MJ statistics, charts etc.

Forbes, or the person who authored that article (“Madeline Berg”), baffles me to no end. Last year, they gave allowance for Joe Vogel to post his article “what you should know about the new Michael Jackson documentary” and only described LN as “recent controversy” (perhaps because someone else wrote the latter article last year - Zack O’Malley). This year, they “click bait” the reader with a regal picture of MJ in his element, framed in flowers and engulfed by candles (as though to remember him fondly by), but the article itself conveys LN as “damning” (no mention of any rebuttal documentaries, dismissed lawsuits, or counter evidence of course) without dethroning MJ (as if he would be deserving of that title if he was really guilty, which he wasn’t as far as I’m concerned...)? I noticed they made another tweet which states what they wrote in summary, but even still. I know I probably sound like a broken record at this point but all these attempts in 2020 to keep LN “relevant” and to portray the film as “damning”, “gut-wrenching”, “devastating”, whatever else... it didn’t work. It seems to me like LN was a massive attempt at damaging MJ’s legacy but it ultimately fell short of expectations for all its huffing and puffing. At least that must be partly why a sequel is in the works. My honest opinion at this point is since MJ’s passing, the estate has actually done more damage to his legacy than those allegations ever could, as well as any attempt to rehash or litigate those allegations many times over, be it in the media, the public eye, or in the court room.

Needless to say, that he is the highest-paid celebrity among those deceased, even amid the pandemic, speaks bounds.