Michael Jackson Death Hoax Investigators
Latest News => Fake News (MJ Edition) => Topic started by: ~Souza~ on November 09, 2010, 10:48:43 AM
-
Kelvin McKenzie: Jackson was an abuser and his children should never have been born
TUESDAY, 9 NOVEMBER 2010
It has been a while now since I blogged about Michael Jackson. There are two main reasons for this. The first is that in the wake of my last Huffington Post article I became the subject of some rather bizarre conspiracy theories. The second is that there hasn't been much to write about. I have been careful to avoid throwing my hat into the ring over trivial issues partially because I haven't wanted to draw attention to myself in recent months and partially because I don't want to start repeating myself.
However, today I was informed of an incident which I couldn't ignore. Former editor of the UK's Sun newspaper Kelvin MacKenzie today appeared on ITV's 'This Morning' and claimed that Michael Jackson was a child molester and that his children are better off now that he's dead.
He made the outrageous comments in the wake of a moving interview with Jackson's children, conducted by Oprah Winfrey, in which the three kids recounted what a wonderful father Jackson was and how they missed everything about him.
Here is a partial transcript of the exchange:
[Clip of Paris Jackson speaking about what a wonderful father Jackson was and recounting how she missed going to art galleries with him.]
Kelvin MacKenzie: Well it's nice of her to say that about her dead father but I have a much more significant question about how and why some of those children were born and under what circumstances, and whether in the end he would have turned out to be a great father. Certainly there are aspects of him that your audience would raise their eyebrows at. In fact the death of Michael Jackson may well have saved some children from a lifetime of being mentally corrupted.
Philip Scofield (Host): We don't know that, though.
MacKenzie: No, but at the same time he has faced a number of charges and allegations and I feel the children are better off now he has died.
Schofield: I am sure they would disagree with you.
MacKenzie's comments were despicable. He demonstrated a complete lack of respect for the US justice system and for the ethics of his profession. Jackson was proven innocent in a court of law and acquitted of any wrongdoing. But it's not unusual to witness misinformed pseudo-experts talking rubbish about Jackson's court case. More alarming in this case was the callousness MacKenzie demonstrated in claiming that the children were better off now that their father was dead.
The comments were, first and foremost, wildly inaccurate. He'd just watched the children recall what a wonderful dad Jackson was to them and list the copious reasons why they missed him every waking day of their lives. There is certainly no evidencial basis on which MacKenzie could possibly claim that the children had been rescued from abuse or corruption by their father's death. The comments were, secondly, completely heartless. He acted as though he was concerned for the children's wellbeing and yet thought nothing of making a series of despicable comments about them and their father. How does he think that will be beneficial to their well-being? In brief, Kelvin MacKenzie is a hypocrite.
He's also a bigot. In the past he has claimed that he tailored his newspaper to those who hate 'wogs' and 'queers'. He has a long and provable bias against Jackson and, as editor of the Sun, was responsible for countless inaccurate and heavily biased stories about the star. Given MacKenzie's long and demonstrable hatred of Michael Jackson, questions must be asked as to why exactly he was asked onto the show in the first place, unless producers were specifically angling for exactly the kind of cruel and heartless comments that he wound up making.
Fans wishing to complain directly to the television show can do so by emailing https://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/tell- ... gramme-epg (https://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/tell-us/specific-programme-epg)
However, they will be required to supply a UK address and telephone number.
http://charlesthomsonjournalist.blogspo ... r-and.html (http://charlesthomsonjournalist.blogspot.com/2010/11/kelvin-mckenzie-jackson-was-abuser-and.html)
-
Thanks for posting this. I was introduced to Charles Thomson when I added him as a friend on facebook. He emailed and was asking how he would know me before he accepted my request. I responded that he didn't and would not but that I was a fan of his writings and interpretations of MJ and that I found him to be very fair and appreciated the fact that he did not just "go along" with the other media hype just for ratings. We emailed back and forth via FB a few more times and I found his insights into the Jackson's to be very fair and accurate. We need more reporters/journalists like him in this world. The kind that won't sell their soul just for a dollar.
-
While driving home from work right after I posted this, I got an idea. I think we should do something about this as a group.
This Kelvin McKenzie is best buddies with Rupert Murdoch, which should say it all. Just read his Wiki page to see what kind of tabloid asshole he is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelvin_MacKenzie (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelvin_MacKenzie)
It is not stated in Charles' blog what the program was he appeared on, but after reading his Wiki page I bet it was the program 3@Three: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3@Three (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3@Three).
