 |
|
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
K
Joined: 09 Sep 2011
|
| Post subject: |  |
|
| think positive wrote: | | When I read this I just see two disgusting mothers who put the mighty dollar ahead of their children’s welfare. Clearly they had some idea their children were at risk. |
K. Quinn (Fairfax) has similar feelings:
"Joy Robson emerges as a stage mother of the worst sort: she is star-struck upon meeting Jackson after a concert in Brisbane, and practically thrusts her son at him (though not in a sexual way, obviously). If warning bells sounded thereafter, she did not hear them, or chose not to.
It’s tempting to say that makes the parents – Joy in particular – almost as villainous as Jackson allegedly was, but that’s not quite fair. They do, at least, concede their failings, while he denied everything (even when reportedly paying around $US25 million to settle one case out of court).
“The fame, the whole thing, you do get caught up in it,” says Joy towards the end of this gruelling but utterly transfixing testimony. “Maybe I can forgive [Jackson] at some point if I try to understand that he was sick, but forgiving myself is another thing. I don’t know if I will ever do that.”
Jimmy’s mother, Stephanie, puts it even more brutally. “I had one job, I had one child, and I f---ed up,” she says.
It’s hard to do anything but agree."
https://www.theage.com.au/entertainment/tv-and-radio/we-were-like-a-married-couple-michael-jackson-doco-s-biggest-shock-20190306-p5126h.html
At this point, it's also hard to do anything but agree with David's point about the inappropriateness of entertainment journos making criminal judgements. |
|
|
|
 |
HAL
Please don't shout at me - I can't help it.
Joined: 17 Mar 2003
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Like who, specifically does? |
|
|
|
|
David 
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Andromeda
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| K wrote: | | At this point, it's also hard to do anything but agree with David's point about the inappropriateness of entertainment journos making criminal judgements. |
Yes, this encapsulates it perfectly. I’ve met Quinn and read his work before; he’s not a cultural commentator of any sort, just a stereotypical old-school amoral journalist. Why we should be reading his opinion on anything, let alone regarding the guilt or innocence of a musician and what judgements this entitles us to make about victims’ family members, is a mystery to me.
_________________
All watched over by machines of loving grace |
|
|
|
|
Pies4shaw 
pies4shaw
Joined: 08 Oct 2007
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Who's the "musician", David? I thought you were discussing Michael Jackson? |
|
|
|
|
think positive
Side By Side
Joined: 30 Jun 2005
Location: somewhere
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| David wrote: | | K wrote: | | At this point, it's also hard to do anything but agree with David's point about the inappropriateness of entertainment journos making criminal judgements. |
Yes, this encapsulates it perfectly. I’ve met Quinn and read his work before; he’s not a cultural commentator of any sort, just a stereotypical old-school amoral journalist. Why we should be reading his opinion on anything, let alone regarding the guilt or innocence of a musician and what judgements this entitles us to make about victims’ family members, is a mystery to me. |
Judgement, opinion, is there a difference?
At least one of the mothers is brutally honest. And I hope she can one day forgive herself. It’s a hard job, and such an ‘opportunity’ would be hard to knock back. It’s a damn shame there is so much evil and entitlement in this world. But then the world is Ł$%$ed, when models and musicians earn so much more than surgeons and scientists
P4S he may not have been the greatest musician, but what an entertainer. Billy Jean my favourite and Ben the sentimental one.
_________________
You cant fix stupid, turns out you cant quarantine it either! |
|
|
|
|
Pies4shaw
pies4shaw
Joined: 08 Oct 2007
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Could we settle on "late showbiz personality", TP? |
|
|
|
|
think positive
Side By Side
Joined: 30 Jun 2005
Location: somewhere
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Pies4shaw wrote: | | Could we settle on "late showbiz personality", TP? |
Hehe
I’ll take It! Cheers
_________________
You cant fix stupid, turns out you cant quarantine it either! |
|
|
|
|
K
Joined: 09 Sep 2011
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| think positive wrote: | ...
Judgement, opinion, is there a difference?
... |
The issue is that it's an opinion about legal guilt -- made in print by an entertainment reporter. |
|
|
|
|
K
Joined: 09 Sep 2011
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| David wrote: | ...
But more than anything, I can’t shake the feeling that this just isn’t their job: tell us how the documentary constructs its narrative, what techniques it uses and how successful it is as a work of art, not how it proves *****’s guilt beyond all doubt.... |
What about this TV critic's take on an R. Kelly interview?
It sort of does both (discuss techniques and assume guilt).
