Something outrageous happened on British TV
UPDATED Mackenzie Protest Info 11-14-2010
Due to the raising of voices in protest at the contemptible and shocking comments of Kelvin Mackenzie, ITV removed the segment where the ex-Sun editor made those comments. This was a tacit admission by ITV that this incident was indeed offensive. OFCOM thought otherwise. But the decision to continue the protest has rippled through an ever-growing group of concerned individuals – both in the UK and around the world.
Now with the news that not only Taj Jackson, but also Mr Paul W. Jones, US Ambassador to Malaysia, have added their voices to the growing chorus of protest — fresh impetus is now evident in the protest which resumes November 15..
We are hoping the media will pick up on this story, and those participating in this effort are being asked to tip Roger Friedman and other media outlets, the links to a sawf news article:
which report’s Taj Jackson’s comments, and also journalist, Charles Thomson’s report about the Malaysian Ambassdaor’s new complaint.
Now is the time to reinforce the pressure on ITV. We are asking ITV for more than just a removal of the MacKenzie segment. We are asking ITV to officially distance themselves from a man with a history of making inaccurate, repellent statements — and further, to offer a simple, and sincere apology to both the Jackson family and those around the world — including UK viewers — who are profoundly disgusted that no on-air apology has as yet been forthcoming. All those protesting from tomorrow Monday, November 15, are advised to follow Charles Thomson, Seven’s, or Deborah Ffrench’s tweets to get updates about information you will need to come across as resident in the UK when you call the ITV complaint lines, and to also read the information below:
* Remember: We are asking for an an-air apology*
( If you do not live in the UK, find out what the international code is from your country)
FIRST NUMBER: ( Lines open 09:00 – 12:30 GMT)
From US: 011 44 8000 30 40 44
From UK: 08000 30 40 44 – ( free if in UK)
The number above is the direct complaints number for ” This Morning, ” on British TV Channel ITV – thus the programme is called ITV This Morning. The person answering this number is obliged to take your details, so even if they try to tell you something different — do not allow yourself to be transferred or ‘ told to ring back.’
As far as what details to give: you only have to give a name and your email * YOU DO NOT HAVE TO GIVE YOUR TEL NUM.* If asked to give your number you can simply say – ‘ when I give my number out to companies, I get marketing calls — but I’m happy to leave my email.’ By not giving your number, you cannot be identified as an overseas caller, and as lots of Americans and Europeans live in the UK –for instance we have lots of American Schools here for sons and daughters of diplomats, people working in banking, finance, publishing etc — an identifiable accent is therefore not an issue. The point is: there are lots of Americans living in the UK.
SECOND NUMBER: ( Lines open 09:00 – 19:00 GMT)
From US: 011 44 844 881 4150
From UK: 0844 881 4150 – ( free if in UK )
This second number is a general complaints number, where they log the amount of complaints. As it is open until 19:00 (GMT), many of you in the US – being up to 8 hours behind UK time, may find it more convienient to call this number. N:B When you call this number an auto voice will ask you to choose options after hearing the selection:
1st step is:–
Press 2 on your telephone pad
2nd step is:–
When the next auto voice asks you to choose again
Press 4 on your telephone pad.
You will then go through to staff who will take your complaint. The phone may ring for a while. Stay on the line. When they do pick up, he/she will ask you which program you are complaining about — your answer should be ‘ This Morning.’ They may then try to blow you off or say ‘oh you need to speak to that department on another number.’ At this point you should politely insist that you already have, but that you want to register your complaint ‘here’ also. Again, you do not have to give telephone number — just a name, and, if they ask for it — an email address. They will however ask you WHERE you are calling from. Below is a selection of places in the UK that you could be calling from. You don’t need to give a street name or door number – just a location is fine. Simply choose ONE ‘area’ from the list below:
*Places in London*:
PADDINGTON
CAMDEN
LISSON GROVE
HAMPSTEAD
LISSON GROVE
WIMBLEDON
EAST FINCHLEY
MILL HILL
HOLLOWAY
FINSBURY PARK
HOLLAND PARK
KILBURN
TURNPIKE LANE
FULHAM
KNIGHTSBRIDGE
ROYAL OAK
LADBROKE GROVE
HACKNEY
ACTON
SHEPHERDS BUSH
BARNES
HIGH BARNET
HIGHGATE
BELSIZE PARK
CHALK FARM
REGENT’S PARK
ISLINGTON
WHITE CITY
ST JOHN’S WOOD
SWISS COTTAGE
QUEEN’S PARK
LONDON BRIDGE
TOWER BRIDGE
STOKE NEWINGTON
WHITECHAPEL
GOLDERS GREEN
HENDON
BATTERSEA
LONDON BRIDGE
PUTNEY
CRICKLEWOOD
WOOD GREEN
SOUTHGATE
FARRINGDON
WAPPING
BISHOPSGATE
EARL’S COURT
ANGEL
BLACKHEATH
LAVENDER HILL
TOWER HAMLETS
BAYSWATER
TEMPLE FORTUNE
BRENT CROSS
MANOR PARK
STRATFORD
STAMFORD HILL
VICTORIA
BROCKLEY
STOCKWELL
CANNING TOWN
STONEBRIDGE
COLINDALE
HAMMERSMITH
EAST HAM
SNARESBROOK
WANDSWORTH
CATFORD
TOOTING
SOUTHFIELDS
LEYTON
NEASDEN
NORWOOD
ELM PARK
* Places outside of London*
BYFLEET
MORDEN
RICKMANSWORTH
STANMORE
WEMBLEY
EDGWARE
RICHMOND
KINGSTON-UPON THAMES
TWICKENHAM
ASCOT
ENFIELD
BARNET
POTTERS BAR
ST ALBANS
BECKENHAM
BARKING
CHIGWELL
MITCHAM
CAMBERLEY
BAGSHOT
WOKING
CHERTSEY
FARNBOROUGH
BROMLEY
KNAPHILL
ALDERSHOT
LIGHTWATER
ST. ALBANS
SHEPPERTON
WOODFORD GREEN
KESTON
BEXLEY HEATH
THORNTON HEATH
VIRGINIA WATER
GERRARDS CROSS
If you are sending emails, please do not sign with fan names, but simply and firmly state your complaint. Even though we are all angry, it is better not to use abusive language, as it makes our argument that it was wrong for Mackenzie to have ‘abused’ Michael’s name and reputation — that much stronger by example.
Email addresses:
And the C.E.O of ITV
This is the information sent to us by Jan which I am immediately placing for everyone to see and act upon:
Hi all,
Something outrageous happened this morning on November 9 on a British television show that we need to address. It is a very clear case of an abuse of Michael Jackson’s name and memory and use of media to do that.
Forwarded below is the substance of the issue.
At 10:35 am on November 9, 2010 on ‘ ITV This Morning,’ a breakfast show programme, presenter Kelvin MacKenzie basically accused MJ of being an abuser, mocked Mr Jackson’s parental link to his children, and ranted offensively about MJ for some time.
Mr MacKenzie did this in response to the airing on US televison of Oprah Winfrey’s programme with Mr Jackson’s parents and his surviving children on November 8, 2010.
ITV this morning is a breakfast show like Good Morning America, there to provide news and magazine style items — not disseminate unproven, seriously accusatory monologues about a dead man to an entire country while they eat their breakfast cereal.
Below are the contact details, both telephone number and email. Obviously it important everyone who cares about Michael’s legacy gets on this. It is also important if they are not resident in the UK, that they do not mention that — or they will not have complainant status.
How to complain specifically to ITV THIS MORNING:
ITV Viewer enquiries
Tel: 08000 30 40 44 end_of_the_skype_highlighting ** and ** 0844 88 14150 end_of_the_skype_highlighting
Those who wish to complain need to use the * first* number before midday. The first telephone number is the specific telephone number of ITV This Morning. The second telephone number is a more general complaints number that is open for longer than the midday cut-off.
Timing is criticial on this as this event happened today on November 9, 2010. Regarding the two telephone numbers above, the first one needs to be called *** before **** midday tomorrow on November 10 — and then continuously until ITV THIS MORNING airs an apology.
You can also email at: viewerservices@itv.com
Alternatively, you can write to:
Viewer Services
ITV Plc
Gas Street
Birmingham
B1 2JT
We also need to complain to OFCOM – the official complaints authority for UK media.
https://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/tell-us/specific-programme-epg
You will need to state your name, address and email in a form to submit, and the programme details itself.
Programme details are: ITV THISMORNING – November 9, 2010 at 10:35.
To specifically complain about presenter: Kelvin Mackenzie.
* Here is a template of how you may wish to word your complaint *
Presenter Kelvin MacKenzie, on the morning of Nov 9 on the ITV THISMORNING, commented on an interview conducted by Oprah Winfrey — a US chat show host – with Michael Jackson s parents and surviving children.
Mr MacKenzie felt it necessary to speculate in a highly offensive manner about the biological resemblance of Michael Jacksons children to their late father, offer his own non-legal, highly accusatory opinion about the serious charges Jackson was accused of in 2005 — and emphatically acquitted, and basically call the late Michael Jackson a child molester on national television.
The nature of his rant, as that is what it was, was in effect, to deliver an outrageous monologue on national television espousing his own obviously negative and highly personalized view of someone who cannot answer back.
This is unacceptable, and goes way beyond the boundaries of professionalism and proper media decorum.
I think, at the very least, an apology to Mr Jacksons family and British viewers is necessary here.
Your Name ( Please do not use fan name ).
* Thank you everyone for helping in this. It is important we all feel we have a right to step up when media abuses its mandate to objectively inform us. Insulting individuals — whether they be dead or alive is simply unacceptable.
UPDATED by Jan:
Hi all,
By now all of you have all the information and the links to make your complaints:
and:
Essentially we need to en masse to OFCOM, and to ITV THIS MORNING direct by telephone and email.
We also need to telephone daily until an on-air apology is made.
The department that you will be phoning ( see both links above) closes each day at midday (GMT) and opens at 08:00 am ( GMT)
A reminder: On British television on November 9, 2010 an ex-editor of a tabloid guesting on the morning show called ITV THIS MORNING
said Michael Jackson’s children and all children were better off now that he was dead. This is a total abuse of media to degrade and criminalize the memory and name of a man declared emphatically innocent in a legal court of law.
