Talking with Charles Thomson about Recent Divisive Events in the MJ Community
Talking with Charles Thomson about Recent Divisive Events in the MJ Community
A while back, Extreme Michael Jackson was fortunate enough to be able to talk with Michael Jackson expert Charles Thomson. For those unaware of recent divisive events in the MJ community, Mr. Thomson has received an unfortunate hazing from bloggers who have somehow decided he is involved in various conspiracies involving Michael Jackson. There has been a flurry of unjustified misinformation based on diddly squat.
Some of Charles' audience has decided he is a fanatical, delusional MJ fan defending a monster; others have decided he is not fan enough. The truth is that Charles never represented himself as either- his job as a journalist is to remain objective, have his own opinion when appropriate, and to uncover the facts about whatever stories he is working on. Since music writing is his niche, he ended up writing about Jackson. Since the facts all point to Jackson's innocence in the awful scandals he endured, Charles wrote about that. Since Charles is a professional journalist whose job it is to uncover deeper layers of information, he was involved with making Jackson's FBI files public. Those files clarified further how distorted the media made the facts, and point further to the complete absolution of all charges against Michael Jackson. For some reason, Charles has become the victim of malicious accusations regardless of the laudable services he has done in the name of truth.
Since I did not fully understand exactly what has been going on, or why, I decided to talk with Charles and find out. The interview is extremely long: as ever, Charles is generous with his time and expertise. I am going to run the interview as a series, answering one or two questions at a time.
Following today's question, I have pasted the list of questions so you can all anticipate what is to come.
Our previous interview was at this link:
http://extrememichaeljackson.wordpress.com/2010/05/11/lorette-c-luzajic-talks-with-michael-jackson-expert-charles-thomson/
What I think about Charles Thomson is hardly relevant, but since some of you have asked where I stand on what I see as a non-issue, and where I stand on MJ- as if that is hard to figure out- here is my statement:
I am a lifelong fan of Michael Jackson. I love interesting people and am fascinated by eccentrics, and I am an artist and writer and so I am drawn to unusual and creative people. Jackson is not my only hero, not by a long shot, but my admiration is unwavering- he is one of the greatest artists of all time, an absolutely unique person, grossly misunderstood, with an inexplicable ability to heal people around him and a heart of gold. I love him with all my heart. Yet part of my fascination is with public response: some people have died for him, some recoil, some are inspired, some are terrified. I see MJ as fated to have a mythological role, and part of that mythos is the tragic part. Tragic and broken in his own life- no one this unusual is entirely stable- and also tragic in that his magic and sorrow reveals the best and worst of human nature. Michael shows us a lot more about human nature than he showed about himself.
For these reasons, I do not believe in censoring anyone's responses, even if I vehemently disagree. I believe in free speech in all areas, including this one. That does not mean I support people's whims to spread lies: it does mean that I support people's right to an opinion I may find reprehensible, or merely implausible.
As for Charles Thomson, he is a man I have never met, for those who were asking if we are old friends conspiring together. I certainly hope that we meet one day. I discovered Charles through my vast readings about Michael, and was impressed to say the least. He courageously spoke against the very presses that hire him, not always the best move for a young man hoping for a long career, but a move filled with integrity. Charles is an extremely gifted writer with a commitment to facts. As a writer, I am envious of his professional skills and his dignified handling of animosity.
Do I agree with Charles on each and every detail? I trust Charles' facts simply because I see how committed he is to honest reporting, even at great personal expense. But as for matters of opinion, not always. I've never met anyone yet with whom I always agree on every opinion. From what little I know, we have very different personality temperaments and different tastes in entertainment. Nonetheless, I am quite certain we would get on famously if we are ever given the chance to meet in a more personal setting. I expect we would not run out of things to talk about over a couple of pints or a fine cappuccino. I am grateful for the virtual world which has led me to this very gifted and inspiring writer.
Moving along now, let's begin.
Charles, you're a young writer who blasted rather quickly from school into the public eye after garnering some prestigious attention for your work on James Brown. Then you found yourself in the role of Michael Jackson expert. Was this unexpected? How did this affect the direction and state of your career?
First and foremost, I didn't leave school and walk right into the public eye. After leaving school at age 16, I went to college for two years where I studied journalism among other subjects. From college I went to university, where I spent another three years in journalism training, graduating with honours in 2009. (NB from Lorette: Please be advised that by "school" I was referring not to high school but to college/university. It seems that Brits do not refer to higher ed as school.)
It is worth pointing out that none of this training is prerequisite for a career in British journalism. The industry qualification is issued by the National Council for Training Journalists (NCTJ) and if you enrol in a fast track course, you can qualify as a journalist in six months, whereas by studying the topic at college and university I trained for four years.
I first started contributing to newspapers at age 16 or 17, during my college years. It was a requirement of the journalism course I was enrolled in – we would interview local figures or cover local events and then write stories for the local press. During my early years at university I contributed to more local newspapers on a regular basis and by age 19 I was doing freelance work for an American music journal. By age 21 I was contributing to national newspapers and magazines.
My work as a Michael Jackson 'expert' was unexpected, to say the least. As I told you in a previous interview, I got a tip-off in March 2009 from an insider who gave me information on when and where Michael Jackson would fly into the UK to announce his comeback shows at the O2. The source asked me to leak the details as they felt it would create some positive PR around the concert announcements. I passed the information on to The Sun, which seemed the sensible thing to do – if you want publicity, you might as well go to the country's biggest newspaper. The Sun realised that I was quite plugged in when it came to Michael Jackson, so they decided to keep using me.
