Sep 10 2011

Beware the sewage flying around on the internet(s)

Category: JusticeSeven @ 3:15 pm

Septic Tank . . .

Septic Tank . . .

Yesterday we were all subjected to yet another media(loid) “expert” talking about Michael, or in this case, his fans. We’re not going to let this one slide without comment. At least I’m not.

If the media was interested in inviting experts to talk about MJ, the Murray case, MJ’s fans, they’d invite Aphrodite Jones, Patrick Treacy, Barry Friedberg, Joe Vogel, and Larry Nimmer,  rather than crackpots like Wendy Walsh.

Wendy Walsh is the “psychologist” who claimed fans believed Michael was their “savior” and that Murray was “satan” – and that MJ fans were living in a “fantasy” world. Here is the link to Wendy Walsh’s bubbleheaded babble:

http://bit.ly/ppEOw7

The thought that Michael’s tragic death and the Murray trial is yet another horrible travesty of justice apparently doesn’t enter Walsh’s mind while she’s spouting her medialoid, medialoud, pseudo-science about MJ fans.

I don’t know of any MJ fans who believe Conrad Murray is “satan” – and I know a lot of MJ fans. I do know that quite a few of them believe Conrad Murray is a sociopath. It’s also interesting to note that Dr. Barry Friedberg has unequivocally stated that Murray is a sociopath. Wendy Walsh might spend some time talking on that subject but she won’t. Her employers would likely not allow it, just as they will not invite Dr. Barry Friedberg onto their shows to speak about anesthesia and propofol – about what Conrad Murray did wrong and how egregious it truly was. They also have not invited Dr. Patrick Treacy who was Michael’s primary physician in Ireland just a year or two before he died. Treacy said that Michael was in no way an addict or on any drugs while being treated by him. None of these ideas, facts, or stories from people with firsthand knowledge and expertise in their fields seem to make it into the establishment media because they don’t fit the portrayal of Michael that they want to bring to the public eye.

The caricature Walsh portrayed of Michael’s fans was not only lacking basis in fact but was strictly based on her personal opinion, or possibly what she knew she was expected to say about them by the network she works for. It was unprofessional, disrespectful, ignorant, and insensitive. Walsh is a primarily a “television personality“, not a psychologist. She may have psychologist credentials, but I cannot see a professional psychologist “diagnosing” or portraying an entire worldwide group of people (whom she’s certainly never met) in such a way.  Her comments tell us more about her than they do about Michael’s fans. It’s called psychological projection. Being a psychologist, I’m sure she is familiar with the term.

The requirement for the media’s version of an “expert” seems to be someone who will simply use their credentials to parrot the media’s negative caricature of Michael Jackson, and his fans. There are plenty such crackpots available and willing to be put on the air. Wendy Walsh is obviously one of them. Dr. Drew is obviously another.

Another piece of sewage that somehow escaped proper disposal in a septic tank is from UK tabloids and it has spread from there. That alone renders it questionable, in its intent or its implications. The piece has one objective: to portray Michael Jackson as guilty even though he was acquitted and to give the impression that even his family doubted his innocence and were planning to make him a fugitive if he was convicted.  Here is (one of) the specimens:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2035830/How-Michael-Jacksons-family-planned-fly-singer-U-S-Bahrain-jailed-child-molestation.html

The thinking goes: “Well, if he wasn’t guilty, why would he flee if he had been convicted?” – and: “Look! Even his family doubted his innocence!” – and: “Jermaine is exposing his plans to make himself and Michael fugitives from the law!”  This is the impression that piece and others like it is intended to give the public. Even some fans have bought into it whilst missing the bigger story.

If we’re paying attention, reasoning and logistical thinking kicks in when presented with such stories because we’re so used to this type of media manipulation of public opinion in regards to Michael.  Reference: Diane Dimond and Martin Bashir among others (speaking of crackpots).

In the minds of the public, he was guilty regardless whether he had fled the country or not. Because that’s the storyline that has been fed to them by the media, who have made billions if not trillions off of manufactured Michael Jackson scandals in past couple of decades — and they’re still doing it. Big name. Easy target. Easy money. That’s what this is all about – keeping that storyline (and those profits and careers) pumped up. And the truth – or at least any mention that these stories are often logistically senseless? Well – that’s just not included.

I know that often, a person who is made a pariah by, or otherwise ousted from his/her own country for various reasons (not necessarily that they are a criminal) will flee that country and / or denounce their citizenship.

Is the Dalai Llama guilty because he fled Tibet? Of what his he guilty? Being too peaceful? Same as Michael I suppose. There’s a lot to be said about that.

According to Jermaine’s comments both in and outside of his book, as well as other Jackson family members, they did not doubt Michael’s innocence. They doubted the justice system and the possible outcome. Who could blame them when such a flimsy case had ever even made it into a courtroom on the wings of a vengeful, malicious, racist DA, and various self-serving media personalities and media entities out to build their careers and fortunes out of destroying a talented, wealthy, powerful entertainer with these scandals?