It is not enough to call once, we must – if we can, call daily and diligently contact OFCOM with strong, ‘non fanny’ complaints.
This next bit is important:
To qualify to complain at OFCOM you need to be British. If you live outside the UK, before you head to OFCOM’s site, choose a British residence from here ( the link below) (I do hope it is ok, Jan)
http://www.lettingsearch.co.uk/searchprofile.php?U=UPAD
British Telephone numbers begin 0207 OR 0208 then the digit count is XXX XXX e.g 0207 530 4500
At the OFCOM site you will be asked to provide name, UK address, UK telephone number and an email.
Program details are:
ITV This Morning
November 9, 2010
10:35 am
Person we are complaining about is a media commentator NOT a presenter on the show. He was a guest on the show. His name is:
Kelvin MacKenzie.
Please can we all complain everyday.
I am hoping all site owners will urge their members on their sites and all social network facilites to complain. This is literally beyond an outrage.
Thank you.
CHARLES THOMSON on this issue:
Charles Thomson has immediately reacted to this disgraceful show of ultimate human cynicism (thank you, Charles!) and provided a transcript of the conversation together with his comments. Here is the short of it (the full text is available here see: http://charlesthomsonjournalist.blogspot.com/2010/11/kelvin-mckenzie-jackson-was-abuser-and.html):
Kelvin MacKenzie (Guest): Well, she [Paris] gave a good interview but of course she’s been brought up in the limelight. It was quite a nice thing for her to say, I must say, about her dead father. I have much more significant question about how and why some of those children were born and under what circumstances they were born – and whether he, in the end, would have turned out to be a great father. Certainly, there are aspects to him which I think your audience would raise their eyebrows.
…
MacKenzie: OK, well a rather different view to that is that the death of Michael Jackson may well have saved some children, possibly, who knows…
Schofield: Allegedly, though…
MacKenzie: Others…
Schofield: He wasn’t found guilty
MacKenzie: …from a lifetime of being mentally corrupted, shall we say.
….
MacKenzie: He’s faced a number of charges, a number of allegations, and I in some ways feels that the children will have a better life for their father not being around, which is pretty unusual.
Schofield: Those are tough words and I think they would obviously disagree with you there.
MacKenzie’s comments were despicable. He demonstrated a complete lack of respect for the US justice system and for the ethics of his profession. Jackson was proven innocent in a court of law and acquitted of any wrongdoing. But it’s not unusual to witness misinformed pseudo-experts talking rubbish about Jackson’s court case. More alarming in this case was the callousness MacKenzie demonstrated in claiming that the children were better off now that their father was dead.
The comments were, first and foremost, wildly inaccurate. He’d just watched the children recall what a wonderful dad Jackson was to them and list the copious reasons why they missed him every waking day of their lives. There is certainly no evidencial basis on which MacKenzie could possibly claim that the children had been rescued from abuse or corruption by their father’s death. The comments were secondly completely heartless. He acted as though he was concerned for the children’s wellbeing and yet thought nothing of making a series of despicable comments about them and their father. In brief, Kelvin MacKenzie is a hypocrite.
He’s also a bigot. In the past he has claimed that he tailored his newspaper to those who hate ‘wogs’ and ‘queers’. MacKenzie has a long and provable bias against Jackson and, during his time as editor of the Sun, was responsible for countless inaccurate and heavily biased stories about the star. He was also helming the newspaper when it coined the term ‘Wacko Jacko’ in the 1980s.
Given MacKenzie’s long and demonstrable hatred of Michael Jackson, questions must be asked as to why exactly he was asked onto the show in the first place, unless producers were specifically angling for exactly the kind of cruel and heartless comments that he inevitably wound up making.
Moreover, the incident once again raises questions about the validity of television shows which invite non-experts to offer their ill-informed opinions on people they’ve never met and stories that they don’t understand. What purpose does this practice serve? These inane TV spots plagued Jackson during his 2005 trial. ‘Expert panels’ comprising a collection of people who had been nowhere near the courtroom for the duration of Jackson’s trial were routinely assembled on television shows to offer their brainless comments on a court case in which they couldn’t even recite the charge sheet.
MacKenzie’s outburst was unaccaptable. Although entirely devoid of any moral, ethical or factual basis, the comments about the trial were unsurprising. It’s all been said before and – though I’m sure it’ll pain MacKenzie to hear it – far more shockingly. But to announce on television that three orphaned children are better off now their father is dead and proclaim that they should never have been born in the first place – that is beyond vile.
Fans wishing to complain directly to the television show can do so by emailing viewerservces@itv.com
For fans wishing to take their complaints a little further, MacKenzie’s comments also breached numerous segments of the OFCOM Broadcast Code. OFCOM is the UK’s regulatory body for television and radio programming”.
Charles Thomson cites numerous clauses of the Broadcast Code broken by MacKenzie. For details see: http://charlesthomsonjournalist.blogspot.com/2010/11/kelvin-mckenzie-jackson-was-abuser-and.html
UPDATED by Vindicatemj
Michael’s children were his only delight, his sun and moon, his everything in life. They were the dearest and only treasure he had, and hurting the children who adored their father by saying that they are better off with him dead is causing the worst type of offence to them, Michael and his memory.
It is also causing offence to all those who have still retained a little decency, conscience and goodwill. It is a kind of a challenge to all of us – ‘will they swallow it and let it go as if nothing happened’? See how they try it once and there will be no stopping them.
It is an absolute disgrace that an adult like MacKenzy is mean enough to use children to spit out his hatred at Michael. It seems that he – and those who invited him to the show – are still involved in some dirty play behind Michael’s name and are now doing their business at the expense of his children. The fight against Michael is a deadly one and no one is being spared in it – even the small ones.
Are they so terribly afraid of Michael that they can’t live a life of their own without bothering him even now? Is it so terribly necessary to involve his children in these rotten games? Why is there so much need to abuse them with these unhealthy suspicions, innuendoes and petty gossip?
Michael’s children are Michael’s best creation and the best monument to him – so let us not allow these people to touch them with their dirty hands.
Oprah talks to Michael’s children:
Oprah: What do you miss the most?
Paris: Everything…
UPDATED by Vindicatemj on Nov.12, 2010
I hear that OFCOM said “there was nothing wrong with it.”
This urges me to ask ALL PEOPLE – whether they are for or against Jackson – to look into what MacKenzie said and decide for themselves whether his words are morally and ethically acceptable to them.
Let it be a kind of an opinion poll about the text below:
Kelvin MacKenzie: Well, she gave a good interview but of course she’s been brought up in the limelight. It was quite a nice thing for her to say, I must say, about her dead father. I have much more significant question about how and why some of those children were born and under what circumstances they were born – and whether he, in the end, would have turned out to be a great father.
Certainly, there are aspects to him which I think your audience would raise their eyebrows.
…
MacKenzie: OK, well a rather different view to that is that the death of Michael Jackson may well have saved some children, possibly, who knows…
Schofield: Allegedly, though…
MacKenzie: Others…
Schofield: He wasn’t found guilty
MacKenzie: …from a lifetime of being mentally corrupted, shall we say.
Schofield: We don’t know that, though. We don’t know that…
MacKenzie: No, we don’t know that.
Schofield: …that is the case.
MacKenzie: He’s faced a number of charges, a number of allegations, and I in some ways feel that the children will have a better life for their father not being around, which is pretty unusual.
Schofield: Those are tough words and I think they would obviously disagree with you there.
QUESTIONS (please select Yes or No):
- Can the matter of how, why and under what circumstances the children were born be “much more significant” than what Michael’s daughter said about her father being a great dad?
YES NO
- Similarly if someone adopts children, will the circumstances of “how and why they were born” be much more important than the fact that the father raised them in a marvellous way?
YES NO
- Is MacKenzie in a position to doubt that Michael would have turned out to be a great father “in the end”, considering the opinion of his children?
YES NO
- Are the children at 13, 12 and 8 too small to know what they are saying?
YES NO
- Though someone might raise their eyebrows about something they heard earlier (from people like MacKenzie), should they now disregard the message coming from the direct witnesses – the children raised by Michael?
YES NO
- Is what MacKenzie ‘feels’ more important than what Michael’s children say?
YES NO
- If MacKenzie says ‘he doesn’t know’ and acknowledges that Michael was never found guilty does this amount of knowledge give him the right to express a strong opinion that Michael’s death saved other children from moral corruption?
YES NO
- If someone faced some allegations does it automatically mean that the person is guilty?
YES NO
- Is it morally and ethically acceptable for anyone to say about anyone’s children that they will have a better life without their father if the children themselves adored their father and speak exceptionally highly of him?
YES NO
- Is it morally and ethically acceptable for anyone to say that children will be better off with their father dead if they are still grieving about the loss of their beloved dad?
YES NO
- If someone tells you that some rules adopted by some people consider MacKenzie’s behavior acceptable will you agree?
YES NO
Make a round of your neighbors with a questionnaire like that and see what they say. The collective reply may be sent to OFCOM to inform them whether their answer is correct.
This will be the final judgment.
And never mind the rules – the rules are written by people and it is also people who apply them.
Vindicating Michael 
“British Telephone numbers begin 0207 OR 0208 then the digit count is XXX XXX e.g 0207 530 4500”
That’s actually not correct. London numbers are in the ‘020’ code, followed by an 8 figure number, however other codes start ’01’ or ’02’ and are 3 to 6 figures long, followed by a 4 to 8 figure number.
LikeLike
nice sharing .. thanks
LikeLike
Email From Deborah Ffrench: Dec 5 2010
To all those participating in the Beiersdorf ( NIVEA) / ITV boycott:
Who: Beiersdorf AG is a multinational corportion based in Hamburg, Germany, manufacturing personal care products. But our focus is Beiersdorf UK LTD, as that is the company that specifically sponsors ITV Television flagship program — ITV This Morning.
When: November 9, 2010.
What: ITV This Morning invited ex-editor of UK newspaper The Sun — Kelvin Mckenzie — to appear as a guest on the show. While on the show Kelvin Mackenzie said ( paraphrase) that Michael Jackson’s three young children were better off now that their father was dead. Mackenzie furthermore expressed views heavily implying that Michael’s children were not entitled to exist or believe that Michael was their father.