My work with the Sun has drawn much criticism from Michael Jackson's fans but I'm not quite sure why. At the first sign of impropriety I wrote a long and damning article, condemning them for their skewed reporting on Evan Chandler's suicide. Before that, they'd never been anything but ethical in their dealings with me. It's not like I'm some tabloid shill or paid Sun apologist. When I wrote that article about the Sun scrapping my research on Evan Chandler and replacing it with inaccurate information, I jeopardised any future work with the newspaper and have barely done anything for them since.
Regarding how my work on Michael Jackson has affected the state of my career, it hasn't made me rich. It has boosted my profile, but only because the fans discovered my blogs and started posting them all over the internet. Before the fans discovered me, I was blogging about Michael Jackson in almost total obscurity. I got paid for my work with the Sun, but the hoopla surrounding Michael Jackson's concerts and then his death only lasted from around March until October, and they didn't consult me for every Jackson story they wrote – not by a long shot. It wasn't a long term gig and my services were required only occasionally.
The majority of my work on Michael Jackson, particularly concerning the allegations and the trial, has been totally pro bono. I don't get paid for my Huffington Post articles and obviously I write my own blog for free. But I don't mind doing a certain amount of pro bono work. I consider journalism to be a vocation. I think it is a necessary job, especially in an era when many journalists are tethered by corporate ownership. So if I think a story is important, I will write it for free if need be. That goes for writing 5000 word essays about the media's horrendous coverage of Michael Jackson's trial, or covering important issues for my local newspapers. I'm currently covering a story in my town about local government trying to bulldoze children's playing fields and build houses on them.
My work on Michael Jackson has made me a bit of an internet celebrity, which has brought just as many problems as it has benefits. But it hasn't made me rich or won me a lucrative job in the media industry. I'm the same person living in the same house and doing the same stuff on a day to day basis – my name just generates more hits on Google.
Next time:
As a journalist, you were instrumental in getting Michael Jackson's FBI records released to the public. Tell me about that process. What did those records reveal?
stay tuned for these questions during this serial:
Charles, you're a young writer who blasted rather quickly from school into the public eye after garnering some prestigious attention for your work on James Brown. Then you found yourself in the role of Michael Jackson expert. Was this unexpected? How did this affect the direction and state of your career?
As a journalist, you were instrumental in getting Michael Jackson's FBI records released to the public. Tell me about that process. What did those records reveal?
In an earlier interview with me, you stated that you believe in Michael Jackson's innocence, not because you like his music, but because that's what the evidence shows. The importance of this distinction might seem rather obvious, yet it is a distinction overlooked by Jackson's fans and foes alike. Can you comment on that?
You wrote an excellent piece for the Huffington Post about how the tabloid lynching of Jackson is one of the media's most shameful episodes in history. And you've consistently conveyed fact based journalism and analysis that champions Michael Jackson as innocent, doing much to vindicate that innocence to detractors. This has exposed many prejudiced hatemongers or the woefully misinformed for what they are. Yet recently, you have been attacked on some rather absurd premises. Can you tell me about that?
Regarding the photograph with Randy T- is Randy also a villain in this saga?
You were also accused of being someone you weren't. Tell me about that.
Your previous interview on my blog received mostly wonderful support. But not entirely. I was asked why I'd run an interview with you on my blog, since you allegedly had not been a supporter before Jackson's death. I mentioned that you are barely out of school and probably were not yet working during the trials. Am I wrong? Was there a time when you were giving Jackson negative press, and changed your mind?
There seems to be a phenomenon happening where some fans or bloggers or writers feel they have a monopoly on Michael's legacy. While for the most part, I feel an extraordinary kinship and love as part of Michael's fandom, there are some unfortunate divisions. Why can't we all just get along?
You've been criticized for expressing that there were some artistic choices Jackson made that didn't appeal to you. Can you comment?
For me, pretending a hero is beyond reproach, or pretending that every song or performance must appeal to every audience, means a danger of losing our critical faculty. Michael Jackson himself was far more critical of his work than even his toughest detractors. Can you comment on that?
I also feel it is dangerous to sweep things under the rug in order to sanitize someone's reputation. We can't get over stigmas and taboos about, for example, drug addiction, until we are able to honestly discuss such struggles. I've been criticized for referring to Jackson's substance struggles, which is ironic given my own historical struggles and losses. Doesn't it diminish Michael's very humanity if we just leave important parts of the puzzle blank? In a sense, denying Jackson's various struggles means denying his pain, the pain our society caused him.
You've also received support throughout this time. Tell me about that.
How did you handle the whole episode? How did it make you feel? What lessons have you learned?
What does this episode say about the dangers of fanaticism?
How will you proceed from this day forward?
http://extrememichaeljackson.wordpress. ... community/
[hr:3nf2warj]hr[/hr:3nf2warj]
Interview with Charles Thomson, part two
We are talking with Michael Jackson expert Charles Thomson about some recent, peculiar events in the fan community. To recap, Thomson is a music journalist who frequently writes about black music. His award winning work on musicians like James Brown and Michael Jackson is widely read. He has written extensively in defense of Michael Jackson's innocence, but has recently come under fire for his alleged secret agenda. In this lengthy serial interview, I tried to find out how things got so out of hand. One moment, Charles was a devoted, brilliant writer...the next, he was being accused, exposed, and jabbed for some absurd motivations. I wasn't quite sure what was going on, so I decided to ask.