This weekend TMZ published this article:
MJ Fan Group Gunning to Shut Down Vault Website (http://www.tmz.com/2010/11/07/michael-jackson-jacksonsecretvault-website-katherine-jackson-breaking-news-opis-none-howard-mann/)
11/7/2010 12:45 PM PST by TMZ Staff
A group of Michael Jackson fans have banded together and fired off a scathing letter to the people behind JacksonSecretVault.com -- calling for the site to stop the "exploitation of Michael Jackson, his grieving mother, his beloved children and his legacy."
(http://ll-media.tmz.com/2010/11/07/1107-jackson-launch-getty-ex-credit.jpg) (http://tmz.vo.llnwd.net/o28/newsdesk/tmz_documents/1107_jackson_docs_2.pdf)
The letter contains a laundry list of complaints against the site, among their objections:
-- The exploitation of Michael’s elderly mother in the marketing, selling and merchandising from the Jackson Vault.
-- The use and brokering of Michael Jackson’s children to promote events, merchandise and interviews.
-- The use of the demeaning term, “Jacko” in the Jackson Vault website and press release. A degrading term that Michael himself, spoke openly against and thought was insulting.
This has all come about because of the release of a song on JacksonSecretVault.com -- which was first billed as a new song that had the blessing of Katherine Jackson ... but was later determined to be neither.
If they can, so can we. I think we should write a letter to the program and broadcast company as "Michael's Army of L.O.V.E." with the use of the OFCOM codes Charles mentioned in his blog and demand a rectification on the statements. We should mail this to them with a CC to every media outlet there is, all over the world. We could sign it with our first names or usernames (whatever people feel comfortable with) and our country, to show we are not just a small group, but a real army still growing. We al could give it a shot and post letters on here so we can pick the best one, or combine two or more to make it perfect. I know last time we exposed the Sun after the Dave Dave stories, other media outlets were very willing to mention that in their copy-and-paste article. One Dutch newspaper even told us that was the only reason they reported the story at all. I also think, siince we can't seem to get everyone on the same page about an extra website for the charities, we could use http://www.michaelsarmyoflove.com (http://www.michaelsarmyoflove.com) for this. We could use that site to publish everything the media mis reports, our action against it etc. If we agree one day about an extra site for charities, we can use lilwendy's http://www.mjsarmyoflove.com (http://www.mjsarmyoflove.com) for that, because she also offered her domain for that cause. In that way we can refer to a site, spread it and educate the people about the media's malicious reports, without giving them a reason to ridicule us because we are those 'nutters that think Michael Jackson is still alive". There's nothing that can't be done, if we raise our voice as one. Let me know your thoughts.
-
I totally agree, we can't just sit back and let people come out with such horrible blatant lies. I'm 100 % in.
-
Count me in!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
-
Count me in as well! Happy to front the OFCOM one if we require a UK address, I will comment further later on your proposal Souza.
With L.O.V.E
-
I think that's an awesome idea! I was actually thinking the other day how the other "MJ groups" seem to have a voice in the media and we don't really. And TMZ likes us, maybe if we did something as a group for MJ, we'd get our own article! I wonder how they would write about us...
-
I am totally on board with this.
All that is needed for the forces of evil to triumph is for enough good people to do nothing.
We NEED to do something about this! Thanks Souza!
-
Count me in as well! Happy to front the OFCOM one if we require a UK address, I will comment further later on your proposal Souza.
With L.O.V.E
Oh yes, everyone in the UK should also report it to OFCOM.
-
Count me in too. I will not stop until people see once and for all he is innocent. His struggle has become like my struggle since a long time and I will fight for his justice till the end of time
-
I support your initiative and I'm also with you Souza !
-
count on me. You don't even need to ask me, I'm in.
-
I'm in, too.
-
Brilliant idea Souza, I'm in the UK so will be complaining to OFCOM personally too, this man should not have been allowed on TV to perpetrate this kind of slander. His behaviour has shocked even me and I know exactly how much of a dirt-rag The Sun is. I hope he gets a taste of his own medicine from the fans who will no doubt be ready to mobilise over this.
-
Here is the email address so that those of you not in the UK can complain directly to the TV channel (ITV) who broadcast this. No need to a UK address doing it this way:
You are not allowed to view links.