One of the offending remarks: ( full transcript at this link: http://charlesthomsonjournalist.blogspot.com/2010/11/kelvin-mckenzie-jackson-was-abuser-and.html )
Kelvin Mackenzie: “[Michael] faced a number of charges, a number of allegations, and I in some ways feel that the children will have a better life for their father not being around. ”
Why: The chain of liability is threefold but by targeting Beiesdorf UK ( who currently sponsor ITV This Morning) we may have more impact than targeting ITV directly. There are two reasons for this:
1) When ITV learned that we had contacted Beiersdorf, they told Beiersdorf to redirect protesters back to ITV. This is a clear indication that Beiersdorf felt more pressured by the emails and threat of a boycott than ITV do. 2) ITV by telling Beiersdorf to redirect us back to them, are effectively trying to ‘play down’ the news of our boycott to Beiersdorf.
* Therefore it is vital that Beiersdorf UK are continually reminded that the boycott of their organization is very much ‘on!’ *
There are 3 things we can all do as committed supporters of this protest.
1.
Send your polite but strong emails of complaint to the email addresses listed below at least three times a week. Soon it will become a habit. Simply send the same email each time and CC all the recipients you are only sending one each time.
Easy.
In your email, please tell Beiersdorf ‘why’ the boycott is in place, add that all Beiersdorf product lines are being boycotted around the world, and that on-going efforts are in place to spread the news of the boycott. Firmly inform Beiersdorf that all they have to do to ‘change’ this situation, is demand that the company they are in a business relationship with ( ITV) — issue an on-air apology to the Jackson family and This Morning viewers, and send notice of that fact to the viewers they originally contacted with their ‘declination’ email.
Please mention that the only reason this matter has got to this point, is because ITV will not take responsibility for the transmission of gravely offensive content on one of their programs.
You may wish to add in your email that ITV cannot evade this reponsibility, as the track record of Mackenize for making offensive, vile comments is well known in the media. Further, ITV then inflamed a negative PR situation by subsequently inviting Mackenzie back on to This Morning in the same week that they became aware of the substantial offence his comments had caused. You may also wish to say that it is ITV’s demonstrable contempt for their own viewers’ sensibilities — and Michael Jackson’s family — that has left now thousands committed to a long term boycott of all Beiersdorf product lines.
Stress in your email that while your argument is not with Beiersdorf personally, as Beiersforf are the current sponsors of This Morning program –they are undeniably ‘involved.’ Tell Beiersdorf that when they are no longer the sponsors of ITV This Morning, the boycott of their organization will immediately end.
consumer.relations.uk@beiersdorf.com
nicolo.pome@beiersdorf.com
amy.chapman@Beiersdorf.com
richard.eastham@beiersdorf.com
CorporateCommunications@Beiersdorf.com
You can also send physical letters to:
Beiersdorf UK Ltd.
2010 Solihull Parkway
The Birmingham Business Park
B37 7YS Birmingham
United Kingdom
2:
We need as many people as possible to join the protest. Please tell everyone you know about the Beiersdorf ( NIVEA) / ITV Boycott. Post this message everywhere on the web. Urge people to join the boycott. Tell them that by exercising their consumer choice they have the power to send a message to Beiersdorf and ITV that their irresponsibility and condoning of Mackenizie’s behavior is completely unacceptable and has consequences.
3:
This is a list of current product lines by Beiersdorf. Please do not buy or consume them.
# basis
# Duo
# Elastoplast
# Eucerin (makers of Aquaphor)
# Florena
# Hansaplast
# JUVENA
# Labello Lipcare (also called ‘Liposan’)
# La Prairie (stylized as ‘la prairie’)
# Marlies Möller
# NIVEA
# SBT (abbreviated from ‘Skin Biology Therapy’)
# Slek
# NIVEA FOR MEN
Finally:
Please remember, the effective components of rebuttal are:
Facts only
Good grammar
Correct punctuation and spelling (use spell check!)
No strident language (stay calm, cool and collected)
No fan monikers (use gender neutral monikers)
No Michael Jackson avatars
No over-the-top Michael adoration in your message
The Beiersdorf ( NIVEA) / ITV BOYCOTT is now in effect.
#
We are in this for the long haul, and we are committed to this peaceful protest because it is the right thing to do. From time to time please visit this link http://mackenzie-protest.blogspot.com/2010/11/next-step-nivea-boycott.html
#
Read all the posts there and look out for updates as they will be posted there as the boycott progresses.
Thank you.
LikeLike
Guys, here is a reminder about a couple of important things.
1) Nivea is sponsoring ITV , the British channel which was exceptionally rude to Michael Jackson’s children by allowing their MacKenzie guest say that they are better off with Michael dead. ITV turned out to be completely indifferent to the protests of its viewers who demanded an apology from the channel. They still go on inviting the guy to their shows as their special guest.
Sometimes money is more persuasive than words, so it probably won’t hurt if we boycott Nivea products to exert some pressure on ITV via their sponsors. Please click here for further information:
http://mackenzie-protest.blogspot.com/2010/12/nivea-boycott-and-itv-long-view.html
2) Another thing I wanted to remind you of is tomorrow’s talk by Charles Thomson on blogtalk radio. Charles is going to answer questions about Michael Jackson and the shark that was biting off Michael bit by bit for so many years (I mean the Media). Charles’ view on the subject as a professional journalist is invaluable, so it is a complete must to listen to him – please join in here:
MJ & the Media ~ Friday December 3 @ 15:00 CST / 21:00 GMT Charles Thomson speaks and answers questions: http://tinyurl.com/2vk5gjm
LikeLike
Just to let you know I have posted a comment on NIVEAs FaceBook page just now ~ don’t know what effect it will have ~ if any!!!
Also, no one here has yet mentioned the petition for the ‘California Legacy Anti-Defamation Law’ available here:-
http://tinyurl.com/2ffcbsg
Peace, Love & Light
LikeLike
UPDATE: Nov 23, 2010
From: Deborah Ffrench: A change in stategy
http://mackenzie-protest.blogspot.com/2010/11/next-step-nivea-boycott.html
LikeLike
Dialdancer,
Well, Randy was on twitter Wednesday night. He mostly spoke on the album and all the issues concerning that. Me and quite of other people were letting him know about the Mackenzie situation and asking him to help.
Two articles I’ve seen retweeted by Deborah Ffrench:
http://mackenzie-protest.blogspot.com/2010/11/calling-randy-jackson.html
http://mackenzie-protest.blogspot.com/2010/11/itv-rewriting-history.html
I saw all these tweets from people who were ticked off on twitter. I asked what in there world is going on? Then Deborah tweeted this to me:
‘Kelvin Mackenzie was just on another TV program and lots of non-MJ fans are imploding about it, the hate is that strong. which of course makes it all the more reprehensible that ITV should have had him on TM — they knew exactly what would happen.’ From the tweets I read over it seems he was on BBC Question Time (?)’
LikeLike
Any updates? Change of strategy. I do not FB so I am unable to keep up that way.
LikeLike
Ok here’s the new letter I just sent to Sunderland and CC 2 the other ITV staff. You’ll notice I address that cookie cutter email in my letter below, that Sunderland’s been sending out…smh
Mr. Sunderland, Mr. Crozier & ITV staff.
Thank for your reply. I pose this question to you. How would you feel if Mackenzie said that your children would be better off without you if Heavens forbid you were deceased? How would you feel if Mackenzie sat there on national television and questioned why were your children even born? With all due respect. I’m not comprehending how ITV can cowardly defend a person who’s proven track recorded is so vile and beyond disrespectful to other human beings. Eg Hillborough disaster and false article he wrote about Elton John, published in January 1987.
You mentioned Mr. Philip Schofield and I must say I completely disagree. Mr. Schofield did nothing to correct the misinformation that Mackenzie told to the public audience. Whether, Schofield may/may not have agreed with Mackenzie. Schofield did in turn still leave doubt out there to the audience’s mind against a man you was proven innocent in the court of law and who is no longer here to defend himself. I’ve done more than what a majority of the people who are in the media who have a platform fail to do. And that is I’ve read and researched the legal documents, looked at the actual court transcripts, looked at the FBI files, every single piece of information about 93 & 05. I know the facts and the truth.
You Mr. Sunderland said that there was nothing to apologize for. Then, please tell me why the video of Mackenzie was taken down from the iplayer of this broadcast so abruptly? Then, you quickly create a copy & paste email to send to people who are filing their complaints. That I must say is only trying to whitewash what you all know is wrong.
Michael Jackson was innocent period. There’s no amount of vile talk from Mackenzie and no amount of back dooring that’s ever going to change that fact or that truth! What Mackenzie did was publicly verbally abuse 3 children grieving their father. Also, for this man to be asked to appear on ‘This Morning’ again today. Is not a company who is talking the complaints being filed by me and countless others seriously. And your staff, hosts, guests are all agreeing with Mackenzie. Saying that it was ok to welcome this man who just verbally abused 3 children who are still grieving the lost of their father.
Mackenzie breached these OFCOM codes (Section 2.2, 2.3, 7.1, 7.9 & 7.11). Its time for you and your colleagues to man up and woman up and adhere to common decency, morals, ethics and integrity. Follow the guidelines that have been established and put in place in the OFCOM code. If OFCOM fails that doesn’t mean the you and the people of ITV need to follow suit and fail right along with them. The Jackson family. Especially, Michael Jackson’s children deserve, as well as the public deserve a sincere on-air apology. You would expect the same apology, if Mackenzie did this to you and your children. I know it and you know it, and if you say ‘I don’t know that’. Then you are lying to yourself.
Sincerely,
Breached OFCOM codes by Mackenzie, which you are condoning ITV. (pasted Charles Thomson’s code violations again)
LikeLike
So does that mean we don’t count, that we stop? Perhaps they do not understand that Michael Jackson Fans are consumers. It is one of my favorite arguments. The only thing
these people understand is money. It is what drives them. This information needs to
be truly sent to the MJ UK Fan bases to get them involved in the calling or emailing efforts. No more attempting to sound British.
US and others keep pushing the emails. With one or two phrases like: Thank you, but that is not an apology or Thank you, but that does not solve the problem. I await to hear the apology to the children and Jackson Family. Each and everyday. They send us a standard letter we send them one back. The same each day until they apologize. If we can social network in mass for hours about an album then we can take care of this. It takes 10 minutes. This is a test.
LikeLike
“Basically they are saying we know it’s fans who are complaining cos we know that no one else gives a dam.”