As a journalist, you were instrumental in getting Michael Jackson's FBI records released to the public. Tell me about that process. What did those records reveal?
The files were released under a piece of legislation called the 'Freedom of Information Act'. The act is designed to maintain openness and transparency in government by allowing members of the public to request information which is, for one reason or another, not public. The FBI, as a government body, is required by law to respond to FOIA requests.
While a person is alive, their FBI file is unavailable because to release it would breach privacy laws. You can get around this rule but only by getting the subject of the file to sign a privacy waiver agreement. However, once a person is deceased you can request their file and the FBI is required by law to release it unless it breaches national security. The files are often redacted, however, because they include reference to particular FBI agents or information on people who are still alive.
I was one of several people who requested Michael Jackson's FBI file under the Freedom of Information Act, which I did because I was curious to see if it contained any additional information on the government's repeated interferences in his life. I wasn't sure he'd even have an FBI file so I was shocked to learn that he did and that it was 600 pages long.
Overall, I was distinctly unimpressed by the FBI's handling of the request. Initially this was because the FBI took so long handling my request. In the UK, bodies are required by law to answer FOIA requests within 20 working days. However, I filed my request with the FBI in summer 2009 and it wasn't released until December.
I was also unimpressed by the way in which the FBI released the documents, which I've never seen them do in any other case. They announced to the world's press that the documents would be uploaded on a certain date at a certain time, which sparked a worldwide rush to download the documents and be the first to write a story about them. Meanwhile, as one of the original requesters of the file, I was not given any advance notice or priority.
The result was that the media, all racing to be the first with the story, skim-read the files and published wildly inaccurate stories about them on a global basis. I saw newspapers which claimed that the FBI had supposedly seized a videotape from Jackson and found child porn on it. The files actually said that the tape, seized from an unknown person at Palm Beach customs, was simply 'connected to Jackson' – and that connection appeared merely to be that somebody had written his name on the cassette's sticky label. As for child porn, there was no record of any being found.
Other newspapers said that the FBI had investigated allegations that Jackson molested two Mexican boys in the 1980s. This was patently untrue. The FBI merely noted a phone call in which somebody claimed that they'd heard a story that the FBI had investigated such a claim. The documents further note that the FBI "searched indices, both manual and automated for any reference to the above mentioned investigation. No references were found." In other words, somebody telephoned the FBI and made a bogus allegation. The FBI noted that allegation and found no merit to it, but the media misrepresented the allegation as the FBI's own conclusion.
The inaccuracies in the media's reporting on Jackson's FBI files were countless and they went all over the world. The files supported Jackson's innocence, showing that after ten years of investigation by both the LAPD and the FBI, neither organisation had ever been able to find one piece of evidence connecting Jackson to any crime. The release of the files should have been positive PR for Michael Jackson but the media's ridiculously poor reporting had the opposite effect.
This is why I was so irritated by the way in which the FBI handled the release of the documents. If I had been given some kind of advance copy because I was one of those who actually requested the file, I could have read them properly and filed an accurate report, which would have been copied and pasted by lazy media outlets the world over. By releasing the documents to a global mob of salivating reporters the FBI ensured that the files were not read properly before news outlets started filing reports on them. So instead of repeating accurate claims about the FBI files, media outlets – on a global basis – were recycling distortion and misinformation.
My other gripe with the FBI was that they omitted around half of Jackson's file and never offered any explanation as to why. My understanding is that government bodies are required by law to give an explanation as to why any information has been held back when answering an FOIA request. I never saw any record of the FBI giving any such explanation.
In an earlier interview with me, you stated that you believe in Michael Jackson's innocence, not because you like his music, but because that's what the evidence shows. The importance of this distinction might seem rather obvious, yet it is a distinction overlooked by Jackson's fans and foes alike. Can you comment on that?
Michael Jackson is a divisive subject. He has some very overzealous fans and some very overzealous detractors, both of whom have attacked me for pretty much the same reason. The detractors have attacked me because they think it is impossible to believe in Michael Jackson's innocence unless you're an insane fan. They've palmed me off as a 'floon', a word they use to describe Jackson's ardent supporters. But I don't even like all of Jackson's albums or tours and I'm certainly no apologist for his mistakes.
Unfortunately, the fact that I don't like all of Michael Jackson's albums or tours and don't airbrush over his mistakes has drawn the ire of some of his fans, too. They don't seem to be able to distinguish between a fan and a journalist and, displaying logic that is strangely similar to Jackson's detractors, they seem to think it's impossible to believe in Michael Jackson's innocence unless you're a devout fan.
I've said in the past – notably in my previous interview with you – that I don't like a lot of Jackson's later musical output or performances. Consequently, these fans have lambasted me as a 'hypocrite' and a traitor. Quite what my opinion on Jackson's HIStory Tour or Invincible album has to do with my views on his trial, I'm not sure, but for some fans there is definitely a perceived connection. I can't understand the logic that by believing Jackson is innocent and at the same time not liking some of his albums I am a hypocrite. The two, as far as I am concerned, are irrelevant to one another. It's like calling somebody a hypocrite because they love apples and hate pears.