Register or Login
I have just sent my complaint off. Just so that you know, the show is called 'This Morning' and was broadcast today, 9th Nov 2010 on ITV.
-
IN :D
in
-
Sounds like a good idea.
-
Count me in as well! Happy to front the OFCOM one if we require a UK address, I will comment further later on your proposal Souza.
With L.O.V.E
Oh yes, everyone in the UK should also report it to OFCOM.
For those in the UK who wish to complain to OFCOM as well, you need to do so before 12am tomorrow at:
https://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/tell-us/specific-programme-epg
It is an electronic form, where you need to register your details, the content of the complaint is limited to 1500 words - Here is mine below , feel free to paste it if you wish to do so:
I am writing to formally complain about Kevin McKenzie totally unprofessional portrayal of Michael Jackson on ITV at the This morning programme aired earlier today. His comments on Jackson are in breach of numerous segments of the OFCOM Broadcast Code.
Section 2.2: MacKenzie's ignored the facts presented at Jackson's trial and dismissed the verdict. He also ignored the children's accounts of their lives with Jackson and portrayed them instead as potential victims of 'abuse'.
Section 2.3 MacKenzie's comments were patently not justified by the context. In a discussion about an interview between Oprah Winfrey and Michael Jackson's children, MacKenzie irrelevantly raised the subject of Jackson's trial and proceeded to dismiss the verdict, insinuating that Jackson was a child molester.
Section 7.1 Does calling somebody a child abuser when they've been acquitted in a court of law constitute treating somebody unjustly or unfairly?
Section 7.9 MacKenzie ignored the facts, evidence and verdict in Jackson's trial and accused the star of being a child molester.
Section 7.11 Clearly, Jackson could not respond to Mackenzie's inaccurate allegations, but no representative of Jackson's family or estate was invited to appear on the show or to offer a rebuttal in the aftermath.
This is totally unacceptable and I am seeking formal actions from ITV on this matter. Propagating lies is not what I understand the media to be about.
With L.O.V.E
-
Thanks so much for that Running Girl, have pasted it as I couldn't have put it better myself! ;)
-
Here is the email address so that those of you not in the UK can complain directly to the TV channel (ITV) who broadcast this. No need to a UK address doing it this way:
You are not allowed to view links.
Register or Login
I have just sent my complaint off. Just so that you know, the show is called 'This Morning' and was broadcast today, 9th Nov 2010 on ITV.
Here is a copy of my email to ITV below for those who wish to re-use part of it:
Dear Madam or Sir,
I am writing to formally complain about Kevin McKenzie totally unprofessional portrayal of Michael Jackson on ITV during the This morning programme aired on the 9th November 2010 at 10:30.
Kevin McKenzie's comments on Michael Jackson were inaccurate, biased, cruel, and breached numerous segments of the OFCOM Broadcast Code.
Section 2.2 of the code demands that, "Factual programmes or items or portrayals of factual matters must not materially mislead the audience.” MacKenzie's comments were clearly misleading. He ignored the facts and evidence presented at Jackson's trial and dismissed the verdict. He also ignored the children's firsthand accounts of their lives with Jackson in order to portray them instead as having been 'corrupted' and said that they were potential victims of 'abuse'.
Section 2.3 of the code demands that, "Broadcasters must ensure that material which may cause offence is justified by the context." MacKenzie's comments were patently not justified by the context. In a discussion about an interview between Oprah Winfrey and Michael Jackson's children, MacKenzie irrelevantly raised the subject of Jackson's trial and proceeded to dismiss the verdict, insinuating that Jackson was a child molester.
Section 7.1 of the code demands that, "Broadcasters must avoid unjust or unfair treatment of individuals or organisations in programmes." This section of the code is constantly flouted when dealing with Michael Jackson. Does calling somebody a child abuser when they've been acquitted in a court of law constitute treating somebody unjustly or unfairly?
Section 7.9 of the code demands that, "Before broadcasting a factual programme, including programmes examining past events, broadcasters should take reasonable care to satisfy themselves that material facts have not been presented, disregarded or omitted in a way that is unfair to an individual or organisation." Material facts were clearly omitted and disregarded during Kelvin MacKenzie's unprovoked diatribe against Jackson. He ignored the facts, evidence and verdict in Jackson's trial and accused the star of being a child molester. The host did not point out Jackson's acquittal, either. MacKenzie also ignored the children's comments about their upbringing and proceeded to portray Jackson as the exact opposite of what they claimed.