Yes, you are right, Chris – they definitely want to produce the impression that only Michael’s fans are outraged while for all the others this type of behavior is fully acceptable. Okay, I agree – let Michael’s fans be the best – the most ethical, compassionate, honest and honorable people ever.
LikeLike
Basically they are saying we know it’s fans who are complaining cos we know that no one else gives a dam. So, we ain’t gunna do anything and theres nothing you can do about it.
I promise you guys one day these people are gunna get it and it’s gunna cost them everything.
I’ve said to fans for years the British press/people are far more ignorant and xenophobic than any other in the world they never believed me til now.
I’m English i can say it, cos i see it all the time.
LikeLike
To GiGi & All,
Received the same, but supposedly from Edith Stroud-Caules | Viewers Enquiries Co-Ordinator | ITV Studios | ITV plc
(So I will draft a new email thanking them for theirs, but it does not resovle the situation and that I noticed Kelvin was on the programme again today.)
————————————————————————————-
(At least yours addressed by name)
Thank you for your email.
We are very sorry that you were offended by the comments made by Kelvin
McKenzie on This Morning on 9 November. We accept that his comments
about Michael Jackson caused offence to some viewers, which we regret.
However, when Mr McKenzie gave his opinion on the safety of children
formerly in the care of Michael Jackson, and referred to the well known
allegations that were made about him, the programme’s presenter Philip
Schofield did point out immediately that Michael Jackson was not found
guilty in relation to those allegations, and that no-one knows that any
children in his care would be at risk. Following Mr McKenzie’s further
comment that Michael Jackson’s children will have a better life without
him, Philip challenged him again, and said the children would obviously
disagree with Mr McKenzie’s “tough words”. He also invited viewers to
give their views on Mr McKenzie’s comments, making clear that these were
not expressed by the programme but by Mr McKenzie in a personal
capacity. Later on in the programme, a comment was read out from a
viewer who strongly disagreed with Mr McKenzie’s views.
Although we acknowledge Mr McKenzie’s comments were offensive to some
viewers, they were challenged and contextualised immediately by the
presenter. In the context of a spontaneous live discussion about a
highly controversial (and deceased) celebrity, arising from a talking
point in the news (namely the Jackson children’s recent TV interview
with Oprah Winfrey), we consider that the programme overall exhibited
balance. Whilst we appreciate that some viewers, particularly fans of
Michael Jackson, would strongly disagree with Mr McKenzie’s personal
opinions, we do not agree that the programme was inaccurate as such (as
the comments were clearly expressed as opinion) or that it breached
generally accepted standards. Overall the presenters and the other
contributor (Lesley Joseph) were supportive of the children’s decision
to be interviewed and stated that they were well-adjusted and had
expressed their love for their father.
Regards
This Morning Programme
Edith Stroud-Caules | Viewers Enquiries Co-Ordinator | ITV Studios | ITV plc
Tel: 0207 928 3137 | edith.stroud-caules@itv.com
ITV plc Head Office Tel +44 (0) 20 7157 3000 http://www.itv.com/
Please consider the environment before printing this email
LikeLike
In my country libelling the dead falls under the penal code instructions and the punishment is imprisonment. ITV is composed by a banch of gipsies with no ethics, no brain and no class.
LikeLike
I figured is was a cookie cutter response email from Sunderland. I was going to write another letter to them today. Then I saw Deborah’s tweets. She said that Mackenzie was back on ‘This Morning’ today…smh. What a slap in the face by ITV. I’m going to keep writing them. I’m sure Deborah will give some details later on.
LikeLike
“In the context of a spontaneous live discussion about a highly controversial (and deceased) celebrity ….
Gigi, see how they stress that Michael is deceased (unfortunately deceased). Recently Charles Thomson called the UK law under which everyone is allowed to say dirt about the dead STUPID because the reason behind it is that “they no longer have a reputation to defend”.
I would call this law CRIMINAL for absolutely the same reason – while a person is alive he still has a possibility to defend himself (in court, in the media or by challenging the offender to a duel as they did it in the past centuries) but as soon as he is no longer here he is helpless and cannot do anything to stand for his good name. So slandering a person after his death is an awfully cowardly, mean and dishonorable behavior – even more dishonorable than doing it during his lifetime – they loosen their poisonous tongues as they know that they will go unpunished.
However there is one social and decency norm which protects people from slander after death and I am surprised that gentlemen like MacKenzie and Mark Sunderland from ITV don’t know it – it is “Speak no ill of the dead”, especially about the recently deceased ones. It does not have the status of a law but it is a well-respected social norm going back to at least the 6th century BC and which no one has yet annulled.
It does not prevent anyone from telling the truth about a person, so if someone committed a crime which cannot be disputed (Hitler) or was found guilty during his lifetime it is okay to say that he was – because it is no slander, but if someone was NEVER found guilty and was even ACQUITTED and found INNOCENT it is a crime to say otherwise, especially if the person is no longer here to speak for himself.
Laws are written by human beings and human beings tend to make mistakes. The situation with the innocent dead is such that you practically feel you cannot speak ill of them as the law inside you does not allow you to do it. I hope the majority of people have not yet forgotten this norm of behavior and still consider it highly dishonest, immoral and unethical to breach it.
So if the legislation cannot stop this guy and those who cover up for him from verbally poisoning the atmosphere, then the court of public opinion should have its say and condemn this type of behavior as completely unacceptable, highly unscrupulous and absolutely despicable.
And if someone forgot this ancient maxim they should be reminded of it – especially if violating this norm offends the innocent orphaned children of this innocent dead. And if we are to talk about who commits crimes here I am afraid it is MacKenzie who is the real culprit.
“We do not agree that the programme was inaccurate as such or that it breached generally accepted standards.”
So much worse for the standards. The way Mark Sunderland understands them they must be virtually non-existent for him and his company – and it is simply impossible to breach something which is not there. To be able to breach it you must first have it.
LikeLike
@gigi That’s the same response I got form ITV CEO. They just copy and paste the same thing
LikeLike
@gigi
Lame response, for a lame program and a lame person.
LikeLike
Here’s an email I got from Mark Sutherland, program lawyer for ITV.
Dear Ms Moore
Thank you for your email, which has been passed on to me for response.
We are very sorry that you were offended by the comments made by Kelvin McKenzie on This Morning on 9 November. We accept that his comments about Michael Jackson caused offence to some viewers, which we regret.
However, when Mr McKenzie gave his opinion on the safety of children formerly in the care of Michael Jackson, and referred to the well known allegations that were made about him, the programme’s presenter Philip Schofield did point out immediately that Michael Jackson was not found guilty in relation to those allegations, and that no-one knows that any children in his care would be at risk. Following Mr McKenzie’s further comment that Michael Jackson’s children will have a better life without him, Philip challenged him again, and said the children would obviously disagree with Mr McKenzie’s “tough words”. He also invited viewers to give their views on Mr McKenzie’s comments, making clear that these were not expressed by the programme but by Mr McKenzie in a personal capacity. Later on in the programme, a comment was read out from a viewer who strongly disagreed with Mr McKenzie’s views.
Although we acknowledge Mr McKenzie’s comments were offensive to some viewers, they were challenged and contextualised immediately by the presenter. In the context of a spontaneous live discussion about a highly controversial (and deceased) celebrity, arising from a talking point in the news (namely the Jackson children’s recent TV interview with Oprah Winfrey), we consider that the programme overall exhibited balance. Whilst we appreciate that some viewers, particularly fans of Michael Jackson, would strongly disagree with Mr McKenzie’s personal opinions, we do not agree that the programme was inaccurate as such (as the comments were clearly expressed as opinion) or that it breached generally accepted standards. Overall the presenters and the other contributor (Lesley Joseph) were supportive of the children’s decision to be interviewed and stated that they were well-adjusted and had expressed their love for their father.
Thank you for taking the time to contact ITV.
Yours sincerely
Mark Sunderland
Mark Sunderland | Senior Programme Lawyer | Legal | ITV plc
Tel: 020 7157 3253 | Fax: 020 7157 3274 | Mark.Sunderland@ITV.com
LikeLike
Information on how to protest about MacKenzie. Deborah is doing a great campaign
http://mackenzie-protest.blogspot.com/2010/11/how-to-support-kelvin-mackenzie-protest.html
LikeLike
(cont) Information
* Remember: We are asking for an an-air apology for the gross offence caused by Kelvin Mackenzie’s comments*
( If you do not live in the UK, find out what the international code is from your country)
1st Number:
(0 11) 44 8000 30 40 44 (Lines open 09:00 GMT – 12:30 GMT) ( If you live in UK: call 08000 30 40 44 – free)
The number above is the direct complaints number for ” This Morning, ” on British TV Channel ITV – thus the programme is called ITV This Morning. The person answering this number is obliged to take your details, so even if they try to tell you something different — do not allow yourself to be transferred or ‘ told to ring back.’
As far as what details to give: you only have to give a name and your email * YOU DO NOT HAVE TO GIVE YOUR TEL NUMBER.* If asked to give your number you can simply say – ‘ when I give my number out to companies, I get marketing calls — but I’m happy to leave my email.’ By not giving your number, you cannot be identified as an overseas caller, and as lots of Americans and Europeans live in the UK –for instance we have lots of American Schools here for sons and daughters of diplomats, people working in banking, finance, publishing etc — an identifiable accent is therefore not an issue. The point is: there are lots of Americans living in the UK.
2nd Number:
0 11 44 844 881 4150 (Lines open 09:00 GMT – 19:00 GMT) ( If you live in UK: call 0844 881 4150 -free)
This second number is a general complaints number, where they log the amount of complaints. As it is open until 19:00 (GMT), many of you in the US – being up to 8 hours behind UK time, may find it more convienient to call this number. N:B When you call this number you will be prompted an auto voice will ask you to choose options, after hearing the selection:
1st step is:–
Press 2 on your telephone pad
2nd step is:–
When the next auto voice asks you to choose again
Press 4 on your telephone pad.
You will then go through to staff who will take your complaint. The phone may ring for a while. Stay on the line. When they do pick up, he/she will ask you which program you are complaining about — your answer should be ‘ This Morning.’ They may then try to blow you off or say ‘oh you need to speak to that department on another number.’ At this point you should politely insist that you already have, but that you want to register your complaint ‘here’ also. Again, you do not have to give telephone number — just a name, and, if they ask for it — an email address.
