Is this the "NEW New Journalism"?


Or just grandaddy's propaganda bulls*** machine?

I was honestly appaled that one could even watch this and think that Jackson was handled in an ethical or professional manner. This "documentary" was a mockumentary with an emphasis on the word MOCK. And shame on VH1 and any other network who eschews real investigative programming for this step below the worst Hard Copy headliner.

I mean, it's funny to hear me saying this, because I do think Jackson is fairly off-kilter. But I feel or him, because underneath I sense he is sad and lonely, despite the illusions of wealth and fame.

I scoffed when I heard of Jackson's resentment of this program, and his seemingly reactionary counter-production. But then I saw this one and thought, "you go, Michael. Show him everything you got."

It hurts to see exploitation like this. Avoid at all cost (or DO watch it as a lesson in how to NOT conduct interviews and journalism).

reply

[deleted]


Um, would a documentary calling Charlie Manson evil be called one sided? Hows about Michael Milken?

Dont be an idiot, just because you catch someone acting like a child molester, doesn't mean you are "one sided" when you expose his activities.

Geez that is a stupid POV.

reply

Yes and yes?
It's a mistake to be one sided for any reason but more especially if you're producing something which is to be referred to as 'journalism'. This documentary is a 21st century freak show - they're giving the people exactly what they want. "Look at how much of a FREAK Michael Jackson is! Buy the DVD!"
We're an internation of morons.

reply

[deleted]

[deleted]