Next time: You wrote an excellent piece for the Huffington Post about how the tabloid lynching of Jackson is one of the media's most shameful episodes in history. And you've consistently conveyed fact based journalism and analysis that champions Michael Jackson as innocent, doing much to prove that innocence to his detractors. This has exposed many prejudiced hate-mongers and the woefully misinformed for what they are. Yet recently, you have been attacked on some rather absurd premises. Can you tell me about that?
http://extrememichaeljackson.wordpress. ... -part-two/
[hr:3nf2warj]hr[/hr:3nf2warj]
Interview with Charles Thomson, part 3
You wrote an excellent piece for the Huffington Post about how the tabloid lynching of Jackson is one of the media's most shameful episodes in history. And you've consistently conveyed fact based journalism and analysis that champions Michael Jackson as innocent, doing much to prove that innocence to his detractors. This has exposed many prejudiced hate-mongers and the woefully misinformed for what they are. Yet recently, you have been attacked on some rather absurd premises. Can you tell me about that?
I discovered a few months ago that somebody had been impersonating me on TMZ. Worried that they'd start impersonating me elsewhere, and knowing that twitter is famous for such cases, I decided to set up a twitter account. Within a few days I had roughly 200 followers and was enjoying interacting with the fans and answering their questions.
During one discussion the subject of Michael Jackson's drug dependencies came up. I suddenly found myself bombarded with angry and abusive tweets insisting that Jackson had never been addicted to any substance and the whole story was an evil media conspiracy. I pointed out that several of Jackson's relatives have said in interviews since his death that they knew he was addicted to drugs and had tried to stage interventions. The fans simply claimed that these relatives were part of the conspiracy.
That incident caused some of Jackson's fan to turn against me. My comments have been blown up since then; the product of several months' worth of Chinese whispers. I recently saw somebody claiming they'd seen me write on twitter that I was planning a negative article about Jackson's drug addictions – a total fabrication. The incident has been exaggerated to a ridiculous extent.
At roughly the same time, I travelled to Los Angeles for a week and while I was there I met the author J Randy Taraborrelli, who quoted my work in the latest edition of his Michael Jackson biography. We went out for dinner and while we were there we got some pictures taken. Both Randy and I posted the pictures on our facebook pages.
A while later I found out that somebody had written a blog accusing Randy and I of being involved in a Sony conspiracy to murder Michael Jackson. I emailed the blogger asking them to remove the entry because it was false. The blogger simply replied, 'But I have a photo of you and Taraborrelli. What am I supposed to do with that?', as though the photo was some sort of big secret. The blogger was taking an open and acknowledged friendship between myself and Randy and claiming that it was somehow secretive or suspicious.
The twitter incident combined with the animosity some fans felt towards Randy – and therefore towards me by association – created a backlash against me and my work, spurred on in no small part by the constant assertions by conspiracy theorist bloggers that I was somehow involved in a thus far unfathomable (at least to me) plot by Sony to murder Michael Jackson by writing blogs about him after his death.
I have never worked for Sony. Ever. The allegation is absurd and it is entirely without any evidential basis. Unfortunately, that hasn't stopped a number of vulnerable fans from being taken in by the claims.
The fall-out from these Sony allegations has been extremely distressing for me. I received numerous obscene and threatening messages via email and facebook. The blogger's followers started spying on my social networking accounts and publishing details of who I was talking to and what I'd been writing.
This intrusion into my private life, as well as the hate mail, prompted me to privatise all of my social networking accounts. The blogger even tried to use that against me, claiming that the privatisation of my accounts proved Sony had ordered me to stop interacting with the fans!
I soon came under attack from a second blogger who actually attempted to blackmail me. The blogger found my page on a website I'd joined at college that offered support for gay teens, then emailed me threatening to 'expose' me unless I gave them information on Sony's involvement in Michael Jackson's death. This was information I didn't have, which resulted in the blogger outing me as gay.
That second blogger also unearthed an old account I had on a Michael Jackson related forum, where I made – I would estimate – in excess of 10,000 posts over approximately 5 years. The blogger selectively posted a handful of comments I'd made on the forum (many quite similar to comments I'd made in our last interview; points about not liking Jackson's latter musical output and complaining that he didn't help himself in terms of bad press by constantly painting a target on his back). This sparked fury among some of the more obsessive fans.
This all links into what I was saying earlier about how some fans can't conceive of somebody believing in Jackson's innocence but also disagreeing with some of his decisions. The stance these fans take is that you either totally support every single thing Michael Jackson has ever done or you're a traitor and a hypocrite.
In your question you used the word 'absurd', and I think that's a very accurate word to describe what has happened to me over the last few months. The allegations being levelled at me are beyond absurd. There is no evidence in existence that will tie me to Sony and I can state that with 100% certainty because I have never worked for them. Ever. I've never worked for Sony, I've never met John Branca, I've never been a 'paid blogger' for anybody and I certainly wasn't involved in Michael Jackson's death. Anybody claiming to have evidence supporting any of these allegations is a liar and/or a fantasist.
Sometimes, as I read the blogs making these allegations, I do still get angry at how these people can write total nonsense about me and there is nothing I can really do about it. However, I don't get too worked up because as I browse their other content – nasty comments about Jackson's grieving relatives, allegations that 'This Is It' is all body doubles and even claims that Jackson may have faked his own death – I understand that nobody of sound mind would take any notice of them.
What does make me angry is when I see vulnerable fans looking to these blogs for answers and taking them seriously. Whenever I look underneath one of those blogs and see somebody commenting, 'Thanks – I didn't know Charles was a hired Sony blogger. I won't support him anymore', that makes my blood boil. These bloggers are taking advantage of vulnerable people – and those vulnerable people are bigger victims in this situation than I am.
http://extrememichaeljackson.wordpress. ... on-part-3/
[hr:3nf2warj]hr[/hr:3nf2warj]
Interview with Charles Thomson, part four
We've been talking with Michael Jackson expert Charles Thomson, in a lengthy interview about recent unfortunate events in the MJ community. Thomson, a talented young music journalist, has been accused of everything under the sun, including allegedly conspiring with Sony to murder Michael Jackson. Here, we continue to examine this theatre of the absurd.