Section 7.11 of the code demands that, "If a programme alleges wrongdoing or incompetence or makes other significant allegations, those concerned should normally be given an appropriate and timely opportunity to respond." Clearly, Jackson could not respond to Kelvin Mackenzie's inaccurate allegations, but no representative of Jackson's family or estate was invited to appear on the show or to offer a rebuttal in the aftermath.
This is totally unacceptable and I am seeking formal actions from ITV on this matter. Propagating lies is not what I understand the media to be about and ITV needs to take some steps in formally apologizing about this totally inaccurate portrayal of Michael Jackson.
I would appreciate to be kept inform of the status of this complaint.
Yours Sincerely
xxxxxxxxxxx
With L.O.V.E
-
Thanks so much for that Running Girl, have pasted it as I couldn't have put it better myself! ;)
My Pleasure trustno1 - it is much quicker this way.
With L.O.V.E
-
Are there people who will volunteer writing the letter?
-
Umm are we all writing the letter or different letters? I guess it doesn't matter?
-
Are there people who will volunteer writing the letter?
Souza - the letter I send to ITV (see above post) could form the basis (with relevant amendments) for the Army of L.O.V.E letter or have you got something radically different in mind?
With L.O.V.E
-
Here is the email address so that those of you not in the UK can complain directly to the TV channel (ITV) who broadcast this. No need to a UK address doing it this way:
You are not allowed to view links.
Register or Login
I have just sent my complaint off. Just so that you know, the show is called 'This Morning' and was broadcast today, 9th Nov 2010 on ITV.
Here is a copy of my email to ITV below for those who wish to re-use part of it:
Dear Madam or Sir,
I am writing to formally complain about Kevin McKenzie totally unprofessional portrayal of Michael Jackson on ITV during the This morning programme aired on the 9th November 2010 at 10:30.
Kevin McKenzie's comments on Michael Jackson were inaccurate, biased, cruel, and breached numerous segments of the OFCOM Broadcast Code.
Section 2.2 of the code demands that, "Factual programmes or items or portrayals of factual matters must not materially mislead the audience.” MacKenzie's comments were clearly misleading. He ignored the facts and evidence presented at Jackson's trial and dismissed the verdict. He also ignored the children's firsthand accounts of their lives with Jackson in order to portray them instead as having been 'corrupted' and said that they were potential victims of 'abuse'.
Section 2.3 of the code demands that, "Broadcasters must ensure that material which may cause offence is justified by the context." MacKenzie's comments were patently not justified by the context. In a discussion about an interview between Oprah Winfrey and Michael Jackson's children, MacKenzie irrelevantly raised the subject of Jackson's trial and proceeded to dismiss the verdict, insinuating that Jackson was a child molester.
Section 7.1 of the code demands that, "Broadcasters must avoid unjust or unfair treatment of individuals or organisations in programmes." This section of the code is constantly flouted when dealing with Michael Jackson. Does calling somebody a child abuser when they've been acquitted in a court of law constitute treating somebody unjustly or unfairly?
Section 7.9 of the code demands that, "Before broadcasting a factual programme, including programmes examining past events, broadcasters should take reasonable care to satisfy themselves that material facts have not been presented, disregarded or omitted in a way that is unfair to an individual or organisation." Material facts were clearly omitted and disregarded during Kelvin MacKenzie's unprovoked diatribe against Jackson. He ignored the facts, evidence and verdict in Jackson's trial and accused the star of being a child molester. The host did not point out Jackson's acquittal, either. MacKenzie also ignored the children's comments about their upbringing and proceeded to portray Jackson as the exact opposite of what they claimed.
Section 7.11 of the code demands that, "If a programme alleges wrongdoing or incompetence or makes other significant allegations, those concerned should normally be given an appropriate and timely opportunity to respond." Clearly, Jackson could not respond to Kelvin Mackenzie's inaccurate allegations, but no representative of Jackson's family or estate was invited to appear on the show or to offer a rebuttal in the aftermath.
This is totally unacceptable and I am seeking formal actions from ITV on this matter. Propagating lies is not what I understand the media to be about and ITV needs to take some steps in formally apologizing about this totally inaccurate portrayal of Michael Jackson.
I would appreciate to be kept inform of the status of this complaint.
Yours Sincerely
xxxxxxxxxxx
With L.O.V.E
This one seems perfect.