They will however ask you WHERE you are calling from. Below is a selection of places in the UK that you could be calling from. You don’t need to give a street name or door number – just a location is fine. Simply choose ONE ‘area’ from the list below:
*Places in London*:
PADDINGTON
CAMDEN
LISSON GROVE
HAMPSTEAD
LISSON GROVE
WIMBLEDON
EAST FINCHLEY
MILL HILL
HOLLOWAY
FINSBURY PARK
HOLLAND PARK
KILBURN
TURNPIKE LANE
FULHAM
KNIGHTSBRIDGE
ROYAL OAK
LADBROKE GROVE
HACKNEY
ACTON
SHEPHERDS BUSH
BARNES
HIGH BARNET
HIGHGATE
BELSIZE PARK
CHALK FARM
REGENT’S PARK
ISLINGTON
WHITE CITY
ST JOHN’S WOOD
SWISS COTTAGE
QUEEN’S PARK
LONDON BRIDGE
TOWER BRIDGE
STOKE NEWINGTON
WHITECHAPEL
GOLDERS GREEN
HENDON
BATTERSEA
LONDON BRIDGE
PUTNEY
CRICKLEWOOD
WOOD GREEN
SOUTHGATE
FARRINGDON
WAPPING
BISHOPSGATE
EARL’S COURT
ANGEL
BLACKHEATH
LAVENDER HILL
TOWER HAMLETS
BAYSWATER
TEMPLE FORTUNE
BRENT CROSS
MANOR PARK
STRATFORD
STAMFORD HILL
VICTORIA
BROCKLEY
STOCKWELL
CANNING TOWN
STONEBRIDGE
COLINDALE
HAMMERSMITH
EAST HAM
SNARESBROOK
WANDSWORTH
CATFORD
TOOTING
SOUTHFIELDS
LEYTON
NEASDEN
NORWOOD
ELM PARK
And
* Places outside of London*
BYFLEET
MORDEN
RICKMANSWORTH
STANMORE
WEMBLEY
EDGWARE
RICHMOND
KINGSTON-UPON THAMES
TWICKENHAM
ASCOT
ENFIELD
BARNET
POTTERS BAR
ST ALBANS
BECKENHAM
BARKING
CHIGWELL
MITCHAM
CAMBERLEY
BAGSHOT
WOKING
CHERTSEY
FARNBOROUGH
BROMLEY
KNAPHILL
ALDERSHOT
LIGHTWATER
ST. ALBANS
SHEPPERTON
WOODFORD GREEN
KESTON
BEXLEY HEATH
THORNTON HEATH
VIRGINIA WATER
GERRARDS CROSS
If you are sending emails, please do not sign with fan names, but simply and firmly state your complaint. Even though we are all angry, it is better not to use abusive language, as it makes our argument that it was wrong for Mackenzie to have ‘abused’ Michael’s name and reputation — that much stronger by example.
Email addresses:
viewerservices@itv.com and the C.EO of ITV adam.crozier@itv.com
” It’s up to us or it will never be done.”
LikeLike
Message from Deborah Ffrench about the last news on MacKenzie campaign
Update: Mackenzie Protest: Monday November 15.
Due to the raising of voices in protest at the contemptible and shocking comments of Kelvin Mackenzie, ITV removed the segment where the ex-Sun editor made those comments. This was a tacit admission by ITV that this incident was indeed offensive. OFCOM thought otherwise. But the decision to continue the protest has rippled through an ever-growing group of concerned individuals – both in the UK and around the world.
Now with the news that not only Taj Jackson, but also Mr Paul W Jones, US Ambassador to Malaysia, have added their voices to the growing chorus of protest over Kelvin MacKenzie’s controversial comments — fresh impetus has been added to the protest which resumes from November 15.
We are hoping the media will pick up on this story, and those participating in this effort are being asked to tip Roger Friedman and other media outlets, the links to a sawf news article: http://tinyurl.com/2u48hfy – which report’s Taj Jackson’s comments, and also British journalist, Charles Thomson’s report about the Malaysian Ambassador: http://tinyurl.com/36zv6a3
Now is the time to reinforce the pressure on ITV. We are asking ITV for more than just a removal of the MacKenzie segment. We are asking ITV to officially distance themselves from a man with a proven history of making inaccurate, repellent statements — and further, to offer a simple, and sincere apology to both the Jackson family and those around the world — including UK viewers — who are profoundly disgusted that no on-air apology has as yet been forthcoming. All those joining us from tomorrow, Monday, November 15, are advised to follow Charles Thomson, Seven’s, or Deborah Ffrench’s tweets to get updates about information you will need to come across as resident in the UK when you call the ITV complaint lines, and to also read the information below:
LikeLike
Taj’s threat made it to the news: http://www.sawfnews.com/Gossip/65728.aspx
LikeLike
Several updates from Charles Thomson
http://charlesthomsonjournalist.blogspot.com/2010/11/us-ambassador-lends-support-to-kelvin.html
LikeLike
One more add:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/the-hilary-clarke-interview-kelvin-mackenzie–kelvins-steaming-mad-1069413.html
Hilary Clarke Sunday, 7 February 1999
– MacKenzie calls me at the office the next day. He fears I might misinterpret his anger with the BBC. He also wanted to make sure he had been positive about Campbell and Blair. He asks me write a nice article and says he might be able to return the favour one day. When I try to point out that as a journalist I will try to be objective he lets rip. “A fucking journalist. You do me a favour and I’ll do you one. That’s the way it works.” He pauses for breath, and then: “I already did you a favour I gave you an fucking interview. Look after yerself petal.” And he hangs up.
LikeLike
Adds to Suzy’s research:
On the 19th of April 1989, four days after 94 (which eventually rose to 96) Liverpool supporters lost their lives at Hillsborough, Kelvin MacKenzie (editor) and The Sun newspaper printed the following headline:
“The Truth.
Some fans picked pockets of victims
Some fans urinated on the brave cops
Some fans beat up PC giving kiss of life.”
While families of the bereaved and survivors of the disaster were still coming to terms with what happened four days earlier, they were hit with another blow, they were being blamed for killing their own.
It was all of course a pack of lies, printed for the sole reason of selling more papers. Evidently, with a 21 year-strong boycott of the newspaper on Merseyside, it has had the opposite effect. Despite thinly veiled-so called ’apologies’ from the rag many years after MacKenzie had left, the boycott has stood strong and has been justified after the following quote from him:
“I only apologised because Rupert Murdoch told me to. I wasn’t sorry then and I’m not sorry now because we told the truth.”
Although the boycott is strong, there are still a number of Liverpool supporters who still buy The Sun, hopefully this website will go some way in educating them.
http://dontbuythesun.co.uk/site/feed/
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Martin Bashir …. currently (2003) working for ITV, Britain’s most popular television network ( joining ITV in 1999).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
More than 14 million viewers watched Monday’s UK TV documentary in which Michael Jackson… .
The ITV1 programme attracted 14.1 million viewers according to unofficial overnight figures, one of the highest ever figures for a TV documentary and taking 53.9% of viewers.
Towards the end of the 110-minute programme – as Jackson was seen discussing his relationships with children – over 60% of UK TV viewers were watching.
It was made by Martin Bashir, whose BBC interview with Diana, Princess of Wales in 1995 attracted an audience of 22.8 million…
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/2719763.stm
LikeLike
Thomson’s new entry on OFCOM’s actions about MacKenzie comments
http://charlesthomsonjournalist.blogspot.com/2010/11/ofcom-bullying-grieving-orphans-doesnt.html
LikeLike
Hi! I am from India and I do not get to see any of the ITV programmes . But I have used your form to complain to ITV about the interview. I hope you can stop all the slander about MJ in your Country and Britain. He has suffered more than anybody can humanly suffer from the media.Wish you and his nephews all the best.
LikeLike
This is an email I got from ITV. Was caught by my spam box this morning. I didn’t even see it until now.
Dear Gigi
Thank you for your email regarding This Morning.
I can confirm that I have forwarded your email to the This Morning production office for their attention.
Alternatively, you can contact them directly on 0800 030 40 44 or email thismorning@itv.com
May I take this opportunity to thank you for taking the time to contact us here at ITV as we always welcome viewers feedback.
Regards
ITV VIEWER SERVICES -KB
LikeLike
CONTACT INFO UPDATE:
From Deborah Fffench,
ITV This Morning now will only issue an apology if enough ‘nuisance’ factor is generated by fans doing the following:
1: Emailing viewerservices@itv.com and adam.crozier@itv.com daily.
2: Calling these two telephone numbers:
To protest to ITV DIRECT 1st number : For US dial 011 44 8000 30 40 44
For UK call 08000 30 40 44 That number open from 09:00 TO 12:30 ( GMT) Mon-Fri
2nd number : For US dial 011 44 844 881 4150 and For UK call 0844 881 4150. That number open from 09:00 to 19:00 ( GMT) Mon- Fri
3: The other thing people are being asked to do is forward the softpedia link:
http://tinyurl.com/3a2k3zl
about the Mackenzie story to Roger Freidman, Harvey Levin, the major news networks and sending it to celebrity friends of MJ’s — like WillIAM, Cory Rooney, Teddy Riley, Elizabeth Taylor, Karen Faye, Taj, the Jackson brothers, Erin Jacobs. If any of these celebrities asks for more details, please also forward to them the:
full transcript of Mackenzie’s comments: http://tinyurl.com/238kbw9
———————————————————————————————————–
Since when did adults become ok with leveling this kind of insult at innocent children?
LikeLike
@ Helena
That’s exactly what I thought! Why is it so that in the media today it’s always the totally moralless people who are the opinion leaders? The Diande Dimonds, Nancy Graces, Kelvin MacKenzies of this world. Why?
LikeLike
“MacKenzie later said of Elton John: “I think The Sun should have its million quid back. It hasn’t damaged him at all, has it? Libel can only have a value if there has been some kind of damage, right? Where is the damage? Where? There’s nothing wrong with him. So no, I don’t feel bad about him, not at all.”
“When I published those stories, they were not lies. They were great stories that later turned out to be untrue — and that is different. What am I supposed to feel ashamed about?”
INCREDIBLE. He is simply an assassin presenting danger to the general public. Or someone completely crazy whose place is in a lunatic asylum.
