62 replies to this topic

[brian mcphail]

right on, sista!

[Black Betty]

He's only guilty of being an IDIOT! I'm very happy about the verdict .

[transonic]

Is he sad or happy?

And what is he wearing on his left hand--looks like he was attacked with the Bedazzler.

[ToroRojo]

I'm glad you all are so quick to condemn a man after reading a couple of headlines in a newspaper.

he's not guilty because the prosecution couldn't generate enough evidence to prove beyond a resonable doubt in this particular case.

Yes, that is called Presumption of Innocence. It is one of the foundations of our legal system (despite the drug and terrorism wars attempts to discard it). May I also comment that it is illegal and immoral to 'generate' evidence. Evidence is found, not created. There is a HUGE difference.

however, that does not excuse that he DID in fact, supply alcohol to these kids and admitted on LIVE TELEVISION that he sleeps with them.  if you are an adult, you should not be "sleeping" with kids no matter who the fuck you are.

He was acquitted of the supplying alcohol to a minor charge. So that is not a fact. Sleeping with children and molesting them are not the same thing. Check a dictionary if you do not believe me. Yes, it is extremely creepy.

[natalie]

perhaps i've used poor vocabulary to describe my opinion. it wasn't my intention to imply that evidence is created, only that there wasn't sufficient or convincing evidence to convict him. but i don't think that we should forget that this is the SECOND time he has been "accused" of molestation. the first case was settled out of court and never went to trial.

no need to be condesending....i'm well aware of the difference between molestation and sleeping.

[DoctorShumway]

Last night I went home to find most shit on TV preempted for goddamned Michael Jackson specials. Seriously, if you look on just the front page of this board there's more important things that you should preempt Fear Factor for (the Downing Street Memo being just one.)

Seriously, how pumped is the White House that all anyone gives a shit about is whether a washed up, batshit crazy pop star is guilty or not? "Yes, Republican senators are turning on us on Iraq, documents are coming out proving we're full of shit, 6 in 10 people do not support the war anymore and military recruitment is down. Thank you Mr. PYT! Send him some cookies and milk from me and Laura."

[mikemfer]

Why are they showing coverage on the washed up, mentally ill pop star instead of covering the Downing Street Memo?

Journalistic integrity is a long-lost concept and basically a myth at this point in the US. The 'news' is a for-profit business. The purpose of the 'news' shown is to keep you watching between commercials. That's where the company that makes the show called 'the news' makes its money. So, there are two elements at work. One, there is no motivation to cover anything that might damage profits for the corporation that owns the broadcasting company (or any sister companies or related corporations) that makes the show called 'the news'. The other is that if the public will tune in for Michael Jackson, then Michael Jackson is what they'll show. If their market research told them that the American public wanted to watch the "Can't Touch This" video by MC Hammer over and over on a continuous loop, then they would show that until their research said otherwise.

The thing is, if you watch it, you vote for it to continue.

[donald]

Why are they showing coverage on the washed up, mentally ill pop star instead of covering the Downing Street Memo?

Journalistic integrity is a long-lost concept and basically a myth at this point in the US. The 'news' is a for-profit business. The purpose of the 'news' shown is to keep you watching between commercials. That's where the company that makes the show called 'the news' makes its money. So, there are two elements at work. One, there is no motivation to cover anything that might damage profits for the corporation that owns the broadcasting company (or any sister companies or related corporations) that makes the show called 'the news'. The other is that if the public will tune in for Michael Jackson, then Michael Jackson is what they'll show. If their market research told them that the American public wanted to watch the "Can't Touch This" video by MC Hammer over and over on a continuous loop, then they would show that until their research said otherwise.

The thing is, if you watch it, you vote for it to continue.

and THAT's why I don't have a TV

[DoctorShumway]

Yeah I understand the reason for all this, but knowing that doesn't make it any less frustrating. Hence the reason I never watch the news.

[beefstew]

Why are they showing coverage on the washed up, mentally ill pop star instead of covering the Downing Street Memo?

Journalistic integrity is a long-lost concept and basically a myth at this point in the US.  The 'news' is a for-profit business.  The purpose of the 'news' shown is to keep you watching between commercials.  That's where the company that makes the show called 'the news' makes its money.  So, there are two elements at work.  One, there is no motivation to cover anything that might damage profits for the corporation that owns the broadcasting company (or any sister companies or related corporations) that makes the show called 'the news'.  The other is that if the public will tune in for Michael Jackson, then Michael Jackson is what they'll show.  If their market research told them that the American public wanted to watch the "Can't Touch This" video by MC Hammer over and over on a continuous loop, then they would show that until their research said otherwise.

