|
Post by SmoothGangsta on Jan 26, 2019 2:22:05 GMT
They're legit laughing and smiling when being asked questions, nobody finds this weird or out of place? Are people just eager to believe anyone who accuses anyone of anything these days? Thats it, its a thing now that you cant doubt a "victim". Huge rape trial in N. Ireland last year showed that a lot of people will decide what happened solely based on what a victim has said. It legit makes me sick that people are applauding them
|
|
|
Post by kremlinshadow on Jan 26, 2019 3:02:22 GMT
There are one hell of a lot of 'stein's' reporting negatively on this documentary, just saying. The types MJ was recorded on the phone stating were 'leeches'. I'm not being anti just it seems a very odd coincidence.
|
|
|
Post by Snow White on Jan 26, 2019 4:04:16 GMT
Another journalist not jumping to the sheep mentality and not falling for their bullshit! 👏👏
|
|
|
Post by kremlinshadow on Jan 26, 2019 4:32:10 GMT
Another journalist not jumping to the sheep mentality and not falling for their bullshit! 👏👏 She isn't one of the paid Weinstein stooges that's why, there is definitely some deflection going on here.
|
|
|
Post by Liberian Girl on Jan 26, 2019 6:53:27 GMT
|
|
|
Post by respect77 on Jan 26, 2019 7:06:33 GMT
This is a bit more forceful and makes more specific points than usual, but I hope they will do more.
|
|
|
Post by respect77 on Jan 26, 2019 8:10:29 GMT
BTW, this is a good statement finally but I hope just the beginning.
The Estate makes great points here in this statement:
"Conveniently left out of Leaving Neverland was the fact that when Robson was denied a role in a Michael Jackson themed Cirque du Soleil production, his assault allegations suddenly emerged."
So in a 4 hours documentary they just didn't have a place for info like this? Why am I not surprised? And I am sure a lot of other exculpatory info also didn't its way in this doc.
This is a great point too:
"Tellingly, the director admitted at the Sundance Film Festival that he limited his interviews only to these accusers and their families. In doing so, he intentionally avoided interviewing numerous people over the years who spent significant time with Michael Jackson and have unambiguously stated that he treated children with respect and did nothing hurtful to them. By choosing not to include any of these independent voices who might challenge the narrative that he was determined to sell, the director neglected fact checking so he could craft a narrative so blatantly one-sided that viewers never get anything close to a balanced portrait."
Any ethical documentary has to be balanced. Or at least attempt to be balanced. He should have interviewed the Estate, MJ's family, people they mention or implicate in this doc. Like they imply about Mac that he was a victim. Or Brett. So why not interview them? Or Norma Staikos, since they love to portray her as some sort of maffia boss? The fact he wasn't interested to offer a different perspective at all tells it all.
Fans whine about "oh no, the Estate or the family shouldn't make a counter-documentary because it will be seen as biased". How is this not seen as biased then? It is blatantly agenda-filled, blatantly one-sided, they didn't even attempt to offer another POV or give any chance for counter-points.
This is absolutely a great point, because this goes against general ethics in documentary film making.
This is from an interview with Dan Reed. Just look at how the only thing on the agenda was to make MJ look guilty. Absolutely disgusting:
So he immediately assumes that Mac is a victim. It is clear he would have only put him in his documentary if he had said that. And the only people he reached out to were other accusers and prosecutors and detectives from 2005. Not Mesereau, not Susan Yu, not anyone involved in MJ's side. This is absolutely outrageous.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 26, 2019 8:19:23 GMT
BTW, this is a good statement finally but I hope just the beginning.
The Estate makes great points here in this statement:
"Conveniently left out of Leaving Neverland was the fact that when Robson was denied a role in a Michael Jackson themed Cirque du Soleil production, his assault allegations suddenly emerged."
So in a 4 hours documentary they just didn't have a place for info like this? Why am I not surprised? And I am sure a lot of other exculpatory info also didn't its way in this doc.
This is a great point too:
"Tellingly, the director admitted at the Sundance Film Festival that he limited his interviews only to these accusers and their families. In doing so, he intentionally avoided interviewing numerous people over the years who spent significant time with Michael Jackson and have unambiguously stated that he treated children with respect and did nothing hurtful to them. By choosing not to include any of these independent voices who might challenge the narrative that he was determined to sell, the director neglected fact checking so he could craft a narrative so blatantly one-sided that viewers never get anything close to a balanced portrait."
