We are not only fascinated with Michael, we love and respect him. 

" The King of Pop wreaked havoc after a 1985 stop in London to unveil his wax lookalike at
 Madame Tussauds. 
 Michael Jackson was at the height of his fame:  The release of the album, Thriller, and his groundbreaking videos sent him into the stratosphere.  And then he moonwalked."

Everyone is entitled to their opinion.  I don't know that I feel that was the height of Michael's fame.  Was everything else downhill?  I don't think so.  I think he continued to get better and better.

Once I got home, and could read it thoroughly, I saw there was one more pic of Michael.  The mugshot.  And the reason there was a mugshot.  Not the accompanying verdict that he was found not guilty.  Sigh... I know I am extra-sensitive when it comes to Michael and that whole nightmare.

Was it necessary to include that?  No, it wasn't only Michael, there was a total of 19 celebrities and their mugshots.  Was it necessary to include any scandals of anyone?  I don't think so.  Why couldn't the editors just go with a positive edition, instead of adding all the negative?



  1. Jody, I just saw the magazine at the store today - but didn't buy it. I only saw the cover and first picture and the negative sentence already stopped me. I don't understand it either - why everything wonderful and positive needs to get a negative spin. The spotlight didn't shine on the "darker aspects of Michael's Neverland empire" the Media was and is the "darker aspect!"

  2. They always go for the sensationalistice view- all rags do.

  3. People did a whole big page about OJ killing his ex-wife and her innocent friend and how he eventually got away with the whole thing. Would it have been better than the mugshot to have a picture of Michael from his trial and the outcome that he was found NOT GUILTY on all charges and pictures of his fans who came from all over the world to support him? I think so. What are your thoughts?

  4. It would have, of course, been better, more honest and not the least of which FACTUAL. Sadly, though, when it comes to Michael the media will never give up and will never acknowledge the horrendous injustice they did to himl crushing his spirit and nearly destroying his life. To do so would be an admission of the blood they have on their hands. It would require taking responsibility - and apologizing - for their shameless cruelty. Even 5+ years after his death, they still take sadistic - and mercenary - pleasure in picking the bones of the most painful parts of Michael's life. Many have come to see the light and are now writing books and teaching courses about his phenomenal genius, unparalleled legacy and cultural impact. Unfortunately, gossip mongers like People haven't risen to that level and probably never will.

  5. I agree with you Jody!
    Your article is great by the way !!!


Please be respectful of each other and Michael when you comment. Your comments are welcome and appreciated. Any rude comments will be deleted.