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/08/arts/television/r-kelly-gayle-king-interview-cbs.html
"... one of the most bizarre and unhinged performances of the R&B singer’s career.
He shrieked into the camera: “You’re killing me, man!” He smacked his fist into his palm. He beat his chest. He paced and stabbed the air and seemed as if he might lose physical control. (Ms. King later said that she didn’t worry that the singer would harm her, but she thought that “I might get accidentally clobbered.”)
...
Earlier this year, the Lifetime docu-series “Surviving R. Kelly,” which laid out an extensive case that Mr. Kelly preyed upon women and underage girls...
The raging, self-pitying R. Kelly on this stage only recalled the threatening, controlling R. Kelly described in “Surviving,” which CBS’s special drew heavily on...
Mr. Kelly’s breakdown got most of the attention, but we shouldn’t overlook what Ms. King did. Rather than match his volume, she addressed Mr. Kelly, whose first name is Robert, calmly and firmly, the way you would a tantrum: “Robert. Robert.”
Just as important, she recognized that Mr. Kelly was trying to use the interview to claim a soapbox. “Robert, we have to have a conversation,” she said, as he continued to hold forth, looking past her into the lens. “I don’t want you just ranting at the camera.”
Her impassive body language said it all. She was not going to engage on his level; he would have to come to hers. She was not going to indulge another man talking over and around and to the side of her, trying to shout and aggress and ugly-cry his way out of trouble.
The editing of the segment underscored her point, cutting to a longer-range side view to deny Mr. Kelly the direct-to-camera soliloquy he was trying to have. The image of him, shot from a low angle, aggrieved and slashing the air, revealed Mr. Kelly’s desperate isolation like a portrait tableau.
...
... Mr. Kelly’s all-too-familiar responses in the interview. The multiple, detailed accusations, he said, were “rumor,” the women were “lying” and “scorned.” His fury may have been jaw-dropping — but all this had worked for him, and other men, before. Last fall, his future clouded by a sexual assault charge, Brett M. Kavanaugh roared his way onto the Supreme Court on national TV.
The face-off, between the wrathful Mr. Kelly and the stoic Ms. King was a clash of temperaments. But it was also a collision of eras: the moment of the reckoning coming face-to-face with decades of impunity." |
|
|
|
|
K
Joined: 09 Sep 2011
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| David wrote: | | K wrote: | | At this point, it's also hard to do anything but agree with David's point about the inappropriateness of entertainment journos making criminal judgements. |
Yes, this encapsulates it perfectly. I’ve met Quinn and read his work before; he’s not a cultural commentator of any sort, just a stereotypical old-school amoral journalist. Why we should be reading his opinion on anything, let alone regarding the guilt or innocence of a musician and what judgements this entitles us to make about victims’ family members, is a mystery to me. |
And, right on cue, Quinn writes:
Should Michael Jackson, R. Kelly abuse claims be heard on TV, or in a court?
https://www.theage.com.au/entertainment/tv-and-radio/should-michael-jackson-r-kelly-abuse-claims-be-heard-on-tv-or-in-a-court-20190308-p512t8.html
"... both point to one of the most pressing questions of our time: is it right to contest the validity of such claims in the court of public opinion or should they be the sole preserve of the legal system?
"Anyone can make allegations, but it’s proving them that matters, and that can only happen in the courtroom," says criminal barrister Colin Mandy, SC, who has appeared in a number of cases involving allegations of child sexual abuse. "The courtroom has rules of evidence, and is supervised by a judicial officer who conducts the proceeding with impartiality and fairness to all witnesses and parties. Documentaries and social media do not."
...
... both men have previously testified that Jackson never touched them in a sexual way during sleepovers at Neverland or at any other time.
In 1993, Safechuck, then aged about 16, and Robson, then 11 or 12, gave statements to police to that effect when Jackson faced a civil suit brought by the father of another child, Jordan Chandler (Jackson settled for an estimated $US23 million, but admitted no wrongdoing).
In 2005, Robson – then aged 23 or so – again testified that nothing had happened, as Jackson faced court on criminal charges relating to sexual misconduct with a minor (the singer was found not guilty on all 14 counts).
Similarly, R. Kelly ... was found not guilty on 21 charges of child pornography in 2008.
Does that mean these men did nothing wrong? Or that their alleged victims were let down by the system – and that the media and social media are their best hope of attaining some justice?
"As a matter of law, unless [charges] are proved beyond reasonable doubt, the accused is innocent," says Mandy. Importantly, he adds, in a courtroom, the accused is represented and has the chance to contest allegations. In these documentaries and on social media, by contrast, "there are no checks and balances. Allegations are necessarily unfiltered, untested, and unproven and may be made with the full spectrum of possible motives, from noble to the most base."