However ITV did invite the madman to comment on the show with Michael’s children. It is a topsy-turvy world where crasy ones pass judgment on the sane, and those who are ill determine the destiny of the wholesome.
LikeLike
“People have been saying that before the public ever saw them. Their were stories printed about how he supposedly used another man’s DNA to impregnate Debbie Rowe, and this was before any pictures were released of any of his kids.”
The reason why they were doing it was to humiliate Michael and break his spirit. Strike him where it hurt most. These people have released in themselves their worst animal instincts and were simply mad with the smell of blood.
LikeLike
I don’t know who this Kelvin MacKenzie is, so I googled, look what I found:
“In January 1987, MacKenzie published a front-page story alleging that pop singer Elton John had had sex with underage rentboys. These claims were without any foundation and entirely false.
[…]
Elton John sued The Sun for libel over both these claims and was later awarded £1,000,000 in damages.[15] MacKenzie later said of Elton John:
“I think The Sun should have its million quid back. It hasn’t damaged him at all, has it? Libel can only have a value if there has been some kind of damage, right? Where is the damage? Where? There’s nothing wrong with him. So no, I don’t feel bad about him, not at all.”
“Indeed, many commentators accused MacKenzie and his team of simply inventing many of the stories that appeared in the newspaper, as well as interviews, and in some instances this was proven to be the case, most notably when an entirely fabricated interview with the disfigured Falklands war hero Simon Weston was published, which was criticised for “inviting readers to feel revulsion at his disfigurement”.[5]”
“Some other notable controversies that occurred under MacKenzie include a headline describing Australian Aborigines as “The Abo’s: Brutal and Treacherous” (which was condemned as “inaccurate” and “unacceptably racist” by the Press Council)[1] and MacKenzie’s sending of photographers to break into a psychiatric hospital to ask actor Jeremy Brett, who was a patient in the hospital at the time and who was suffering from manic depression and dying of cardiomyopathy, whether he was “dying of AIDS”. The newspaper apparently suspected Brett of being a homosexual and that his mystery illness might be AIDS, which it wasn’t.[16]”
“On the subject of the sensationalist and sometimes inaccurate reporting which appeared in The Sun during his time as editor, MacKenzie has said:
“When I published those stories, they were not lies. They were great stories that later turned out to be untrue — and that is different. What am I supposed to feel ashamed about?[2]”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelvin_MacKenzie
LikeLike
“i have other reasons, apart from the racial issue, as to why they are so negative about Michael having those children, but i am not going to mention them because i don’t want to piss Helena of. LOL”
Ares, please say what you think fit. You are not obliged to agree with what I am saying – it was my opinion only and you are entitled to yours. Every person’s opinion is interesting and this way we will probably get to the truth sooner.
And sorry for asking this but could you decipher LOL? I see many people using it but I keep forgetting what it is.
“What is important to me, though, is this whole tendency in the mass media that, when it Comes to Michael, they can say whatever they like and no one objects them”
Yes, this tendency is too noticeable not to pay attention to it. It is as if all of them have received a permission not to restrain themselves with too much conscience. It reminds me of one historic character of the 20th century who allowed his soldiers to commit atrocities by saying “I release you of your conscience”.
LikeLike
@JA
You may have a right at some point,though it never crossed my mind that people might say that, implying what you said. I have to say that i disagree with the non racial factor.The people who you cited that have adopted children are all White. Michael was a black man whose children are white, or not as black as a black’s man children should be ,according to their logic. To tell you the truth, i have other reasons, apart from the racial issue, as to why they are so negative about Michael having those children, but i am not going to mention them because i don’t want to piss Helena of. LOL
What is important to me, though, is this whole tendency in the mass media that, when it Comes to Michael, they can say whatever they like and no one objects them, no one sais anything about the facts (like the “gentelman” in that show and the host who didn’t try to stop him from spreding his pathetics lies and his biased opinion) I think that this has to stop now. Enough with the lies already.
LikeLike
“OFCOM said there was nothing wrong with it.”
Well, Gigi, whatever this OFCOM said we have our own brains, don’t we?
I am now asking ALL PEOPLE – whether they are for or against Jackson – to look into what MacKenzie said and decide for themselves whether his words are morally and ethically acceptable (to them). Let it be a kind of an opinion poll:
Kelvin MacKenzie: Well, she gave a good interview but of course she’s been brought up in the limelight. It was quite a nice thing for her to say, I must say, about her dead father. I have much more significant question about how and why some of those children were born and under what circumstances they were born – and whether he, in the end, would have turned out to be a great father. Certainly, there are aspects to him which I think your audience would raise their eyebrows. [ ]
MacKenzie: OK, well a rather different view to that is that the death of Michael Jackson may well have saved some children, possibly, who knows…
Schofield: Allegedly, though…
MacKenzie: Others…
Schofield: He wasn’t found guilty
MacKenzie: …from a lifetime of being mentally corrupted, shall we say.
Schofield: We don’t know that, though. We don’t know that…
MacKenzie: No, we don’t know that.
Schofield: …that is the case.
MacKenzie: He’s faced a number of charges, a number of allegations, and I in some ways feel that the children will have a better life for their father not being around, which is pretty unusual.
Schofield: Those are tough words and I think they would obviously disagree with you there.
QUESTIONS (please select Yes or No):
Can the matter of how, why and under what circumstances the children were born be “much more significant” than what Michael’s daughter said about her father being a great dad?
YES NO
Similarly if someone adopts children, will the circumstances of “how and why they were born” be much more important than the fact that the father raised them in a marvellous way?
YES NO
Is MacKenzie in a position to doubt that Michael would have turned out to be a great father “in the end”, considering the opinion of his children?
YES NO
Are the children at 13, 12 and 8 too small to know what they are saying?
YES NO
Though someone might raise their eyebrows about something they heard earlier (from people like MacKenzie), should they now disregard the message coming from the direct witnesses – the children raised by Michael?
YES NO
Is what MacKenzie ‘feels’ more important than what Michael’s children say?
YES NO
If MacKenzie says ‘he doesn’t know’ and acknowledges that Michael was never found guilty does this amount of knowledge give him the right to express a strong opinion that Michael’s death saved other children from moral corruption?
YES NO
If someone faced some allegations does it automatically mean that the person is guilty?
YES NO
Is it morally and ethically acceptable for anyone to say about anyone’s children that they will have a better life without their father if the children themselves adored their father and speak exceptionally highly of him?
YES NO
Is it morally and ethically acceptable for anyone to say that children will be better off with their father dead if they are still grieving about the loss of their beloved dad?
YES NO
If someone tells you that some rules adopted by some people consider MacKenzie’s behavior acceptable will you agree?
YES NO
Make a round of your neighbors with a questionnaire like that and see what they say. The collective reply may be sent to OFCOM to inform them whether their answer is correct.
This will be the final judgment. And never mind the rules – the rules are written by people too and it is also people who apply them.
LikeLike
I saw just this update :
“Taj Jackson has just tweeted that the family is considering legal action if an on-air apology is not made.
With Taj’s boost, there are now 22, 000 people with access to the full contact complaint information… .
Tweet is alive with the message that the fans want to continue with the protest.
Lets keep going.”
LikeLike
Helena,
I didn’t mean to offend, but I truly believe that’s their reasoning. I have always felt that way. People thinking they’re not his kids have nothing to do with their skin color or hair texture. People have been saying that before the public ever saw them. Their were stories printed about how he supposedly used another man’s DNA to impregnate Debbie Rowe, and this was before any pictures were release of any of his kids. I know it’s sick and twisted, but I really think it’s true. Think about it. Why would anyone care if he had his own kids or not? Why would it be a big deal if he indeed adopted them? Celebrities adopt kids all the time. It’s not really even a race issue. Tom Cruise, Nicole Kidman, Madonna, Brad Pitt, and Angelina Jolie have all adopted Black children and no one says a word about it. What would be the big deal if Michael Jackson decided to adopt kids that weren’t the same race as him?
The “they don’t look like him” argument is a cover-up for what they really want to say, but are too afraid to. His kids DO look like him. They’re BIRACIAL. Their Mother is White. It’s crazy to think that they’re not going to have lighter skin and different hair texture than Black people. Those kids are definitely Biracial, but people still want to say they’re not his. And notice that the people saying that they’re not his kids are the same ones who think the allegations are true.
People are vile. That’s why Joy Behar and that British dude made those asinine claims.
LikeLike
adam.crozier@itv.com –
the C.E.O of ITV
LikeLike
ITV CEO: Adam.Crozier@itv.com
LikeLike
Charles Thomson posted this via twitter ‘ITV has removed the offending MacKenzie clip from Tuesday’s episode on ITVplayer but still refuses to give fans/family an on-air apology. This is a backdoor attempt to cover their tracks so nobody else can watch and complain. We need an apology, not a cover-up. So we have ITV quietly accepting that the clip was unacceptable on the same day that OFCOM said there was nothing wrong with it.’
Deborah Ffrench via twitter ‘ITV backdoor cover-up http://www.itv.com/itvplayer/video/?Filter=188392 Guys we need responses.Do you still want to push for on-air apology? ITV panic, destroy Mckenzie evidence, refuses to apologize for Michael Jackson insult http://www.itv.com/itvplayer/video/? Do you want more?’
Taj Jackson via twitter ‘If we don’t get an on air apology from ITV soon, my next step is legal. The time for bad mouthing & spreading lies about my uncle are OVER.’
LikeLike
“they are trying to insinuate that he only had them to abuse them. If the allegations never occurred, then no one would ever say they weren’t his kids.”
Don’t you ever, ever, ever repeat things like that even if some rabid haters are rabid enough to say it. I can assure you that anyone who will venture such ideas will go straight to hell (or is probably there already, even during his lifetime).
Those allegations have nothing to do with some people thinking that they are not his kids. It is purely the matter of color. Light skin, hair and eyes are considered ‘recessive’ characteristics which are often (not always) replaced by ‘dominant’ darker ones – so this is the reason for all this talk. NOTHING ELSE.
The link to recessive and dominant characteristics: http://www.blinn.edu/socialscience/LDThomas/Feldman/Handouts/0203hand.htm
A scientist’s explanation: http://www.thetech.org/genetics/ask.php?id=22
He says that if your mother has blue eyes and your father has brown eyes your eyes will be brown as brown is dominant and blue is recessive. However it is not always that straightforward.
