0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Could people also email this one --- Sinderella posted about another abusive article, this time in The Independent Newspaper this morning(please add the article link to the email before sending it: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login)This is what needs to happen in order to complain about this article:1. The UK press is loosely bound by the Press Complaints Commissions Editor’s Code of PracticeYou are not allowed to view links. Register or Login2. In order to complain you need to either feel a form on line (It took me a couple of minutes see website link above) or send them an email at You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login4. A copy of my complaint below so that you can paste it if you wish to do so QuoteDear Madam or Sir,I am writing to formally complain about Julie Burchill's totally unprofessional portrayal of Michael Jackson and his children in The Independent in her column entitled Sight of next Jackson generation makes me pine for ‘The X Factor’ published on the 11th.Julie Burchill's comments on Michael Jackson and his children are inaccurate, biased, cruel, and in breach of Clause 1 of the Press Complaints Commissions Editor’s Code of Practice.Clause 1 on Accuracy includes the statements:• The Press must take care not to publish inaccurate, misleading or distorted information, including pictures.• A significant inaccuracy, misleading statement or distortion once recognised must be corrected, promptly and with due prominence, and – where appropriate – an apology published.• The Press, whilst free to be partisan, must distinguish clearly between comment, conjecture and fact.The Independent failed to take care not to publish inaccurate, misleading or distorted information, including pictures.Burchill wrote: “The children – so light-skinned that they resemble the result of an illicit liaison between Nicole Kidman and Casper The Friendly Ghost -were cool, calm and collected as they paid tribute to their dear old dad who, despite his habits of dangling babies over balconies and having sleepovers with rug-rats, turns out to have been just plain folks at home. "He tried to raise us without [us] knowing who he was, but that didn't go so well... ” Burchill is blatantly questioning the integrity of Michael Jackson's children – on which ground please?This is also insinuating that Michael Jackson's children are white as ghosts, this is insulting to the children and a total mis-representation of the reality. Has Burchill not noticed the children tanned complexion?The Independent failed to distinguish clearly between comment, conjecture and fact.Burchill’s comments were patently not justified by the context. She wrote: “And despite seeing the darker side of fame played out on their father's poor ruined face, they told Oprah they plan career in showbiz”. Burchill has got no ground to assume on the state of Michael Jackson’s face and no right in assuming what the children saw or did not see. This is fiction not journalism and is misleading in the context of the Oprah interview.This is totally unacceptable and I am seeking formal actions from The Independent on this matter. Propagating lies is not what I understand the media to be about. The Independent needs to obey by the editors code and publish an apology about this totally inaccurate portrayal of Michael Jackson and his Children.I would appreciate to be kept informed of the status of this complaint.Yours SincerelyxxxxxxxxxxxMichael Jackson's Army of L.O.V.E.
Dear Madam or Sir,I am writing to formally complain about Julie Burchill's totally unprofessional portrayal of Michael Jackson and his children in The Independent in her column entitled Sight of next Jackson generation makes me pine for ‘The X Factor’ published on the 11th.Julie Burchill's comments on Michael Jackson and his children are inaccurate, biased, cruel, and in breach of Clause 1 of the Press Complaints Commissions Editor’s Code of Practice.Clause 1 on Accuracy includes the statements:• The Press must take care not to publish inaccurate, misleading or distorted information, including pictures.• A significant inaccuracy, misleading statement or distortion once recognised must be corrected, promptly and with due prominence, and – where appropriate – an apology published.• The Press, whilst free to be partisan, must distinguish clearly between comment, conjecture and fact.The Independent failed to take care not to publish inaccurate, misleading or distorted information, including pictures.Burchill wrote: “The children – so light-skinned that they resemble the result of an illicit liaison between Nicole Kidman and Casper The Friendly Ghost -were cool, calm and collected as they paid tribute to their dear old dad who, despite his habits of dangling babies over balconies and having sleepovers with rug-rats, turns out to have been just plain folks at home. "He tried to raise us without [us] knowing who he was, but that didn't go so well... ” Burchill is blatantly questioning the integrity of Michael Jackson's children – on which ground please?This is also insinuating that Michael Jackson's children are white as ghosts, this is insulting to the children and a total mis-representation of the reality. Has Burchill not noticed the children tanned complexion?The Independent failed to distinguish clearly between comment, conjecture and fact.Burchill’s comments were patently not justified by the context. She wrote: “And despite seeing the darker side of fame played out on their father's poor ruined face, they told Oprah they plan career in showbiz”. Burchill has got no ground to assume on the state of Michael Jackson’s face and no right in assuming what the children saw or did not see. This is fiction not journalism and is misleading in the context of the Oprah interview.This is totally unacceptable and I am seeking formal actions from The Independent on this matter. Propagating lies is not what I understand the media to be about. The Independent needs to obey by the editors code and publish an apology about this totally inaccurate portrayal of Michael Jackson and his Children.I would appreciate to be kept informed of the status of this complaint.Yours SincerelyxxxxxxxxxxxMichael Jackson's Army of L.O.V.E.
Guys I just read the article again and I have a question, I'm not sure where in the article she implies he was a "love-rat", the closest I can see is the mention of rug-rats meaning the kids he had stay over. I point this out as in the letter to Ms Burchill it specifically asks her about the love-rat thing and I think if we put stuff in the letter that she didn't actually say/imply she's simply going to call us a bunch of crazy fanatics who are making stuff up to have a go at her. She'll say we didn't even read it properly but immediately hated her because it wasn't complimentary about MJ. Maybe I'm just not seeing it in the article so can someone help me out? I think we have a hard enough time being taken seriously by the media so we should be careful not to give them ammunition. Also we need to make sure we change "Michael Jackson kids" to "Michael Jackson's kids" in a few instances if we're going to send this en masse. No disrespect to Running Girl who did a fantastic job yet again for us in writing this. On a side note the illustration Burchill used of Michael in the article was just grotesque and reiterated this media theory of him being a freak.