The thing is, if you watch it, you vote for it to continue.

and THAT's why I don't have a TV

RIGHT!! I watch maybe and hour or so of TV in a week. I'm not sure why I have a TV. Hmmmm.

[bobby]

I don't eat anything that casts a shadow.

[raubhimself]

if you are an adult, you should not be "sleeping" with kids no matter who the fuck you are.

actually, in many cultures (yes, there is a culture outside of America, and it's ok to experiment with these cultures) it is not only acceptable to sleep with children, but encouraged! gasp! you have to stretch your mind past what you consider acceptable, moral, and appropriate to be able to see that maybe he isn't such a sleazebag whacko, and maybe he just likes to live differently than most people.

not saying that what MJ did was ok, but none of us know the details of any of the accusations against him. no one except MJ and the kids do. and like donald said, he almost definitely didn't have an evil intent. everyone compares this to the OJ case and whatnot, but the evidence is much different. in the OJ case there was physical evidence and the fact that he ran from the cops. SHADY! but in this case MJ didn't put up resistance and the evidence was someone's word over his. and the accusors were just as upstanding as MJ.

my 2 cents.

i saw a good post on slashdot or something a while ago that i thought was really cool, it goes something like this: "i would feel aweful for him not to be found guilty, because no one should go through all this court mess just for being weird"

[raubhimself]

taken from another forum by a hardcore republican whom i normally disagree with but in this case commend for his levelheadedness:

(about blaming the parents) Well, I mostly agree. I say to blame the molester and blame the mother.

Now, I'm the first to say that Michael Jackson is the most guilty man in America... and I have only a few doubts that he did what he was accused of. However, the jurors were right in this case... and I think that this is a case that should be lauded for its dedication to blindness rather than being criticized because Michael Jackson IS a freak (which he totally is). THere was not enough evidence to convict him, the prosecution had NO solid, reliable whitnessess. The "victims" weren't victims, they, and their parents, were as much criminals as Jackson is (assuming he did do what we all know he did). THe defense used every means that it could, and they had the stronger, more solid case.

Hex, you said that he'd be in prison in the midwest ... Well, that does no credit to the judicial system that you think you have in your state. If he was found guilty, it would be a greater judicial travesty than that he was found not-guilty. When we think of Michael Jackson, we think of the crazed idiot who went on Dateline, or whatever it was, climbing trees, talking about how he sleeps with his little boy friends ... We think of this lost lunatic who must be molesting children. The jury had to put that all aside ... it's nearly impossible. THe one guy who nearly every American (with the exception of the lunies outside the courtroom), over the last 12 years, has been convinced is crazy is Michael Jackson ... and these jurors had to put years of mostly true stereotypes and assumptions behind them and judge this case with what was presented to them.

What was presented to them was questionable testimony, unreliable whitnesses, and not a single shred of legitimate evidence indicting Michael Jackson. I think he did it, we all think he did many bad things, but the prosecution has to prove that in court. They did not prove it. Hence, Not-Guilty.

Now where's the rolling rally for the parents to throw them in the clinker?

[mancopter]

Why are they showing coverage on the washed up, mentally ill pop star instead of covering the Downing Street Memo?

Journalistic integrity is a long-lost concept and basically a myth at this point in the US.  The 'news' is a for-profit business.  The purpose of the 'news' shown is to keep you watching between commercials.  That's where the company that makes the show called 'the news' makes its money.  So, there are two elements at work.  One, there is no motivation to cover anything that might damage profits for the corporation that owns the broadcasting company (or any sister companies or related corporations) that makes the show called 'the news'.  The other is that if the public will tune in for Michael Jackson, then Michael Jackson is what they'll show.  If their market research told them that the American public wanted to watch the "Can't Touch This" video by MC Hammer over and over on a continuous loop, then they would show that until their research said otherwise.

The thing is, if you watch it, you vote for it to continue.

and THAT's why I don't have a TV

RIGHT!! I watch maybe and hour or so of TV in a week. I'm not sure why I have a TV. Hmmmm.

I play video games. That's my excuse.