If your father’s parents had blue eyes among their ancestors your father is also having a little bit of it in his blood. That particle plus your mother’s blue eyes can very well make your eyes blue. There are certain laws of them mixing together, but some variations may be quite unexpected and difficult to explain.
Other examples I’ve found:
If both the mother and father have brown eyes, but they both have the recessive gene for blue eyes as part of their genetic makeup, there might be a 1 in 4 or 25% chance that their child will have blue eyes.
If the father has brown eyes with the recessive blue eye gene and the mother has blue eyes there is a 1 in 2 or 50% chance that their child will have blue eyes.
This is exactly Michael Jackson’s case as his father Joe has light colored eyes (so Michael was carrying it as a recessive trait) and his wife Debbie has blue eyes too, so the chances that the children would have light-colored eyes were at least 50%.
LikeLike
People are saying that they are not his kids because they are trying to insinuate that he only had them to abuse them. If the allegations never occurred, then no one would ever say they weren’t his kids.
I also think that if Paris would have been born first the whole paternity debate will not have been an issue.
LikeLike
“What is the matter with them? He raised those children, those children are his.I don’t understand, what’s the purpose of always saying that the children are not his. I don’t get it. Is like as if Michael was the only human being in the world who shouldn’t get married or have children or have a normal life.’
Ares, your words are very much true. But Michael’s haters do not only show themselves terribly disrespectful for other people’s (children’s!) feelings – they are also making a big logical mistake and contradict themselves in the very basics.
If Michael’s children were adopted by him, then the excellent way he raised them proves that he could be put in charge of anyone’s children, that children could be around him without any damage to them and that he was a completely normal man who could never do any harm to any boy or girl.
All this talk about him not being a biological parent is highly detrimental to his children, but for us – his advocates – no other argument could be better for proving his complete innocence. It is a proof provided by nature itself. “You think they are not his? Okay, then it proves that everything he was accused of was a complete lie! If he was a great and carying parent for his ‘adopted’ children he was surely the same way with others too! And mind it that no one controlled him and they lived in complete isolation from the world!”
LikeLike
Ok, i have seen that Joy Behar always making some very hateful comments about MJ,but this with his children is pathetic. What is the matter with them? He raised those children, those children are his.I don’t understand, what’s the purpose of always saying that the children are not his. I don’t get it. Is like as if Michael was the only human being in the world who shouldn’t get married or have children or have a normal life. And all this people have made it their life mission to punish him for wanting and having the things that for other people are given. They could use the power that tv gives them in order to spread MJ message, wich was love, peace, try to make something good out of his life but they always focus on the negative or controversial things.
Now i appreciate mutch more gerev. AL Sharpton’s speech at his memorial : Wasn’t nothing strange about your Daddy. It was strange what your Daddy had to deal with.
LikeLike
Deborah Ffrench tweet this: http://tinyurl.com/2ey5pbj
@Lynette, that was a great comment
LikeLike
I’ll share what someone on twitter told me about this heartless Mackenzie.
‘take no notice of that loser…no-one in GB likes him anyway…he’s a miserable git. he lost all credibility because of what he printed about Hillsborough Tragedy. ask anyone from Liverpool and they will tell you about him…at Hillsborough football Tragedy over 100 people suffocated…and he said in his waste of space newspaper that they were all drunk and that was why they died. when actually what happened was police opened a gate at the wrong time when there was already too many people in there. I think he has a screw loose somewhere…I really do…he denied for years he had said anything wrong. so you can imagine…people who remember all that know what type of person he is…tell him he’s still wanted in Liverpool LMAO’
LikeLike
“I would look out if I were Mr. Kelvin MacKenzie, Joy Behar or any other idiot that wants to say the children are not his or that they are now better of without him. Remember when I said what I would do to anyone that suggested such a thing as me being better of without my Daddy.Someday Paris Michael Katherine Jackson will come after you and you better run.She has a much stronger motivator than you do; her’s is unconditional love of the man that was her father. With that kind of motivator she will win.”
Lynette, oh, my God, what a wonderful post! So you have first hand information that love for a parent does not depend on whether you are natural or adopted – the one who raised the baby is a true parent and the one who rejected the baby is no parent at all and is probably no human either.
Of course Michael’s children were his and Debbie by the way spoke about it in that Lacienega’s blog mentioned earlier. The color trick the nature played on them is quite possible – it is their offspring who will most probably show in the next generation that they are mixed in race. And the vitiligo condition Prince is now developing is just another proof of him being biologically Michael’s (poor child).
The way MacKenzie is talking about Michael’s children he is actually digging his own grave – his words are so flagrant that very few people, I hope, will want to side with him and what he is saying.
LikeLike
Wow Lyn, amen! You said that perfectly. I’m not adopted, but I know by the idiot statements that people in the media have always made about Michael’s children. It is a slap in the face to every child or adult that may have been adopted and a slap to the parents. I will always believe those are Michael’s biological kids. Even if they aren’t like others have said ‘so what’ Its not the dna or genes that makes a parent. It is how a child is loved, cared for, provided for, protected and raised that makes a loving parent.
When it comes to anything Michael Jackson, people are so obviously hypocritical. People don’t go around questioning other celebs kids parentage. They don’t talk about Angelina & Brad, Quincy Jones & his daughters, Lionel Richie and his daughter Nicole, Madonna, Sandra Bullock or Barbara Walters…smh
LikeLike
I am adopted. I went to live with my Mom and Daddy when I was 6 weeks old as a foster child. I was with them for 2 years when the foster agency came to get me. By that time I had a little brother that was 9 months younger than me and my two older brothers were just that, older brothers because they loved me. When they came to take me my Daddy hid me until a lawyer could come with an injunction to stop them. A woman at the head of the agency had taken a boat from another couple in exchange for me. My father wanted me and he loved me, which is why he hid me. Because of the legal hoopla it took another 2 years for the adoption to be final. I can remember still to this day when they came home from court. I was at the dining room table making “art” and my Mom came sat down next to me and told me I was adopted. I asked what it meant and she explained it very well, so a 4 year old could understand it I remember sitting there thinking about what that meant and my reaction was to say” can I finish my picture”. Nothing she said mattered because I already knew that they loved me and I was too young to care about the legalities of it. My Daddy died when I was 29 and to this day I would rip out the eyes of anyone who even thought to say I was better off without him.
My point, I guess is this: Michael was no slouch when it came to his kids. If they had been conceived in any other way than naturally he would have told them. If they had not been his biologically he would have told them. He would not have had any choice, people wanted in that man’s life to a degree that defies understanding. When he wouldn’t let them in they filled in the blanks on their own and so we have what we have today: about a million blogs out there defending him and trying to inform people that he was a wonderful, giving, loving human being that could write music, sing, and dance like no one else before him and more than likely we will never see again. And the other side of the coin the people that think the Jackson kids parentage and well being is up to debate for their own selfish reasons of TV ratings and paper circulation. It Is Not!
Michael was very mature and yet youthful when he raised those kids to the point he did. He played with them yet he protected them as any good father would. He was not stupid about his children! He knew he had to protect them from some of the things that people would do and say about them. He also knew one very important thing; someone would try to take them from him. He knew that the allegations against him in 1993 would mean that he could never adopt. He was never found guilty but he was never declared innocent either and so no agency would have allowed it.
Here is what Michael said about his children. They are his biologically. He conceived Prince and Paris naturally with their mother Debbie Rowe and she confirms this. He also says that he asked a surrogate to carry his child created from his sperm and a donor egg to have Blanket. I don’t know why people even question this don’t they ever really look at those kids and see the similarities, or do they only see the differences.
If I didn’t know better I would have to say that they are clinging to a very old and antiquated notion that one drop of black blood makes you completely black. Every time they say something like this it smacks of Aryanism. Every black and mixed race man, woman and child should raise up in revolt. I mean it! I am mixed race and I don’t describe myself any other way and I don’t look definitively like any of them. I am as god intended through DNA my own person, an individual. DNA is only gender and mostly species specific. It is not age specific or race specific. There is no DNA that determines race, and a sample of DNA cannot determine the age of the donor.
I am sure that every one wonders why Debbie Rowe has not come out to refute any of the stories circulating around that these kids were a product of invitro fertilization. I can tell you that too. She unlike Lisa had to sign a confidentiality agreement to specifically not talk about their marriage; she could not give interviews like Lisa did. Before giving her interview in the rebuttal documentary she had to get permission from Michael to do it. He had to waive that confidentiality agreement before she could talk about their life together in front of a camera. She can not to this day tell you anything about their marriage, not even her feelings for him. Her leaving her kids with Michael was not because she did not want to be their mother, she was not a surrogate. She did it because in a very selfless, generous and loving act she thought of them and their safety needs and wellbeing first. She has done so and will probably continue to do so for one reason only. Why? Because those are her kids. She loved their father enough to have them. She loved them enough to give him custody, because she could not give them the physical security that they needed because they were her husband’s children; their father was Michael Jackson.
I would look out if I were Mr. Kelvin MacKenzie, Joy Behar or any other idiot that wants to say the children are not his or that they are now better of without him. Remember when I said what I would do to anyone that suggested such a thing as me being better off without my Daddy.Someday Paris Michael Katherine Jackson will come after you and you better run.She has a much stronger motivator than you do; her’s is unconditional love for the man that was her father. With that kind of motivator she will win.
LikeLike
It’s absolutely disgusting to me that people can actually go on the air and spew such vile garbage as this. I realize there is such thing as freedom of speech, but you have to have absolutely no morals or feelings to go on the air and say that three kids are better off without the man they loved and called daddy. Whatever somebody’s opinion of MJ may be (regardless of if it’s based on truth or on what the tabloids say), there is absolutely no excuse for calling a man who was found NOT GUILTY a pedophile and saying that his children and that all other children are better off with MJ dead. How revolting!
LikeLike
I hate that every time someone mentions MJ’s children, somebody will have to start discussing whether they are or aren’t biologically his. I have seen this under the CNN article as well which discussed the Oprah show.
People are so narrow minded! Who cares if they are biologically his? Will these people tell the ten thousands of people in this world who have adopted children or who used egg or/and sperm donors to have children, that those children are not really theirs and that their relationship with their children is somehow devalued? Will they mock such parents? Because this is exactly what they are doing here. Disgusting!