Any ethical documentary has to be balanced. Or at least attempt to be balanced. He should have interviewed the Estate, MJ's family, people they mention or implicate in this doc. Like they imply about Mac that he was a victim. Or Brett. So why not interview them? Or Norma Staikos, since they love to portray her as some sort of maffia boss? The fact he wasn't interested to offer a different perspective at all tells it all.
Fans whine about "oh no, the Estate or the family shouldn't make a counter-documentary because it will be seen as biased". How is this not seen as biased then? It is blatantly agenda-filled, blatantly one-sided, they didn't even attempt to offer another POV or give any chance for counter-points.
This is absolutely a great point, because this goes against general ethics in documentary film making.
This is from an interview with Dan Reed. Just look at how the only thing on the agenda was to make MJ look guilty. Absolutely disgusting:
So he immediately assumes that Mac is a victim. It is clear he would have only put him in his documentary if he had said that. And the only people he reached out to were other accusers and prosecutors and detectives from 2005. Not Mesereau, not Susan Yu, not anyone involved in MJ's side. This is absolutely outrageous.
Strong, to the point. This is what was needed. The directors interview really was shambolic. Have a good weekend guys
|
|
TonyR
The Legend Continues
Posts: 8,464
|
Post by TonyR on Jan 26, 2019 8:26:49 GMT
There are one hell of a lot of 'stein's' reporting negatively on this documentary, just saying. The types MJ was recorded on the phone stating were 'leeches'. I'm not being anti just it seems a very odd coincidence. WHAT THE FUCK DO YOU MEAN BY THAT??? Anti semites have no place on this board. MattyJam
|
|
|
Post by kremlinshadow on Jan 26, 2019 9:05:18 GMT
There are one hell of a lot of 'stein's' reporting negatively on this documentary, just saying. The types MJ was recorded on the phone stating were 'leeches'. I'm not being anti just it seems a very odd coincidence. WHAT THE FUCK DO YOU MEAN BY THAT??? Anti semites have no place on this board. MattyJam How about read the news twat, Weinstein has previously used MJ to deflect his wrongdoings. Fool, nobody is being antisemitic but just pointing out the coincidences.
|
|
|
Post by respect77 on Jan 26, 2019 9:57:47 GMT
OK, I need to post this Dan Reed interview. It is so disgusting on so many levels. The portrayal of alleged child abuse as a romance. The totally one-sided biased attitude from the get go. The hypocrisy (eg. whining about no constructive discussion about this when he never gave a platform to the other side of the debate in his film).
|
|
TonyR
The Legend Continues
Posts: 8,464
|
Post by TonyR on Jan 26, 2019 10:56:19 GMT
WHAT THE FUCK DO YOU MEAN BY THAT??? Anti semites have no place on this board. MattyJam How about read the news twat, Weinstein has previously used MJ to deflect his wrongdoings. Fool, nobody is being antisemitic but just pointing out the coincidences. Firstly, your post wasn't about Weinstein, but you said: "There are one hell of a lot of 'stein's' reporting negatively on this documentary, just saying. The types MJ was recorded on the phone stating were 'leeches'. I'm not being anti just it seems a very odd coincidence" i.e. you lumped all Jewish people in the same boat as Weinstein by labelling them 'steins. And then you proceeded to call them 'the types'. So you were talking about Jewish people. You are saying that most people reporting negatively are Jews. It was anti-semitic. And the fact that your first response called me a twat & fool pretty much sums you up.
|
|
|
Post by SoCav on Jan 26, 2019 11:04:24 GMT
What an abysmal interview. This guy is a joke, who clearly set out to make this a one-sided hit piece. Sadly I expect that, in this current climate where we are supposed to believe accusers uncritically no matter how unfounded their claims, he will not receive much if any criticism for this.
The Estate's statement was good. I also hope it's a precursor to a more extensive response.
|
|
|
Post by jaywonder on Jan 26, 2019 11:04:37 GMT
That interview with Reed throws up some serious red flags....
|
|
|
Post by Snow White on Jan 26, 2019 11:08:59 GMT
It wouldn't surprise me if Reed, Robson and Safechuck contacted Victor Gutierrez. Reed's interviews sound like they came out straight from his disgusting and perverted books. 🤢
My heart aches for real victims of child sexual abuse, Robson and Safechuck make a mockery out of them and their suffering. And obviously, it aches for Michael, the blatant character assassination and defamation is absolutely outrageous and unfair. There's no doubt that money has ruined humankind showing their ugliest and lowest side.
At least the stament made by the estate made me feel better. It's been their most honest, strongest and most condemnatory ones ever since those ridiculous allegations emerged.
|
|