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.
"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
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?