Regarding the photograph with Randy T- is Randy also a villain in this saga?
A lot of Michael Jackson's fans seem to have a highly sanitised image of him. On the basis of Jackson's extensive charity work and humanitarian efforts, some fans do seem to view him almost as a celestial being – an angel walking the earth.
Conversely, Randy Taraborrelli's biography of Jackson portrays him as a man with many facets to his character. He writes about Jackson throwing tantrums sometimes, or being snappy with his staff, occasionally cursing – that sort of thing. Basically, Taraborrelli portrays Jackson as a human being and some of Jackson's fans can't handle that – it's too real for them. They view even the remotest criticism of their idol as an act of sacrilege.
Randy Taraborrelli is one of the world's most respected celebrity biographers. He interviews roughly 500 people for every book he writes, gaining an extraordinary insight into his subjects. I also know from our personal conversations that he's very critical of his own work and wouldn't allow anything to go into print if he thought it was untrue. For the fans to dismiss him as 'tabloid' is just baseless. If you want to talk tabloid, go read Christopher Anderson's book – or Ian Halperin's or Diane Dimond's. Taraborrelli's book is, in my opinion, the only Michael Jackson biography which even comes close to getting to Michael's core and understanding him as a human being.
Moreover, Randy Taraborrelli believes in Michael Jackson's innocence and has been on the record as believing in Michael Jackson's innocence since around 1995 when he said so in an interview about the upcoming HIStory album. The fans criticise him for giving both sides of the story in his book, particularly regarding the 1993 allegations, but I don't see how you can possibly come away from that portion of Randy's biography without feeling the doubt in the 1993 case was far beyond reasonable.
As for bloggers accusing Randy of being a Sony-sponsored anti-MJ blogger; he must be the first paid blogger in the world who doesn't actually have a blog.
You were also accused of being someone you weren't. Tell me about that.
This is another example of Michael Jackson's fans and detractors behaving in the same way, actually. I think it's because they're at either end of an extreme scale, from people who obsessively adore Michael Jackson to people who obsessively despise him. Psychologists say that those who subscribe to conspiracy theories tend to have obsessive personalities.
There's a website called Topix that houses a group of people who rabidly despise Michael Jackson. That's where the conspiracy theories about my identity originated. A writer called Deborah Ffrench kept going over there and defending me, so they started claiming that Deborah was actually me. I remember finding it ironic at the time that these people were accusing me of lying about Michael Jackson's innocence and at the same time were perpetuating their own insane lies about me. Total hypocrisy.
In actuality, Deborah Ffrench is very real and recently published the first part in a trilogy of articles about Michael Jackson for the website Stereoboard. Her first piece, which centred on the 1993 allegations and how the media covered them, was fantastic – easily the best article I've ever read about the 1993 allegations. We help each other out with research all the time but we are certainly not the same person.
Since it was decided by various conspiracy theorists that I am actually an evil Sony henchman, a further conspiracy theory has evolved among Michael Jackson's fans that Deborah Ffrench – for reasons unclear even to the originators of the theory – ghosted some of my Michael Jackson articles for me. They even took different articles written by me and started comparing the syntax and the vocabulary, quite certain that they could prove through textual analysis that the articles had been penned by two different authors.
The fact that Deborah was dragged into the debacle really highlighted how insane the situation was. Some fans were comparing her articles to mine and declaring that we were provably the same person because we had
identical syntax. It just shows how conspiracy theorists can invent something out of nothing. Deborah and I don't write in the same way at all. I am a journalist. I've been trained to write in straightforward, factual language – always to the point and nothing flowery. Deborah, on the other hand, is more literary. She has a flair that I couldn't emulate even if I tried. It's built into me to write journalistically, whereas Deborah is in love with language.
Talking about conspiracy theorists making something out of nothing, that's just reminded me of something I saw the other day, which showed again how these bloggers can take tiny modicums of fact and then use them to 'prove' gigantic and irrelevant theories.
Some bloggers have been accusing John Branca of being involved in Michael Jackson's death and their blogs have been doing the rounds on facebook. Somebody posted one of the links on Randy Taraborrelli's facebook page. Randy is a friend of John Branca's so he put up a message saying he didn't want any trash talk about Branca on his profile.
A conspiracy theorist blogger subsequently wrote: "So now we have a three-some . . . Taraborrelli, Branca and Charlie, who are all just so buddy-buddy. Isn't that nice?"
This is an absolutely perfect example of how conspiracy theorists take mundane and irrelevant factual information and use it to 'prove' something through a series of leaps which are unsupported by any evidence.
Facts: Charles Thomson knows Randy Taraborrelli. Randy Taraborrelli knows John Branca.
Leap number one: This proves that Charles Thomson knows John Branca.
Leap number two: This proves that Charles Thomson, Randy Taraborrelli and John Branca are all involved in a murderous conspiracy together.
I have never met John Branca. Ever. Never corresponded with him, never spoken on the phone, never been in a room with him, never even been in the same building. I have literally never had any contact with John Branca at any point in my life. But on the sole basis that I know Randy and Randy knows John Branca, I am accused of being involved in a murderous conspiracy with John Branca.
As you said earlier: 'Absurd'.