Subject: Press Complaints Commission - Our reference 105481Date: Wed, 17 Nov 2010 15:24:33 +0000Dear Sir / Madam Thank you for your email. I understand that you are concerned about the article, but the Commission would generally require consent from those directly affected in order to proceed. Do you wish for us to ask the Commission whether it wishes to waive its normal procedures in this instance? Yours faithfully Simon YipAdministrator Press Complaints CommissionHalton House20/23 HolbornLondon EC1N 2JD Tel: 020 7831 0022Website: <!-- m -->You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login<!-- m -->
Dear Simon,Yes, I do wish for you to ask the Commission to waive its normal procedures in this instance. I speak for a large group of fans and other people that were very much appalled by the article. This is not just something that only concerns Michael's family, this concerns us all because everyone has the right to read honest and unbiased articles. Journalists have a responsibility towards the public and children. So in this case I am the one that complains, because it also concerns me, since I get to read articles like that and I shouldn't be forced to an opinion of someone that jumped onto the 'I hate Michael Jackson-bandwagon'.This is the link to the article again, for your consideration and that of some members of the Jackson family who will receive a CC of this e-mail so that they are notified of this article and the complaint. <!-- m -->You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login<!-- m -->Like I said, I speak for a large group of people who are sick of the dishonesty, prejudice and ignorance in today's journalism. It seems like all you have to be capable of lately to be a journalist, is finding the copy/paste buttons on your keybord. In my world that is not called journalism and should therefore not be published on a professional media outlet.Awaiting your reply,yours sincerely,Souza - The Netherlands
Thank you for your complaint about the Julie Burchill article in the Independent about the children of Michael Jackson. We have received a number of complaints. I should emphasise that the PCC will normally only consider complaints from people who are directly affected by the matters about which the y are concerned. Indeed, only in exceptional circumstances will the Commission consider a complaint from someone not directly involved. In this case, it would appear to be for the Jackson family, or the ir representatives, to pursue complaints relating directly to Michael Jackson, his family, and allegations relating to him. I can inform you that the Jacksons ’ PR team are aware of our services. Additional information about third party complaints can be found here: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login You will note that the Commission does, occasionally, decide to waive its third party rules in situations where an exceptional public interest can be demonstrated. I would be happy to ask the Commission to consider waiving its normal rules and considering the matter – would you be able to outline your argument for it to do so? The Commission will the n decide whe the r it wishes to take your complaint forward. If you would like to discuss your case before replying please do contact us. If, at the end of the process, you are dissatisfied with the manner in which your complaint has been handled, you should write within one month to the independent Charter Commissioner who will investigate the matter and report any findings and recommendations to the Commission. Fur the r details are included on our website. A copy of the Code of Practice which all newspapers and magazines who subscribe adhere to, can be accessed using this web link: You are not allowed to view links. Register or LoginFur the r information about the complaints process can be accessed using this web link: You are not allowed to view links. Register or LoginInformation about our service commitments to complainants can be accessed using this web link: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login. Fur the r information about the PCC can be found on our website You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login .Yours sincerelySimon YipAdministrator Press Complaints CommissionHalton House20/23 HolbornLondon EC1N 2JDTel: 020 7831 0022Website: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
We have 2 threads running in parallel on this same topic. Just to say that I also received a reply yesterday (Same as Sousa and Trustno1) and will be sending a reply tonight.I however beLIEve that we need to make sure that the family is aware of it so that they have the opportunity to complaint as I believe they would have stronger ground to get an apologies than we have based on the current PCC rules. Those people unfortunately hide behind rules and as they are paid by the tabloids have little incentives to upheld complaints more so when those fall in the categories of exceptions.@souza ---> Have you been able to contact the family?You are not allowed to view links. Register or LoginWith L.O.V.E
Dear Simon,Many thanks for the reply. I am sorry to read that only complaints from people who are directly affected by the matters about which they are concerned are generally considered and I will be forwarding the current reply to members of the Jackson’s family.This is the link to the article again for your easy reference:You are not allowed to view links. Register or LoginI however also noticed in your reply that the PCC does, occasionally, decide to waive its third party rules in situations where an exceptional public interest can be demonstrated and I WISH to progress my complaint on this basis.My rational is simple: I am supported by a large group of Jackson’s fans and other supporters of honest journalism and we are all truly disgusted by this article. Nobody asked Julie Burchill to portray those young children as “so light-skinned that they resemble the result of an illicit liaison between Nicole Kidman and Casper The Friendly Ghost”! This is simply cruel and inaccurate! This type of cruelty towards innocent victims does not only concern Michael’s family but the wider public. We all have a responsibility to protect the innocents; we all have the right to read accurate articles! If Julie Burchill wishes to put irony in her columns she can but blatant lies she CANNOT! Journalists do have a responsibility towards the public and children; and I unfortunately believe that Julie Burchill mis-represented the Truth on this instance and showed cruelty towards innocent children.May I add that it breaks my heart to see journalists propagating lies and deliberately seeking to hurt innocent victims. This is NOT what journalism was intending to do and I sincerely hope that in this instance the commission will upheld my complaint and ask Julie Burchill to publicly apologise for her misleading portrayal of Michael Jackson’s children.Please do not hesitate to contact me via email or phone if you require further information.Yours Sincerely