Here’s an interesting distinction in regards to these articles – Jermaine tweeted this today:

my book doesn’t say ‘if convicted” but thanku for demonstrating my point about those in media not interested in facts

So the tabloids did put their own “spin” on the story. The excerpt the tabloids based their story on is from Jermaine’s new book: “You Are Not Alone“, where Jermaine explains a plan to help Michael out of the country during (not after) the 2005 trial. Michael was not aware of these plans, and Jermaine did not say the plan was to be carried out only if Michael was convicted.

There’s a logistical issue with this story as presented by the media: If convicted, it would have been difficult if not impossible for Michael to flee, regardless Jermaine’s plans. Michael would likely have been taken into custody immediately. Also, his passport had been seized by authorities until the trial was over. If convicted, he’d be unlikely to have gotten his passport back and thus could not have gone out of the country. So in that regard the story also makes no sense given the limited context it has been presented in. The tabloids then put their own spin on it which made it even more senseless.

Tom Mesereau and Jermaine have said the same thing I’ve written here on the subject: that is that there would have been no way Michael could flee if convicted even if he planned to (which he did not as he was unaware of Jermaine’s plans). The story Jermaine relates is to illustrate how unfair he thought the system had been to Michael and how desperate he was to save his brother from wrongly being persecuted and to save him from certain death in prison if things began to turn against them in the trialbefore any verdict was decided.

It’s a story of desperation – with good reason behind it. That good reason is completely lost in the focus on Jermaine’s plans and the spin the media placed on them.

The media has taken this one paragraph from his book and micro-focused on that, leaving out the rest of the story (and any nuance along with it) and further twisted it for the purposes of sensationalism. Fans who dislike Jermaine have taken that twisted version and used it as a further excuse to lambaste him.

I can understand fully his desire to take his brother from a situation in which he might be wrongly convicted of something he didn’t do. He explains this in his book and interviews. The REAL crime – was committed against Michael Jackson. Many of us know that. That’s what Jermaine expresses and that is the bigger story that is being completely ignored here in favor of simply focusing on Jermaine’s plans as twisted by the media.

And as it turns out Michael did flee to Bahrain – legally. Because he didn’t want to be in a country where he was constantly targeted. Tom Mesereau told Michael he should go after he was acquitted for that very reason – because he would continue to be targeted in the U.S..

When he finally returned – he was murdered. Lambaste Jermaine Jackson if you want but Jermaine isn’t the problem here! It’s bigger than him.

I can understand Jermaine being very emotionally honest in his book about his concern for his brother and his desperation to help save him at the time – but unfortunately emotional honesty sometimes causes trouble – especially when the media gets hold of the story and twists it for sensationalism. It shouldn’t happen, but it does. How many times has the same happened to Michael, that his emotional honesty got him into trouble and he was completely misunderstood as relates to a bigger picture? Didn’t we empathize with him anyway? Didn’t we want others to empathize with him anyway? Of course we did. Then, can we not afford the same consideration to his brother when he is being honest? If not, we are hypocrites.

The whole world needs to grow up and think – preferably about someone besides themselves. Else, what is it that the media and fans who need a reason to dislike Jermaine Jackson are trying to make people believe – while the bigger story about the horrific injustices against Michael and the numerous violations of his civil rights goes ignored?  I think it’s pretty obvious.  If you’re a Michael Jackson fan, you might need to examine why you have gotten sucked into this distraction.

© Seven Bowie, 2011

Tags:

12 Responses to “Beware the sewage flying around on the internet(s)”

  1. SandyK says:

    I wanted to include this by Barry L. Friedberg M.D., one of the REAL experts. This is part of a comment he left yesterday below a USA Today article. (Seven, what are the rules for reposting comments? I wanted to post full comment, but not sure if it’s allowed. Thanks.):

    Barry Friedberg
    5:42 PM on September 9, 2011

    “No amount of defense tactics can relieve Murray of his absolute responsibility to have watched & monitored Jackson.”

    Source:
    http://www.usatoday.com/life/people/story/2011-09-09/michael-jackson-conrad-murray-trial/50339596/1#uslPageReturn

    FULL COMMENT by Dr. Friedberg:

    The presumption of innocence normally accorded the accused has been lost because of Conrad Murray’s publicly uttered statements (“I gave Michael Jackson propofol,” & “I left the room.”)

    Any prospective juror must would likely be aware of these comments.

    With those statements, Murray has publicly incriminated himself for patient abandonment.

    Since 1989, hundreds of millions of patients have safely received propofol in various doses because someone was watching and monitoring them.

    So it is not the dose of propofol, or who may have given it that is at question, but the flagrant absence of well-established propofol safety protocols that is the cause of involuntary manslaughter.