-
Here is the email address so that those of you not in the UK can complain directly to the TV channel (ITV) who broadcast this. No need to a UK address doing it this way:
You are not allowed to view links.
Register or Login
I have just sent my complaint off. Just so that you know, the show is called 'This Morning' and was broadcast today, 9th Nov 2010 on ITV.
Here is a copy of my email to ITV below for those who wish to re-use part of it:
Dear Madam or Sir,
I am writing to formally complain about Kevin McKenzie totally unprofessional portrayal of Michael Jackson on ITV during the This morning programme aired on the 9th November 2010 at 10:30.
Kevin McKenzie's comments on Michael Jackson were inaccurate, biased, cruel, and breached numerous segments of the OFCOM Broadcast Code.
Section 2.2 of the code demands that, "Factual programmes or items or portrayals of factual matters must not materially mislead the audience.” MacKenzie's comments were clearly misleading. He ignored the facts and evidence presented at Jackson's trial and dismissed the verdict. He also ignored the children's firsthand accounts of their lives with Jackson in order to portray them instead as having been 'corrupted' and said that they were potential victims of 'abuse'.
Section 2.3 of the code demands that, "Broadcasters must ensure that material which may cause offence is justified by the context." MacKenzie's comments were patently not justified by the context. In a discussion about an interview between Oprah Winfrey and Michael Jackson's children, MacKenzie irrelevantly raised the subject of Jackson's trial and proceeded to dismiss the verdict, insinuating that Jackson was a child molester.
Section 7.1 of the code demands that, "Broadcasters must avoid unjust or unfair treatment of individuals or organisations in programmes." This section of the code is constantly flouted when dealing with Michael Jackson. Does calling somebody a child abuser when they've been acquitted in a court of law constitute treating somebody unjustly or unfairly?
Section 7.9 of the code demands that, "Before broadcasting a factual programme, including programmes examining past events, broadcasters should take reasonable care to satisfy themselves that material facts have not been presented, disregarded or omitted in a way that is unfair to an individual or organisation." Material facts were clearly omitted and disregarded during Kelvin MacKenzie's unprovoked diatribe against Jackson. He ignored the facts, evidence and verdict in Jackson's trial and accused the star of being a child molester. The host did not point out Jackson's acquittal, either. MacKenzie also ignored the children's comments about their upbringing and proceeded to portray Jackson as the exact opposite of what they claimed.
Section 7.11 of the code demands that, "If a programme alleges wrongdoing or incompetence or makes other significant allegations, those concerned should normally be given an appropriate and timely opportunity to respond." Clearly, Jackson could not respond to Kelvin Mackenzie's inaccurate allegations, but no representative of Jackson's family or estate was invited to appear on the show or to offer a rebuttal in the aftermath.
This is totally unacceptable and I am seeking formal actions from ITV on this matter. Propagating lies is not what I understand the media to be about and ITV needs to take some steps in formally apologizing about this totally inaccurate portrayal of Michael Jackson.
I would appreciate to be kept inform of the status of this complaint.
Yours Sincerely
xxxxxxxxxxx
With L.O.V.E
This one seems perfect.
I agree
-
Here is the email address so that those of you not in the UK can complain directly to the TV channel (ITV) who broadcast this. No need to a UK address doing it this way:
You are not allowed to view links.
Register or Login
I have just sent my complaint off. Just so that you know, the show is called 'This Morning' and was broadcast today, 9th Nov 2010 on ITV.
Here is a copy of my email to ITV below for those who wish to re-use part of it:
Dear Madam or Sir,
I am writing to formally complain about Kevin McKenzie totally unprofessional portrayal of Michael Jackson on ITV during the This morning programme aired on the 9th November 2010 at 10:30.
Kevin McKenzie's comments on Michael Jackson were inaccurate, biased, cruel, and breached numerous segments of the OFCOM Broadcast Code.
Section 2.2 of the code demands that, "Factual programmes or items or portrayals of factual matters must not materially mislead the audience.” MacKenzie's comments were clearly misleading. He ignored the facts and evidence presented at Jackson's trial and dismissed the verdict. He also ignored the children's firsthand accounts of their lives with Jackson in order to portray them instead as having been 'corrupted' and said that they were potential victims of 'abuse'.
