0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
"Do you guys see what I'm saying now? This is just a small slice of the day-to-day bulls*** that goes on that helps to precipitate the idea that (I'm) such an a******. Cause when I don't perform 'Oh now I'm the one that's crazy or a jerk.'"He added, "I don't hate Matt Lauer... They made a mistake. They thought they could pull it (off) but they couldn't. That was just a small representation of a bigger media play that's been going on since the beginning of time... Much love to Matt and the whole Today Show. I accept ya'll future apology in advance."
Thank you for your email. We are very sorry that you were offended by the comments made by Kelvin McKenzie on This Morning on 9 November. We accept that his comments about Michael Jackson caused offence to some viewers, which we regret. However, when Mr McKenzie gave his opinion on the safety of children formerly in the care of Michael Jackson, and referred to the well known allegations that were made about him, the programme’s presenter Philip Schofield did point out immediately that Michael Jackson was not found guilty in relation to those allegations, and that no-one knows that any children in his care would be at risk. Following Mr McKenzie’s further comment that Michael Jackson’s children will have a better life without him, Philip challenged him again, and said the children would obviously disagree with Mr McKenzie’s “tough words”. He also invited viewers to give their views on Mr McKenzie’s comments, making clear that these were not expressed by the programme but by Mr McKenzie in a personal capacity. Later on in the programme, a comment was read out from a viewer who strongly disagreed with Mr McKenzie’s views. Although we acknowledge Mr McKenzie’s comments were offensive to some viewers, they were challenged and contextualised immediately by the presenter. In the context of a spontaneous live discussion about a highly controversial (and deceased) celebrity, arising from a talking point in the news (namely the Jackson children’s recent TV interview with Oprah Winfrey), we consider that the programme overall exhibited balance. Whilst we appreciate that some viewers, particularly fans of Michael Jackson, would strongly disagree with Mr McKenzie’s personal opinions, we do not agree that the programme was inaccurate as such (as the comments were clearly expressed as opinion) or that it breached generally accepted standards. Overall the presenters and the other contributor (Lesley Joseph) were supportive of the children’s decision to be interviewed and stated that they were well-adjusted and had expressed their love for their father. Regards This Morning Programme
Are there people who will volunteer writing the letter?
Ok, wait a minute. Is this the same Charles Thomas that was posted on a previous post here? I listened to the interview but I didn't hear anything that he said that was slandering MJ. Ok, I must have missed something.
Quote from: "Infinitylady"Ok, wait a minute. Is this the same Charles Thomas that was posted on a previous post here? I listened to the interview but I didn't hear anything that he said that was slandering MJ. Ok, I must have missed something. No, he talks about McKenzie, who slandered MJ.
Infinitylady - thank you for sharing this with us. This angers me that they believe this was done in "balance". What balance and good taste is in saying that Michael's children are better off with their father dead?This just shows the deep decline that we as a society have reached to believe that degrading comments and rude, crude, slanderous remarks are accepted practice and that it's okay to bash the integrity of an innocent man all in the name of discussion.I'm not surprised by this reaction but I am disappointed. At least we've started to do our part in speaking out against these injustices and even if nothing ever becomes of this we still need to be the voice of reason crying in the wilderness.