    Murray having left the room without any remote monitoring devices subjected Jackson to a patently unsafe propofol practice that directly led to the predictable, avoidable death of Michael Jackson.

    No amount of defense tactics can relieve Murray of his absolute responsibility to have watched & monitored Jackson.

  2. Olga (Thetis 7) says:

    I just saw a stupid lady being happy that she was on tv, projecting her own fantasies to MJ’s fans. I wonder, did she had a dream about it? Because she certainly didn’t ask Michael’s fans.

    “savior” and “satan” were very funny to say the least.

    As her colleague, I hope she will follow my free advise and since I am better in analysis than she is, I would suggest her to find out what “savior and satan” mean to her and why being on tv made her soooooo happy.

  3. Seven says:

    Sandy, full posting of comments is fine. I added Dr. Friedberg’s full comment to yours. Thank you! He has been speaking out very regularly about this case and I’m glad he is. His credentials are stellar and he is an expert in his field – knows of which he speaks.

  4. Irina says:

    Michael would have said these utterings are quite indicative of the mindset of the person speaking… Savior and Satan??
    Yikes. Isn’t that the juxtaposition the media tried to apply to Michael himself?

    Perhaps thinking outside some religious box should be required when making ‘professional’ statements tied to one’s own profession.

    The inside into some people’s thinking is almost TMI, very scary.
    At least I know whom I would avoid when seeking counseling, lol.

    What’s next, the second edition of “Peter Pan syndrome”, or they’re gonna name a new syndrome after Michael?
    “MJ Projection Syndrome”, lolol. “Obsessive/compulsive stalking of the deceased and those who love him?”

    And they call us ‘weird’. I swear that Michael Jackson is the benchmark for modern medical ‘professionals’- from Murray to Drew Pinsky and now this one.

    ^^^Must have been the talking heads talking out of other body parts that Judge Michael Pastor referred to.

    Wendy, hm? Does that qualify for “Peter Pan Syndrome by proxy?”

  5. SandyK says:

    Thank you, Seven!!!…:-)

  6. Celesteluna1 says:

    Wendy Walsh is a former tv entertainment reporter turned tv shrink. She could not get cable jobs anymore, so she went to school to be a tv shrink. She wants LOTS of face time, so we are likely to see more of her idiotic sound bite analyses in the very near future. Please join me in complaining about her as often as you can. She is a puppet and a fraud.

  7. celesteluna says:

    Wendy Walsh is a failed entertainment talking head – who went back to school to be a TV “shrink”. She knows what producers want and she will give them the catchy pronouncements and soundbites so she can keep her face on the air. She is a joke – please join me in protesting all of her appearances on TV – and there will be more.

  8. karen says:

    I don’t understand why Jermaine would even think of telling this story even if he did plan on getting MJ to escape. Doesn’t he know that the media will take everything he says and twist it to make MJ look guilty? He needs to stop with this type of behavior, it makes Michael look bad.

    As for this Walsh character she obviously hasn’t got a clue about either MJ or his fans

  9. cjg says:

    I am curious as to why Jermaine felt it necessary to include this story which of course would be latched onto and used as a weapon against Michael by the media when Michael had no knowledge of it. Michael was acquitted of these FALSE charges – enough said. There is so much more to discuss about Michael than this . Also, Thomas Mesereau stated that he was the one who advised Michael to leave the country immediately after the verdict because he could see the DA was “bucking for him” and wasn’t going to quit(I heard TM say it firsthand).

  10. Seven says:

    Only Jermaine could answer why he included that passage in his book. I will not attempt to answer for him. Yes I do remember Tom Mesereau telling Michael (or reading he told Michael) to leave ie: “get out of here”.

  11. Joyce says:

    Your choice of the word “Sewage” and the visual aid you included is the perfect way to describe what continues to flow from the majority of the media. These so called “experts” would be laughable if they were not so cruel and the public was not so easily taken in by their deceptions.
    I will never understand why some members of the Jackson family do not realize that they are just continuing to give the media more ammunition to aim at Michael. As you said, only they can answer that question.
    Thank heavens for people like Dr. Barry Friedberg and Mr. Thomas Mesereau!

  12. aldebaranredstar says:

    yes, i saw that stupid comment by wendy walsh (do you think it’s her real name–why do the names often start with the same letter–diane dimond?). her comment indicates that michael’s supporters are living in a ‘fantasy’ world–and by extension, so was michael. in fact, she is the one living in the fantasy and we are in the real world–where murder is committed by irresponsible and careless doctors–killing a wonderful, irreplaceable person, who was abused by the media as well as his doctor. she should be ashamed instead of smiling on tv–her comments shed no insight–just more smears on michael’s supporters. can you believe bashir is commenting on the trial? when will it end?

Leave a Reply