Your previous interview on my blog received mostly wonderful support. But not entirely. I was asked why I'd run an interview with you on my blog, since you allegedly had not been a supporter before Jackson's death. I mentioned that you are barely out of school and probably were not yet working during the trials. Am I wrong? Was there a time when you were giving Jackson negative press, and changed your mind?
I am certainly not just out of school. I left school six years ago, but spent the next five in higher education at college and university. (NB from Lorette: by "school" I in fact meant higher education, not public school. In Canada school refers colloquially to studying, not to grade school.)
I'm glad you asked me this question because this is a lie that conspiracy theorists have been circulating about me for several months now; a baseless and gratuitous fiction that I only started writing positively about Michael Jackson after he died when it became 'profitable'. It's a provable lie, perpetuated by bloggers who have made their name from attacking me and now need to keep the myth of me as bogeyman alive in order to preserve their own perceived credibility.
I have been writing positively about Michael Jackson for public consumption since the Summer of 2008, when I interviewed Aphrodite Jones about her book 'Michael Jackson Conspiracy' and published it in a magazine called Deadline. That interview is on my website and at the time Aphrodite declared that it was the best article she'd ever seen written about her career. It was also published on the fansite MJStar and circulated on various other fansites at the time.
Then, in May 2009, I self-published my own black music magazine called JIVE. The first article in the entire magazine opened with a quote from Michael Jackson's 2002 speech in New York about racism in the music industry, and in the ensuing article I wrote about how black artists have been maligned and bullied throughout the last century, encompassing Chuck Berry's case in 1959 and Michael Jackson's in 2005.
So that shatters the myth of me being some sort of hater before Michael Jackson died. As for the constant claims that it's now profitable for me to write positively about Michael Jackson, or that I'm doing it to further my career – that's all insane drivel as well.
Firstly, all of my recent work on Michael Jackson's legal troubles has been published either on my personal blog or on the Huffington Post, both of which I write for no money whatsoever.
Secondly, I am a journalism graduate who has, in my work on Michael Jackson, attacked CNN, CBS, Fox News, ABC, MTV, VH1, CourtTV, the Daily Mail, the Sun, the Mirror, the Guardian, Channel 4, ITN Factual, the New York Post, the New York Times, the Hollywood Reporter and I can't even remember who else. Anybody who thinks that this is going to assist me in my career is living in a fantasy world.
http://extrememichaeljackson.wordpress. ... part-four/
[hr:3nf2warj]hr[/hr:3nf2warj]
interview with Charles Thomson part 5
We are talking with music journalist Charles Thomson about the press, Michael Jackson, MJ fans, conspiracy theories, and how a bizarre combination of these things ran amok.
Note to friends who left comments, and those who didn't, bewildered by parts of the interview that seemingly generalized all of us fans as obsessive. As one reader kindly pointed out, this is a VERY LONG interview and Mr. Thomson made the context very clear at the beginning of the interview- the incidents and obsessed that he is referring to are a SMALL PERCENTAGE of us, not the majority of us. Please don't be led out of context because this interview was over 7000 words. It was my editorial decision, for simplification of reading, to post over six or seven installments, and should not alter the cohesive meaning of Charles' responses to my questions. Thank you.
Moving on:
There seems to be a phenomenon happening where some fans or bloggers or writers feel they have a monopoly on Michael's legacy. While for the most part, I feel an extraordinary kinship and love as part of Michael's fandom, there are some unfortunate divisions. Why can't we all just get along?
I think it is a shame that there is so much bickering, in-fighting, drama and division in the fan community. If the community was motivated and united with common goals, there would be a real and tangible possibility of affecting some change.
As it is, there are too many people trying to wrestle the fans' attention from one another. They each have their own theory on Michael Jackson's death, their own set of goals and their own set of enemies. Some are after Steve Cooley and want Murray's charges raised. Some are after Sony. Some are after AEG. Some are fighting for media reform. Some are after John Branca. Some are even trying to track down Gavin Arvizzo and force him to come clean. Meanwhile, writers like Andrea Peyser are overtly calling Michael Jackson a child molester in print and the issue is buried because everybody's focus is split and they're all distracted.
Some of the investigations and campaigns are valid. Others are wild goose chases and those are the ones that annoy me. There are bloggers who claim to be conducting 'investigations' into Michael Jackson's death, but they're not investigations at all. In an investigation you gather all of the available evidence and draw logical conclusions. But many of these bloggers have already made their minds up. Their 'conclusion' is preconceived and they simply ignore any evidence that undermines it. A small example would be the bloggers who constantly accuse me of only writing pro-Michael Jackson articles after he died when even the most superficial research would show them that I've been overtly in his corner since 2008.
A lot of Michael Jackson's fans viewed him like a family member or a loved one, while others saw him as an angel or even as a God. For many of these people, his death has wreaked havoc on their lives. They ate, slept and breathed Michael Jackson. Now that he's gone, it's left a huge hole in their lives. Also, they're confused and they want answers. For some, Michael Jackson was so enormous that they can't conceive of him being killed by anything which wasn't equally enormous, such as a global conspiracy. These vulnerable fans are taken in and effectively brainwashed by bloggers peddling theories that aren't supported by any tangible or legally admissible evidence. It's all hearsay, dubious connections and enormous leaps of faith. It's hard to tell whether these bloggers have actually convinced themselves that what they're writing is true, or whether they're just doing it for attention. Either way, I find it frustrating to see vulnerable fans suckered in by them.
You've been criticized for expressing that there were some artistic choices Jackson made that didn't appeal to you. Can you comment?