LikeLike
Guys, by all this conversation about Michael’s kids I don’t want you to think that I am doubting him being a father to his children. Prince’s vitiligo is proof enough that Michael is their biological father – while for me it is just enough to have Michael’s word for it anyway.
What I am trying to say here is that no matter what doubters claim about the children’s ‘biology’ any discussion of this point is completely irrelevant.
Even if they are right it only shows that Michael was capable to bring children: 1) on his own 2) in isolation from the rest of the world 3) in safe and sound surrounding 4) and as completely normal human beings too.
It means that he could have been left alone with any child or children without any moral, physical or psychological damage to them. Moreover it means that associating with Michael was even to their great benefit .
Any form of ‘abuse’ is completely out of the question here and if Michael managed to bring his children (whether biologically his or not) in such a marvellous way it means that other children were also completely safe while being in his care.
But if any talk about their ‘biology’ is irrelevant, unnecessary, pointless and harmless to us, it is awfully harmful for his kids because it is a terrible crime not only to deprive a child of their dearest father physically – the way Murrey did, it is also a terrible crime to plant doubts in their little heads about his parenthood and thus deprive them of their right to call him their father – the way the media is doing it now.
LikeLike
“… if these kids are not his biologcal ones, so what? Why is that the topic of discussion??
Olga, I can’t agree with you more. Really, SO WHAT? Wouldn’t it only show that Michael was the best father ever to all children alike – whether his or not his own? Which is something he always said himself?
However it is the perverse desire of these people to tear Michael’s children away from him by saying he was not their biological father which is so revolting in its very extreme. Usually any such news is a great shock to children who virtually ‘lose’ the parent whom they have come to love and adore leaving them with no one else to replace him.
If a family adopts a child and then some “well-wisher” tells him that the parents are “not his” it is usually regarded as an abominable behavior on the part of the “well-wisher”. And over here it is done openly and with no sign of remorse and instead of giving these people a slap on their face everyone is expected to listen to what they say and applaud them?
“Trash tv is so over. We no longer live in caves and we have laws, rules and human rights. Somehow they were not informed about these changes in society and they continue to act like chimpanzees. A circus would be more appropriate for them.”
Yes, we no longer live in caves and we want to be humans. And these people strike me as being devoid of any human features at all. I wonder if they are human beings at all.
LikeLike
@Helena that was an excellent point. The thing is that some people do not understand how ridiculus they sound anyway. Unless they possess peternity results, they can not state their worthless “opinion” as a fact. They are acting like idiots. And the other thing is, if these kids are not his biologcal ones, so what? Why is that the topic of discussion?? They should just admit how useless and incompetent they are instead of sacrificing their common decency (if they ever had it) in the absence of real conten for their…show. Trash tv is so over. We no longer live in caves and we have laws, rules and human rights. Somehow they were not informed about these changes in society and they continue to act like chimpanzees. A circus would be more appropriate for them.
LikeLike
“The segment ended with them all agreeing that those were not his children.”
The people who are advocating this idea should be CONSTANTLY reminded that if they choose to think this way they should ALSO agree that it is the exhaustive and fool-proof evidence that Michael was NOT a p-le!
Because then it will mean that Michael could be an adorable father even to adopted children (which they weren’t).
So whenever these guys say that the children were not Michael’s they ARE ALSO UNWITTINGLY SAYING THAT HE WAS NOT WHAT THEY ALLEGE HIM TO BE.
LikeLike
Guys, there has been so much negative drama in the fan community for the last few weeks, with respect to Oprah interviewing the kids, whether or not MJ’s new songs are authentic, the unauthorized leak on the Jackson Family Vault website, etc., so I thought that I would lighten the mood and post some good news for a change!
In 2 weeks the new videogame “Michael Jackson: the Experience” will be released on the Nintendo Wii (with the Xbox 360 and Playstation 3 versions coming next year) Here is a partial track list of what songs will be included, with the final track list coming any day now, as the game will be released later this month. Prepare to be blown away!
Bad
• Beat It
• Billie Jean
• Black or White
• Dirty Diana
• Earth Song
• Ghost
• Rock with You
• Smooth Criminal
• Speed Demon
• Streetwalker
• The Girl Is Mine
• They Don’t Care About Us
• Thriller
• Who Is It
• Workin’ Day And Night
http://www.ripten.com/2010/11/06/michael-jackson-the-experience-updated-track-list/
Here are the following videos:
Dirty Diana:
Smooth Criminal:
Speed Demon:
Ghosts:
Billie Jean:
In the Closet:
ABC’s Good Morning America hosts try the game out:
LikeLike
There are only two remedies for this. One find and make available the evidence which will destroy each allegation. Work to move some kind of legislation which will give the family the right to sue for defamation of those who are dead. Until these people are dragged through the courts several times and successfully stomped on this will go on and on. Michael could not do this by himself, time in court is physically and emotionally wearing, but there are many Jackson siblings and offspring. Oh there is a third, but it would only be temporary and requires willpower. If we were to cripple a TV program or News program due to our boycotting them, that would hit hard, but would mean solidity and some longevity for the boycott to be effective.
LikeLike
@ Julie
Don’t worry about Joy. Nobody watches her show anyway. She is just trying to be controversial.
LikeLike
I was just flipping through the channels and made the mistake of stopping off on Joy Behar’s show because I saw a picture of Michael. She had a panel of three individuals, Isaac Misrahi (sp), Anthony Anderson and a woman I did not know. She was discussing the interview and making fun of Paris saying her father was normal. Then here came the crap about his nose with Joy saying, “Did you hear that he was buried without his nose?” Isaac responded by discussing the magazine photo where Michael had the tape on his nose, but said it looked like there was cheesecloth where the nose should be with makeup over it. The only positive was Anthony Anderson saying that MJ was the greatest entertainer that ever lived to which Joy had to throw in Barbra Streisand or Sammy Davis, Jr. The segment ended with them all agreeing that those were not his children. It made me sick!
LikeLike
Already sent a complaint. What a DESPICABLE specimen of humanity that “man” is.
As for Oprah, she got exactly what she wanted. Her highest ratings in over a year. Hopefully this will be the LAST of her interviews with the Jacksons.
Oprah Posts 600th Week As No.1 Talk Show & Hits Season High With The Jackson Kids
By NELLIE ANDREEVA | Tuesday November 9, 2010 @ 10:57am PST
Oprah’s highly publicized sitdown with Michael Jackson’s parents and kids yesterday drew an 8.1 household rating, a season high for the talk show queen, now in the final season of her syndicated talk show. The episode, Oprah Talks To Michael Jackson’s Mother, Katherine, And Visits With His Children, was also Oprah’s highest-rated episode in a year, since her interview with Sarah Palin last November. Oprah, of course, had a ratings smash with her 1993 Michael Jackson special. Also today, the most recent syndication national ratings were released, and Oprah marked its 600th consecutive week in a row as the No.1 talk show on television. After a string of low summer, the show has picked up steam this fall as it heads into its September 2011 finale.
HARPO GOT EXACTLY WHAT SHE WANTED. HER HIGHEST RATINGS IN OVER A YEAR. KATHERINE, WAS THAT AWFUL INTERVIEW REALLY NECESSARY TO SELL A DAMN BOOK? THANKFULLY PARIS SPOKE OUT IN DEFENSE OF HER FATHER.
LikeLike
I will repeat here a comment I posted on FB
These people should never be a part of journalism in a civilized country. They are a shame for human rights and democracy. It’s also obvious that people like him, and we all know who these are, if they didn’t find the way to display their anger and anti-social behavior through trash “journalism”, they would end up in jail.
By the way I looked for him on wiki because I didn’t know who this guy is since he is nobody in my country. He needs professional help and it’s obvious. His humiliation list was very long. I wasn’t surprised at all.
LikeLike
I saw it earlier and was fuming! I don’t think i’ve ever seen anything that ofensive about MJ and the comment about his children…their not words to explain my anger so appalled if breaking news is released as a single they should put this interview after “the plot thickens to destroy Michael Jackson…on the video”
I’m not debating validity of songs, this story should be all fans priority and needs all focus. If we can make the channel let someone like Charles go on and explain the truths it could be a real opportunity to start the mainstream vindication.
LikeLike
Michael’s children were his only delight, his sun and moon, his everything in life. They were the dearest and only treasure he had, and hurting the children who adored their father by saying that they are better off with him dead is causing the worst type of offence to them, Michael and his memory.
It is also causing offence to all those who have still retained a little decency, conscience and goodwill. It is a kind of a challenge to all of us – ‘will they swallow it and let it go as if nothing happened’? See how they try it once and there will be no stopping them.
It is an absolute disgrace that an adult like MacKenzy is mean enough to use children to spit out his hatred at Michael. It seems that he – and those who invited him to the show – are still involved in some dirty play behind Michael’s name and are now doing their business at the expense of his children. The fight against Michael is a deadly one and no one is being spared in it – even the small ones.
Are they so terribly afraid of Michael that they can’t live a life of their own without bothering him even now? Is it so terribly necessary to involve his children in these rotten games? Why is there so much need to abuse them with unhealthy suspicions, innuendoes and petty gossip?
Michael’s children are Michael’s best creation and the best monument to him – so let us not allow these people to touch them with their dirty hands.
LikeLike
Charles Thompson answer :
http://charlesthomsonjournalist.blogspot.com/2010/11/kelvin-mckenzie-jackson-was-abuser-and.html
Ares, thank you for the link.
As usual Charles Thomson proves that he is not the one to let Michael down.
LikeLike
Charles Thompson answer :
http://charlesthomsonjournalist.blogspot.com/2010/11/kelvin-mckenzie-jackson-was-abuser-and.html
LikeLike
My Mother is originally from the UK I will send mine through one of my cousins and will urge a couple of them to do the same. They are MJ fans too.
LikeLike
I sent mine through a friend who retired in Great Britain.
LikeLike
Mine sent and will continue to daily until there is a positive outcome to this.
MJTN Member is sending out word to The 500
Notifying MJJCOMMUNITY Legacy Group.
LikeLike
Hello. I’m french and I don’t write very well Englih, so I have used your claim to write to itv.com and complain to OFCOM. Thank you for your help. I haven’t seen this programm, I hope you tell the truth because it’s difficult to do a claim about something we haven’t seen. I hope that lot of people will write. The UK media are very hard with Michael, I don’t know why, it’ s unfair.
LikeLike