Section 2.3 of the code demands that, "Broadcasters must ensure that material which may cause offence is justified by the context." MacKenzie's comments were patently not justified by the context. In a discussion about an interview between Oprah Winfrey and Michael Jackson's children, MacKenzie irrelevantly raised the subject of Jackson's trial and proceeded to dismiss the verdict, insinuating that Jackson was a child molester.
Section 7.1 of the code demands that, "Broadcasters must avoid unjust or unfair treatment of individuals or organisations in programmes." This section of the code is constantly flouted when dealing with Michael Jackson. Does calling somebody a child abuser when they've been acquitted in a court of law constitute treating somebody unjustly or unfairly?
Section 7.9 of the code demands that, "Before broadcasting a factual programme, including programmes examining past events, broadcasters should take reasonable care to satisfy themselves that material facts have not been presented, disregarded or omitted in a way that is unfair to an individual or organisation." Material facts were clearly omitted and disregarded during Kelvin MacKenzie's unprovoked diatribe against Jackson. He ignored the facts, evidence and verdict in Jackson's trial and accused the star of being a child molester. The host did not point out Jackson's acquittal, either. MacKenzie also ignored the children's comments about their upbringing and proceeded to portray Jackson as the exact opposite of what they claimed.
Section 7.11 of the code demands that, "If a programme alleges wrongdoing or incompetence or makes other significant allegations, those concerned should normally be given an appropriate and timely opportunity to respond." Clearly, Jackson could not respond to Kelvin Mackenzie's inaccurate allegations, but no representative of Jackson's family or estate was invited to appear on the show or to offer a rebuttal in the aftermath.
This is totally unacceptable and I am seeking formal actions from ITV on this matter. Propagating lies is not what I understand the media to be about and ITV needs to take some steps in formally apologizing about this totally inaccurate portrayal of Michael Jackson.
I would appreciate to be kept inform of the status of this complaint.
Yours Sincerely
xxxxxxxxxxx
With L.O.V.E
This one seems perfect.
I must have missed it! I think it's great. Shouldn't we demand something like the official fans from somewhere did? Like an apologie in the show?
I think we should all mail it and signing with "XXXXXX, on behalf of Michael's Army of L.O.V.E." Thoughts?
-
Each of us emailing or one email on the name of the Army?
-
Each of us emailing or one email on the name of the Army?
Not sure. If we only send one we have the risk of being skipped, and I think that if we bomb them, they will at least see we're with many and can't be Ignored.
-
I am in total disgust of that kind of individual. :x I think that we should all send it and sign as Michael's Army of Love with our country and firstnames, if only a few of us send it there will be no real impact. Maybe people can modify the draft and make it as they wish. The most important thing is to raise our voice against that kind of BS!
-
Each of us emailing or one email on the name of the Army?
Not sure. If we only send one we have the risk of being skipped, and I think that if we bomb them, they will at least see we're with many and can't be Ignored.
Ok, lets spamm them :D
I vote for that letter then and signing as "my name". Michael Jackson´s Army of L.O.V.E
-
While driving home from work right after I posted this, I got an idea. I think we should do something about this as a group.
This Kelvin McKenzie is best buddies with Rupert Murdoch, which should say it all. Just read his Wiki page to see what kind of tabloid asshole he is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelvin_MacKenzie (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelvin_MacKenzie)
It is not stated in Charles' blog what the program was he appeared on, but after reading his Wiki page I bet it was the program 3@Three: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3@Three (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3@Three).
This weekend TMZ published this article:
MJ Fan Group Gunning to Shut Down Vault Website (http://www.tmz.com/2010/11/07/michael-jackson-jacksonsecretvault-website-katherine-jackson-breaking-news-opis-none-howard-mann/)
11/7/2010 12:45 PM PST by TMZ Staff
A group of Michael Jackson fans have banded together and fired off a scathing letter to the people behind JacksonSecretVault.com -- calling for the site to stop the "exploitation of Michael Jackson, his grieving mother, his beloved children and his legacy."
(http://ll-media.tmz.com/2010/11/07/1107-jackson-launch-getty-ex-credit.jpg) (http://tmz.vo.llnwd.net/o28/newsdesk/tmz_documents/1107_jackson_docs_2.pdf)
The letter contains a laundry list of complaints against the site, among their objections:
-- The exploitation of Michael’s elderly mother in the marketing, selling and merchandising from the Jackson Vault.
-- The use and brokering of Michael Jackson’s children to promote events, merchandise and interviews.