In the case of Robson and Safechuck in particular, if they are telling the truth now that means they perjured themselves in the past.
"Once a witness has lied on oath, and then admits to having done so, there would have to be a big question mark over their credibility," says Mandy. "Especially when they are suing for vast amounts of money."
The victim’s perspective in such matters can be complicated, however. ...
Robson confesses that he first saw the relationship as abusive when he looked at his own son and imagined Jackson doing the same things to him that he had experienced as a seven-year-old.
...
In the case of R. Kelly, since the six-part series began airing in the US in early January, even more women have come forward with claims of abuse, and the singer has been charged with a raft of new offences. That perhaps points to the power of traditional media to redress past injustices – but series co-creator Tamra Simmons says it might never have happened had it not been for social media." |
|
|
|
|
K
Joined: 09 Sep 2011
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| ^ We're told "Leaving Neverland can be seen on tenplay.com.au (with ads) or tenallaccess.com.au (without ads, for subscribers). Surviving R. Kelly is on Foxtel’s Crime and Investigation channel." |
|
|
|
|
K
Joined: 09 Sep 2011
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Michael Jackson: as an expert in child sexual abuse here’s what I thought when I watched Leaving Neverland
Nadia Wager
http://theconversation.com/michael-jackson-as-an-expert-in-child-sexual-abuse-heres-what-i-thought-when-i-watched-leaving-neverland-113160
"I’m not going to speculate on the accuracy or otherwise of the two men’s stories. But, true or not, they raise important issues which we need to better understand if we are to prevent abuse happening.
...
Very few children disclose sexual abuse at the time that it is occurring. Where disclosures do occur, these tend to be where the abuse is a one-off incident perpetrated by a stranger with little by way of grooming. So the abuse is more readily conceptualised as an unwanted assault by both the child and others to whom the child discloses.
There are many reasons for non-disclosure. One reason reported retrospectively by adults who were abused as children, is that they did not know that what was happening was wrong. Some children even feel hurt by the perceived rejection when the abuse ends. Many only come to realise that their experience constituted abuse as they entered adulthood, and they can see the relationship from a new perspective. This realisation, which can be perceived as a betrayal of trust, can result in delayed trauma due the abuse only emerging in adulthood.
Despite the new realisation of the abusive nature of the relationship, it is not unusual for adult survivors of child sexual abuse to report still feeling a conflicted love for the perpetrator. ... So there there can be an ongoing reticence and feelings of guilt for having reported the abuse. Sometimes statements are retracted as a result." |
|
|
|
|
K
Joined: 09 Sep 2011
|
| Post subject: | |
|
BuzzFeed drops truth defence over 'slut' claims in Emma Husar case
https://www.smh.com.au/national/buzzfeed-drops-truth-defence-over-slut-claims-in-emma-husar-case-20190310-p5132v.html
"She claims BuzzFeed conveyed a range of false and defamatory allegations about her, including that she is "a slut who boasts about who she has had sex with, which includes other members of Parliament and members of her staff".
BuzzFeed says it did not use the word "slut" and the publications do not convey that imputation, but had nevertheless sought to rely on a defence of truth if the court found those claims had been made.
However, a revised defence filed last week shows BuzzFeed has dropped the truth defence to the "slut" claims, but maintained a truth defence to other allegations including that Ms Husar is "sexually perverted" and "engaged in inappropriate sexualised behaviour toward her staff".
...
As is common in defamation disputes, Justice Rares will not make a final determination about whether the publications do in fact convey those imputations until the end of the trial.
...
BuzzFeed's defence was also complicated by a recently-released investigation conducted by the Independent Parliamentary Expenses Authority, which found Ms Husar had breached travel entitlement rules 21 times, including a $267.84 Comcar trip for a "personal meeting" in February 2016.
However, the IPEA did not find wrongdoing relating to Ms Husar's attendance at a Bruno Mars concert while she was on a taxpayer-funded trip to Melbourne to speak at an Emily's List event, an incident included in BuzzFeed's defence to other imputations." |
|
|
|
|
think positive
Side By Side
Joined: 30 Jun 2005
Location: somewhere
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Re Jackson unless there is video evidence I doubt the truth will ever come out. Certainly something isn’t right but I find the changing stories hard to believe too
_________________
You cant fix stupid, turns out you cant quarantine it either! |
|
|
|
|
K
Joined: 09 Sep 2011
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum
|
|
The Rules
FAQ
Usergroups
Calendar
Search
Log in
Register
