Michael Jackson Death Hoax Investigators
Latest News => Fake News (MJ Edition) => Topic started by: ~Souza~ on November 11, 2010, 06:47:43 PM
-
Quoting TheRunningGirl on another example of bad journalism, I have already sent my e-mail.
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: http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/co ... 30620.html (http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/columnists/julie-burchill/julie-burchill-sight-of-next-jackson-generation-makes-me-pine-for-the-x-factor-2130620.html))
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 Practice
http://www.pcc.org.uk/
2. 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
j.hari@independent.co.uk (http://mailto:j.hari@independent.co.uk)
4. A copy of my complaint below so that you can paste it if you wish to do so
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 Sincerely
xxxxxxxxxxx
Michael Jackson's Army of L.O.V.E.
Here is the list of media e-mail addresses to paste in the CC (just click the image):
(http://www.binnenmeer-tabijn.nl/cgi-oic/pagedb.exe/..%5C..%5Cdocumenten%5Cvoorpagina%5Cemail.jpg) (http://michaeljacksonhoaxforum.com/phpbb2/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=12707#p212099)
-
! that amount of mass media! :lol: , I go has to begin has to send electronic mails morning, I have but time :mrgreen:
-
Done :mrgreen:
-
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.
-
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.
My Bad TrustNo1 ---Good Point ---- I read the article too fast and obviously mis-read it ... and nobody picked it up until you did! - Definitely worthwhile correcting it! You may want to revise the letter incorporating your points, so that others who have not yet send it have a clean version.
With L.O.V.E
-
No problem Running Girl and thanks again for doing all this, we really appreciate it!! ;)
-
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 Sincerely
xxxxxxxxxxx
Michael Jackson's Army of L.O.V.E.
Very slightly edited version!! ;) Have removed the love-rat part and added the extra "'s" where necessary.
-
I'm just putting a link to the thread on it.
http://michaeljacksonhoaxforum.com/phpbb2/viewtopic.php?f=119&t=15636
Good work everyone x
-
*reminder*
We are going like cat and mouse :lol:
-
I sent Simon Yip from PCC the same reply as I send to ITV yesterday {http://michaeljacksonhoaxforum.com/phpbb2/viewtopic.php?f=119&t=15632&start=75#p266613 (http://michaeljacksonhoaxforum.com/phpbb2/viewtopic.php?f=119&t=15632&start=75#p266613)} and I got a reply today:
Subject: Press Complaints Commission - Our reference 105481
Date: Wed, 17 Nov 2010 15:24:33 +0000
Dear 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 Yip
Administrator
Press Complaints Commission
Halton House
20/23 Holborn
London EC1N 2JD
Tel: 020 7831 0022
Website: <!-- m -->http://www.pcc.org.uk (http://www.pcc.org.uk)<!-- m -->
And of course he got a reply back (let's hope they will do something with it):
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 -->http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/co ... 30620.html (http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/columnists/julie-burchill/julie-burchill-sight-of-next-jackson-generation-makes-me-pine-for-the-x-factor-2130620.html)<!-- 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
-
I think it is a great way that these people are reading the emails and are being bothered to respond, is a way to make them understand that in this world not everyone is swallowing their garbage.
-
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: http://www.pcc.org.uk/faqs.html#faq4_7 (http://www.pcc.org.uk/faqs.html#faq4_7)
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: http://www.pcc.org.uk/cop/practice.html (http://www.pcc.org.uk/cop/practice.html)
Fur the r information about the complaints process can be accessed using this web link: http://www.pcc.org.uk/complaints/process.html (http://www.pcc.org.uk/complaints/process.html)
Information about our service commitments to complainants can be accessed using this web link: http://www.pcc.org.uk/complaint/charter.html (http://www.pcc.org.uk/complaint/charter.html).
Fur the r information about the PCC can be found on our website www.pcc.org.uk (http://www.pcc.org.uk) .
Yours sincerely
Simon Yip
Administrator
Press Complaints Commission
Halton House
20/23 Holborn
London EC1N 2JD
Tel: 020 7831 0022
Website: www.pcc.org.uk (http://www.pcc.org.uk)
I received this response yesterday.
-
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?
http://michaeljacksonhoaxforum.com/phpbb2/viewtopic.php?f=119&t=15636&start=25#p266265
With L.O.V.E
-
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?
http://michaeljacksonhoaxforum.com/phpbb2/viewtopic.php?f=119&t=15636&start=25#p266265
With L.O.V.E
I pasted the e-mail addresses of Jackie, Randy and Jermaine in the CC (at least from their management), so I guess they will get it one way or another.
-
@ Souza Thanks
Here is my reply to the PCC, I have also requested for the complaint to be dealt with under third party rules. I only copied the letter to Tito as I did not have any other relevant addresses.
If we managed to get better family email addresses then it will be easy for one of us to make contact.
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:
http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/co ... 30620.html (http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/columnists/julie-burchill/julie-burchill-sight-of-next-jackson-generation-makes-me-pine-for-the-x-factor-2130620.html)
I 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
With L.O.V.E
-
I have taken this and added my own which I will put up asap and the article/reply from PCC etc...basically all of what has been sent/recieved and sent it to Taj
I will be busy all day/night as it's my birthday but on Friday I will send it to whoever I can get a contact for via my own sources.
-
I have taken this and added my own which I will put up asap and the article/reply from PCC etc...basically all of what has been sent/recieved and sent it to Taj
I will be busy all day/night as it's my birthday but on Friday I will send it to whoever I can get a contact for via my own sources.