-- The use of the demeaning term, “Jacko” in the Jackson Vault website and press release. A degrading term that Michael himself, spoke openly against and thought was insulting.
This has all come about because of the release of a song on JacksonSecretVault.com -- which was first billed as a new song that had the blessing of Katherine Jackson ... but was later determined to be neither.
If they can, so can we. I think we should write a letter to the program and broadcast company as "Michael's Army of L.O.V.E." with the use of the OFCOM codes Charles mentioned in his blog and demand a rectification on the statements. We should mail this to them with a CC to every media outlet there is, all over the world. We could sign it with our first names or usernames (whatever people feel comfortable with) and our country, to show we are not just a small group, but a real army still growing. We al could give it a shot and post letters on here so we can pick the best one, or combine two or more to make it perfect. I know last time we exposed the Sun after the Dave Dave stories, other media outlets were very willing to mention that in their copy-and-paste article. One Dutch newspaper even told us that was the only reason they reported the story at all. I also think, siince we can't seem to get everyone on the same page about an extra website for the charities, we could use http://www.michaelsarmyoflove.com (http://www.michaelsarmyoflove.com) for this. We could use that site to publish everything the media mis reports, our action against it etc. If we agree one day about an extra site for charities, we can use lilwendy's http://www.mjsarmyoflove.com (http://www.mjsarmyoflove.com) for that, because she also offered her domain for that cause. In that way we can refer to a site, spread it and educate the people about the media's malicious reports, without giving them a reason to ridicule us because we are those 'nutters that think Michael Jackson is still alive". There's nothing that can't be done, if we raise our voice as one. Let me know your thoughts.
I agree - this is a great idea. I will be formulating my words for consideration but I know there are several on this forum who are very eloquent in their wording and will do an incredible job drafting a letter. We can no longer sit back and allow this or any other person to make these statements without being held accountable to the fullest degree.
I am so glad that Charles Thomson wrote this article. He deserves an equally expressive letter from Michael Jackson's Army of L.O.V.E. showing gratitude for his willingness to take a stand at the risk of opposition.
I'll be checking back in later. Right now it's pretty crazy at work. Blessings.
-
While driving home from work right after I posted this, I got an idea. I think we should do something about this as a group.
This Kelvin McKenzie is best buddies with Rupert Murdoch, which should say it all. Just read his Wiki page to see what kind of tabloid asshole he is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelvin_MacKenzie (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelvin_MacKenzie)
It is not stated in Charles' blog what the program was he appeared on, but after reading his Wiki page I bet it was the program 3@Three: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3@Three (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3@Three).
This weekend TMZ published this article:
MJ Fan Group Gunning to Shut Down Vault Website (http://www.tmz.com/2010/11/07/michael-jackson-jacksonsecretvault-website-katherine-jackson-breaking-news-opis-none-howard-mann/)
11/7/2010 12:45 PM PST by TMZ Staff
A group of Michael Jackson fans have banded together and fired off a scathing letter to the people behind JacksonSecretVault.com -- calling for the site to stop the "exploitation of Michael Jackson, his grieving mother, his beloved children and his legacy."
(http://ll-media.tmz.com/2010/11/07/1107-jackson-launch-getty-ex-credit.jpg) (http://tmz.vo.llnwd.net/o28/newsdesk/tmz_documents/1107_jackson_docs_2.pdf)
The letter contains a laundry list of complaints against the site, among their objections:
-- The exploitation of Michael’s elderly mother in the marketing, selling and merchandising from the Jackson Vault.
-- The use and brokering of Michael Jackson’s children to promote events, merchandise and interviews.
-- The use of the demeaning term, “Jacko” in the Jackson Vault website and press release. A degrading term that Michael himself, spoke openly against and thought was insulting.
This has all come about because of the release of a song on JacksonSecretVault.com -- which was first billed as a new song that had the blessing of Katherine Jackson ... but was later determined to be neither.
