|

楼主 |
发表于 2008-2-18 01:23:13
|
显示全部楼层
__A tale of two…programs__
Where it fell short on facts and relied heavily on unsubstantiated speculation was when they tried to delve into the matter of Jackson's finances and future "comeback".
Paul McCartney makes an appearance on the program talking about discussing music publishing with Jackson in the early days.
McCartney missed his chance to gain control of the ATV catalog, which contained songs he and John Lennon had written, when it initially went up for sale.
Despite estimates suggesting McCartney was worth at least two or three times as much as Jackson was at the time of the auction, Jackson purchased the ATV catalog. There have been conflicting reports throughout the years as to whether Jackson outbid McCartney, whether McCartney didn’t want to have to pay a large sum of money for his own music, or even whether McCartney could raise enough funs to bid on the catalog during that time.
Also making appearances on the show were irrelevant, alleged "experts" like Brett Pulley, former senior editor of Forbes magazine. Pulley claimed Jackson would probably have to sell his stake in the Sony/ATV catalog to remain financially secure.
How long have we been hearing that exact speculation? It's been closer to a decade now that these alleged Jackson financial “experts” have been proclaiming he'd have to sell his 50% ownership in Sony/ATV or face financial destruction. It still hasn't happened.
Further, in order to even make this type of speculation, Jackson would have to release some type of financial information to people like the former Forbes talking-head in order for them to get a full view of his finances. This is highly unlikely.
One thing is clear: Pulley apparently felt comfortable enough to be interviewed about the topic and not to be challenged on his Jackson assumptions, possibly because he was telling his interviewers what they already wanted to hear.
As far as we can tell, Jackson has not released his financial documents to Forbes, and Forbes may have been relying on 3rd - and possibly 4th –hand unconfirmed/incomplete information to guesstimate Jackson’s worth.
All this speculation is seemingly without taking into consideration what looks to be Jackson’s shift from heavily relying on record deals and tours, to relying on investment, music publishing and asset management for financial security.
At some point, these people will have to let go of the story unless it actually happens instead of doing bad imitations of "Ms. Cleo" trying to predict Jackson’s future.
Making it past the cutting room floor was Fox News's resident Wacko Journo himself, the wannabe know-it-all Roger Friedman.
Friedman is the guy who always forecasts Jackson’s financial doom then magically comes up with a ‘savior’ who always rushes in -- just in the nick of time, mind you -- to “save” Jackson from alleged absolute financial ruin.
During the special, the speculative “savior” this time was supposedly Al Malnick who, Friedman says, completely "fell in love" with Jackson.
As I snicker while writing this line, there are those who think Friedman may be the one who has 'fallen in love' with Jackson, as evidenced by his repeated and incessant (sometimes totally inaccurate) speculation concerning everything from Jackson's finances and family, to his emotional/mental psyche and physical well-being.
It would have been even better with the absence of rank speculation as to Jackson’s finances and the then-vs-now view of Neverland at the end of the program.
__Never-Again-land?__
At the end of the show, somebody thought it would be a nice idea to compare and contrast the Neverland before and during the allegations, to the Neverland after the allegations.
Back during the famous 60 Minutes interview Jackson participated in when Mark Geragos was still his lead attorney, Jackson said Neverland turned into a “house”. He told CBS’s Ed Bradley, “I won't live there ever again… It's a house now. It's not a home anymore” (see Jackson 60 Minutes Interview Transcript ).
So when Neverland turns into just another property owned by Jackson, it suddenly transforms from a “creepy” place, into an alleged illustration of Jackson’s alleged financial problems, according to the media’s collective attitudes.
During the show, Tony Potts is seen in a helicopter circling the property and contrasting the way Neverland used to be. What he fails to mention is that many of his media colleagues (and possibly Potts himself) were highly vocal in criticizing Neverland’s very existence; it’s very purpose.
To them, it was supposedly a sinister place full of inappropriate behavior and shrouded in questions: “Why does he need an amusement park in his backyard?”, “Why does he always have children there?”, “What’s with all those animals? Are they being taken care of?”
Now all the amusement rides are shut down, there are no kids in sight and all the animals have been moved to other safe places. And STILL Jackson’s Neverland is being used to try to prove unconfirmed, unsubstantiated rumors; this time about his finances.
Potts said during the flyover, “It’s very eerie to be here now as opposed to when I was here a couple of years ago when Michael was actually here.”
The fact he actually got to go to Neverland was almost a shock to me. However, it spoke more to Jackson’s open door policy – i.e., not having a thing to hide – than anything else.
He continues later on, “The amusement rides are all shut down. In fact, some look to be missing. There is a tent that is in disrepair as well.”
At the end, Potts is given just enough time to throw in some unconfirmed mess (ie rumor) about the property allegedly being bought by some unnamed company. Again, members of the media get away with throwing out speculation they would never be able to use if their subject was someone other than Jackson.
My question to the media is: Isn’t that what you wanted? Isn’t this exactly the state which was supposed to make them most comfortable about Neverland?
First, whatever condition Jackson chooses to keep his property in is completely his business. Secondly, and most importantly, wasn’t the problem, according to the media, always the fact that he had amusement park rides and kids at Neverland? So, why the whining? Why was a ‘then-and-now’ section warranted as part of this special?
Why the cheesy, overly dramatic music when showing shots of Neverland after it has been raped of it’s innocence and childlike meaning?
The beautiful sentiments for which Neverland stood have been overshadowed by the envy and greed of those who wanted to wrestle it from Jackson’s ownership by any means necessary; even if it meant the destruction of its ideals; even if it’s “safe place” status had to be killed in Jackson’s heart.
What Neverland meant to Jackson and to literally thousands upon thousands of people may not ever be the same. And thus, I say, the figurative “they” got what “they” wanted just short of actually owning it “themselves”.
So spare those of us who have an exceedingly low tolerance for bull$hit all of the overly dramatic comparisons of then-vs-now versions of Neverland. It was a shining example of all the things which were good about childhood, innocence and wonder. Why would it be the same after it’s molestation by 70 Santa Barbara sheriff’s deputies and flying media helicopters?
I think it got under the media’s skin to see such a lush, well maintained and huge piece of land under Jackson’s care; a piece of property making Graceland and thousands of other well-known properties look like glorified trailer parks. It got under the skin of the usurpers, vultures and thieves who sat on their a$ses and tried (and finally failed) to purposely keep Jackson reliant on them for the rest of his life.
To see it in “disrepair”, as Potts says, or not being used is sad for the thousands of kids and families who aren’t crooks, shysters or grafters; those who would have appreciated having a safe place to bring their sick or underprivileged children for fun and relaxation. It’ll never be the same again.
The Celebrity Expose program exceeding my expectations, but like much of the media’s coverage of Jackson, it greatly fell short on subjects unrelated to his music. |
|