Only to reiterate that I fail to see what my views on Michael Jackson's work have to do with my views on his legal problems. The two are entirely unrelated to one another and I am perpetually baffled by fans who will brand me a 'hypocrite' for believing in Jackson's innocence but not liking his mimed concerts.
Some of Michael Jackson's fans simply cannot accept any criticism, or even perceived criticism, of their idol. I was recently asked on twitter who I thought was the greatest entertainer of all time. I answered 'James Brown' and found myself on the receiving end of numerous nasty tweets, containing insults directed at both myself and James Brown, simply because I hadn't picked Michael Jackson! (NB from Lorette: This is particularly ironic, since Michael Jackson worshiped James Brown and watched him intently to learn his own craft!)
You would think that Michael Jackson's fans would be grateful to have somebody in his corner who the media cannot immediately palm off as a crazy fan. Unfortunately, some of them seem to despise me specifically because I'm not a crazy fan.
For me, pretending a hero is beyond reproach, or pretending that every song or performance must appeal to every audience, means a danger of losing our critical faculty. Michael Jackson himself was far more critical of his work than even his toughest detractors. Can you comment on that?
I can't comment on whether Michael Jackson was more critical of his work than anybody else, but what I will say is that it is absurd to have a fan community in which people are scared to level any criticism at any aspect of Michael Jackson's life or career for fear of being labelled a 'hater' or cast out and told that they're not a 'real fan'. There are fans who view saying 'History Tour was rubbish' as being on par with saying 'Michael Jackson molested children'. I just think those fans need a reality check.
I understand that Michael Jackson's fans are defensive after the years of abuse he got from the media, but some take it to the extreme and they actually end up worsening people's impressions of Jackson and his fans rather than improving them. There is a climate of fear in the fan community among those who view Jackson realistically. I've seen fansites ban members for stating facts, such as that Jackson wore a wig or that the HIStory Tour was largely mimed. I've also seen fansites ban members for common sense statements such as that it was unwise for Jackson to let kids into his bedroom after the 1993 ordeal. When you're so defensive that you view factual information or common sense statements as 'negativity' or 'hate', you have a problem.
I also feel it is dangerous to sweep things under the rug in order to sanitize someone's reputation. We can't get over stigmas and taboos about, for example, drug addiction, until we are able to honestly discuss such struggles. I've been criticized for referring to Jackson's substance struggles, which is ironic given my own historical struggles and losses. Doesn't it diminish Michael's very humanity if we just leave important parts of the puzzle blank? In a sense, denying Jackson's various struggles means denying his pain, the pain our society caused him.
I made almost exactly the same comment after the 'addiction' incident on twitter. Michael Jackson's struggles with drugs are an important part of the narrative. This is a guy who went from refusing to even drink Pepsi to doctor-shopping for prescription meds and keeping open liquor bottles beside his bed. He went from being the brightest young talent in the world, often described as a shrewd, hands-on businessman, to a debt-ridden addict who was described, even by helpful defense witnesses during his trial, as often walking around his property completely intoxicated. Do we really want to remove the culpability for this from those who did it to him?
That transformation is attributable directly, I feel, to the allegations that were levelled against him and the way in which the media covered them. I think Jackson's spirit was broken to such an extent that he began to wonder, 'What's the point?' He abandoned his life-long refusal to use alcohol or drugs and wound up having recurring problems with chemical dependencies.
To airbrush his dependencies out of the narrative is to understate the impact of the allegations, the trial and the media's shameful reporting. It is, essentially, to relieve Sneddon, Zonen, the Chandlers, the Arvizos and the media of some of the responsibility they must shoulder for what happened to Michael Jackson.
Jackson's own relatives have given interviews since he died in which they've said that they knew he was addicted to drugs and they tried to stage numerous interventions, but were thwarted by Jackson's state of denial and sometimes by his security staff. I'm not going to be so arrogant as to sit here and say that I know better. If fans want to claim that they know more about Michael Jackson than his own relatives, that is their prerogative. But the family knew him, I didn't, and I'm not going to brand them liars.
You've also received support throughout this time. Tell me about that.
I have received a lot of support from Michael's fans during this last couple of months. For every piece of hate mail, I probably got three or four supportive emails. As I said earlier, I think that those who attack me – be they pro-Jackson or anti-Jackson – tend to be from extreme ends of the spectrum. Obsessive, emotional, reactionary and easily led. Many of Jackson's fans don't come from this extreme end of the spectrum and their support has been invaluable.
While I was in LA I was recognised at my hotel by a group of fans. At first I was a bit unnerved by the experience but I'm glad I spent a lot of time chatting to those fans because they got to know me one on one and they can see how absurd the claims are which are being made against me. I've seen some of those fans fighting my corner these last few months and I'm grateful for that.
I've also had high profile support. I've been fortunate enough to have J Randy Taraborrelli publicly declare his support for me. Aphrodite Jones too. I also received a message from a Jackson family member back when it was all kicking off, telling me that the people going after me have even gone after Michael Jackson's grieving mother and not to pay them any attention.
http://extrememichaeljackson.wordpress. ... on-part-5/
[hr:3nf2warj]hr[/hr:3nf2warj]
interview with charles thomson, final installment
How did you handle the whole episode? How did it make you feel? What lessons have you learned?