Congrats!
-
Happy Birthday Sinderella! :) Have a great one!
-
Well, I got the same auto-responses as y'all from the MacKenzie E-mails, but I don't know what this says (It's from Eingangsbestatigung):
Sehr geehrte Kundin, sehr geehrter Kunde,
vielen Dank für Ihre E-Mail. Wir werden uns schnellstmöglich um Ihr Anliegen kümmern.
Noch Fragen oder Wünsche? Rufen Sie uns gern an unter 0180 - 2 - 34 46 77 (6 Cent pro Anruf aus dem deutschen Festnetz, Mobilfunkhöchstpreis 42 Cent pro Minute) oder e-mailen Sie uns unter http://www.faz.net/kontakt (http://www.faz.net/kontakt)
.
Bitte antworten Sie nicht auf diese automatisch erzeugte Eingangsbestätigung.
Mit freundlichen Grüßen
Ihr Abo-Service Team
Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung
-
Happy Birthday Sinderella! :) Have a great one!
Congrats!
THANK YOU DARLINGS!!
-
I have received notification today that my complaint (as per the letter below) has not been referred to the Press Complaint Commission on the basis of my request to waive the third party rules.
Let's see what happens!
With L.O.V.E
@ Souza Thanks
Here is my reply to the PCC, I have also requested for the complaint to be dealt with under third party rules. I only copied the letter to Tito as I did not have any other relevant addresses.
If we managed to get better family email addresses then it will be easy for one of us to make contact.
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:
http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/co ... 30620.html (http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/columnists/julie-burchill/julie-burchill-sight-of-next-jackson-generation-makes-me-pine-for-the-x-factor-2130620.html)
I 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
With L.O.V.E
-
Mine too TheRunningGirl:
We will now ask the Commission whether it wishes to waive its third party rules and take your complaint forward. If this is the case we will ask the editor to deal with your complaint.
Fingers crossed!
-
Waiting on mine
-
I have received today the feedback from the Press Complaints commission regarding our complaint and unfortunately the commission has decided that it was not possible, in the circumstances, to examine pour complaints further under the code of practice.
[center:7q6php44]Commission's decision in the case of "TheRunningGirl" (My real name showed here)/ Souza v The Independent[/center:7q6php44]
The complainants were concerned that the article questioned the integrity of Michael Jackson's children and gave a misleading account of their skin colour. They also objected to claims that Michael Jackson's face had been ruined and that the children had seen the "darker side of fame".
The commission made clear that it generally only considers complaints from those directly affected by the matter about which they complained. In this instance, given that remarks made in the article related directly to the children of Michael Jackson, it would require a complaint from a member of the Jackson family, or their official representative, in order to establish whether they considered that the article had misrepresented either Michael Jackson or his children. In the absence of such complaint, the commission was unable to comment on the matter further.
Reference Nos. 105480/105481
@ Souza, it is interesting that our 2 separate complaints (with separate content) ended up as one, I guess we were the only 2 people in the World to have asked the commission to waive its rules... and guess what they declined to do so! Had more people done so, it may well have worked. Shame! At least we tried and know how the system works now!
With L.O.V.E
-
I have received today the feedback from the Press Complaints commission regarding our complaint and unfortunately the commission has decided that it was not possible, in the circumstances, to examine pour complaints further under the code of practice.
[center:39aahxxh]Commission's decision in the case of "TheRunningGirl" (My real name showed here)/ Souza v The Independent[/center:39aahxxh]
The complainants were concerned that the article questioned the integrity of Michael Jackson's children and gave a misleading account of their skin colour. They also objected to claims that Michael Jackson's face had been ruined and that the children had seen the "darker side of fame".
The commission made clear that it generally only considers complaints from those directly affected by the matter about which they complained. In this instance, given that remarks made in the article related directly to the children of Michael Jackson, it would require a complaint from a member of the Jackson family, or their official representative, in order to establish whether they considered that the article had misrepresented either Michael Jackson or his children. In the absence of such complaint, the commission was unable to comment on the matter further.
Reference Nos. 105480/105481
@ Souza, it is interesting that our 2 separate complaints (with separate content) ended up as one, I guess we were the only 2 people in the World to have asked the commission to waive its rules... and guess what they declined to do so! Had more people done so, it may well have worked. Shame! At least we tried and know how the system works now!
With L.O.V.E
I got the same e-mail. Well we did try, unfortunately no luck this time. I also sent copies to the Jacksons. They could have picked it up, but didn't. I am afraid this was all we could do in this case. But next time we'll try again, and again, and again....
-
Hi all!
a while ago, some fame seeker named tanya gold, wrote a disgraceful piece of article in the british journal the guardian and myself, along with some mj supporters started a campaign sending complaints, getting singnatures etc
same simon yip that responded, same emails, and same final result: they found a way out of it.
i even contacted charles thomson back then and he also said that there is nothing we can do, except oficially complain...very frustrating!!
-
Hi all!
a while ago, some fame seeker named tanya gold, wrote a disgraceful piece of article in the british journal the guardian and myself, along with some mj supporters started a campaign sending complaints, getting singnatures etc
same simon yip that responded, same emails, and same final result: they found a way out of it.
i even contacted charles thomson back then and he also said that there is nothing we can do, except oficially complain...very frustrating!!
Very Frustrating I agree! The rules they have in place mean that the Family either need to complain directly or we need to be a significant number of "Complainers" and turn the complaint into one of public interest. The PCC is paid by the newspapers so does not have much of an incentive to "rock the boat"!
With L.O.V.E