If I'm honest, it was truly frightening. Receiving obscene mail and threats, having my facebook spied on, being blackmailed over my sexuality – all over some unimportant comments I'd written on the internet about a popstar. It was terrifying. Being cyber-stalked and having details of your private life splashed all over the internet for purely malicious reasons is absolutely horrible. Seeing lies being published about yourself in blogs on an almost weekly basis is really frustrating, and seeing people leave comments underneath like, 'Thanks for telling me! I'll boycott his work now and tell my friends to do the same' – that breaks your heart.
The ferocity and obscenity of some of the mail I received made it clear that those sending it were mentally unstable and I became very concerned that somebody was going to take it that little bit further; that somebody was going to try to track me down and do me some harm. The language in some of the mail I received was so violent that I have no doubt that if I'd bumped into the senders the street, they'd probably have tried to kill me.
I can't say that I have any real regrets regarding the content of what I've written about Michael Jackson. I stand by my comments to this day, which makes an even bigger mockery of their calling me a 'hypocrite'. I still don't like Jackson's later albums, I still don't like his post-1989 tours and I still think he was responsible for a lot of his own negative media coverage.
My only regret is reacting to the bloggers in the first place. These people crave attention. The controversy made their names. Before they came after me, I'd never heard of any of them. Now everybody in the fan community knows who they are. I played right into their hands.
What lessons have I learned? I've learned that I need to make sure I keep my private life completely separate from my professional life and I've learned not to try so hard to please people. When fans started sending me friend requests on facebook I didn't want to seem mean or superior, so I accepted them. Over the months I ended up with hundreds of fans on my personal facebook, with access to my personal photos and my conversations with personal friends.
When these bloggers came after me, it turned out I had a lot of their followers on my facebook friends list. I had to delete everybody I didn't know from my facebook because there was no way of knowing who it was that was copying all my conversations over to blogs, message boards and so on. The exodus upset a lot of my supporters, but there was no way around it. I just shouldn't have fans to my personal profile in the first place. I made the mistake of assuming that these people were adding me because they were fans of my work and therefore would be respectful. Many of them were – but there's no way of knowing people's motivations when you receive their request. I was too trusting and too worried about offending people.
What does this episode say about the dangers of fanaticism?
It's hard to condemn people for their fanaticism because I don't think it's a choice they make. They tend to have a naturally obsessive personality so they can't really help it.
That said, sending somebody an obscene letter or a death threat is not something you do on autopilot. You make a conscious decision to do something like that. When your fanaticism has reached a point where you're sending people violent messages for saying they don't like a particular album or even for saying they don't like your idol generally, I think it's time to take a step back and say, 'This isn't healthy anymore.'
Similarly, being a massive fan of somebody doesn't give you the right to publish slanderous lies about everybody who you perceive to be their enemy. You can't just go around accusing people of murder because you don't like something they said about Michael Jackson three years ago, or because they happened to be on the periphery of his circle at the time when he died.
This sort of behaviour – sending people obscene mail and publishing provable lies about people all over the internet – it's just not acceptable under any circumstances. Just because you've devoted your life to something, it doesn't give you the right to threaten, abuse, bully or blackmail anybody who disagrees with you.
How will you proceed from this day forward?
I haven't published anything about Michael Jackson since June and I don't have any plans to publish anything Michael Jackson related at least in the next month or so. This incident with the fans has made me very wary of writing about Jackson, to be honest. It feels like you're walking into a trap. You just can't win with some of his fans. It feels like no matter what you do, it's never good enough. There's always some criticism. You didn't write it soon enough. You weren't nasty enough to Diane Dimond. Whatever.
My last Huffington Post piece took some serious research. I spent a month trawling through online newspaper archives, reading transcripts from TV broadcasts during the trial, finding footage and audio online and transcribing it myself, as well as re-reading the court transcripts from Jackson's trial. The resulting article was around 5000 words long. I dedicated a month of my life to that project and I did the entire thing for absolutely no money whatsoever.
I did it because I believe the cause is important. I thought the fans would be supportive and appreciative – and many of them were. But I did get comments saying things like, 'Too little, too late. Where were you in 2005?' In 2005 I was training to be a journalist. I just thought, 'Now they're sending me abuse because of my age?' How can you attack somebody over their age? They have no control over it.
When it wasn't my age, it was other totally meaningless things – from not liking some of Jackson's work or having dinner with Randy Taraborrelli to simply not being so arrogant as to assume that I know more about Michael Jackson's drug dependencies than his own family members.
It was an extremely deflating experience. After expending so much time and energy on a completely pro bono project for no reason other than to get the truth out about Michael Jackson's trial, rather than expressing support, some of the fans were on twitter calling me a 'c*nt' because I didn't like the HIStory Tour. It made me
think, 'What is the point? Why do I spend all my time on projects like this if I'm just going to get abuse in return?'
I've had emails probably reaching into the hundreds, pleading with me not to stop writing about Michael Jackson. I don't intend to stop completely. Part of the silence has been because there's nothing really going on at the moment to write about. Even when there is, you end up repeating yourself. You're listing the same facts over and over again, just in response to a different people.
I have some Michael Jackson related research going on in the background. I can't give too much away. I was annoyed, to say the least, over what happened with the FBI file so I don't want any media trying to horn in on my research this time. I'm approaching the research from different angles and also have some exciting interviews in the works. But it takes time to do things properly. When I'm ready to publish, I will let the fans know about it.
In the meantime, I'm doing what I've been doing all along – a mixture of local journalism, music writing and whatever else comes my way.
Stay tuned and in touch with Charles Thomson:
http://www.charles-thomson.net/
http://extrememichaeljackson.wordpress. ... stallment/