If they can, so can we. I think we should write a letter to the program and broadcast company as "Michael's Army of L.O.V.E." with the use of the OFCOM codes Charles mentioned in his blog and demand a rectification on the statements. We should mail this to them with a CC to every media outlet there is, all over the world. We could sign it with our first names or usernames (whatever people feel comfortable with) and our country, to show we are not just a small group, but a real army still growing. We al could give it a shot and post letters on here so we can pick the best one, or combine two or more to make it perfect. I know last time we exposed the Sun after the Dave Dave stories, other media outlets were very willing to mention that in their copy-and-paste article. One Dutch newspaper even told us that was the only reason they reported the story at all. I also think, siince we can't seem to get everyone on the same page about an extra website for the charities, we could use http://www.michaelsarmyoflove.com (http://www.michaelsarmyoflove.com) for this. We could use that site to publish everything the media mis reports, our action against it etc. If we agree one day about an extra site for charities, we can use lilwendy's http://www.mjsarmyoflove.com (http://www.mjsarmyoflove.com) for that, because she also offered her domain for that cause. In that way we can refer to a site, spread it and educate the people about the media's malicious reports, without giving them a reason to ridicule us because we are those 'nutters that think Michael Jackson is still alive". There's nothing that can't be done, if we raise our voice as one. Let me know your thoughts.
I agree - this is a great idea. I will be formulating my words for consideration but I know there are several on this forum who are very eloquent in their wording and will do an incredible job drafting a letter. We can no longer sit back and allow this or any other person to make these statements without being held accountable to the fullest degree.
I am so glad that Charles Thomson wrote this article. He deserves an equally expressive letter from Michael Jackson's Army of L.O.V.E. showing gratitude for his willingness to take a stand at the risk of opposition.
I'll be checking back in later. Right now it's pretty crazy at work. Blessings.
That's not a bad idea. Like with kids: you don't only tell them when they did something wrong, you also tell them when they did good. That's what we should stand for: Calling out the tabloid trash and demanding rectification, but on the other hand rewarding the good journalists out there who do know how to post an honest article, by showing our gratitude.
Anyone willing to make a good draft for that?
-
I agree with the many e-mails idea, one e-mail would definitely be ignored they get lots of them every day we need to flood their inbox!! Also I doubt This Morning would apologise on-air unless there was an Ofcom ruling, to my mind that's the only thing that would force them into an apology, they aren't required to just because they get a lot of complaints, in the UK a complaint usually (if not in all cases) has to be upheld by Ofcom after an investigation. The last thing any broadcaster wants to do is issue an on-air apology/retraction so they always wait for the official Ofcom ruling. Still, if we did all e-mail them they'd at least have to take notice that we're very upset about this. I really think we need to get as many UK members as we can to complain before the deadline tomorrow.
There was a huge media storm over Jade Goody on Big Brother (while Jermaine was a contestant ;) ) supposedly bullying an Indian actress. Ofcom received thousands of complaints, the most they ever had, and it changed the way the show operated and shows are much more careful what they show now. If Ofcom receive even more complaints about this than the Jade Goody thing it would be a huge story. The fans in the UK would definitely have to mobilise and I hope they do, my only worry is with such a short deadline that many won't find out about this in time. Spreading the word is crucial, I know I have contacted as many people as I can think of.
-
Each of us emailing or one email on the name of the Army?
Not sure. If we only send one we have the risk of being skipped, and I think that if we bomb them, they will at least see we're with many and can't be Ignored.
Ok, lets spamm them :D
I vote for that letter then and signing as "my name". Michael Jackson´s Army of L.O.V.E
Updated letter to include Souza comment.
Email address: You are not allowed to view links.
Register or Login
Dear Madam or Sir,
I am writing to formally complain about Kevin McKenzie totally unprofessional portrayal of Michael Jackson on ITV during the This morning programme aired on the 9th November 2010 at 10:30.
Kevin McKenzie's comments on Michael Jackson were inaccurate, biased, cruel, and breached numerous sections of the OFCOM Broadcast Code.
Section 2.2 of the code demands that, "Factual programmes or items or portrayals of factual matters must not materially mislead the audience.” MacKenzie's comments were clearly misleading. He ignored the facts and evidence presented at Jackson's trial and dismissed the verdict. He also ignored the children's firsthand accounts of their lives with Jackson in order to portray them instead as having been 'corrupted' and said that they were potential victims of 'abuse'.
Section 2.3 of the code demands that, "Broadcasters must ensure that material which may cause offence is justified by the context." MacKenzie's comments were patently not justified by the context. In a discussion about an interview between Oprah Winfrey and Michael Jackson's children, MacKenzie irrelevantly raised the subject of Jackson's trial and proceeded to dismiss the verdict, insinuating that Jackson was a child molester.
Section 7.1 of the code demands that, "Broadcasters must avoid unjust or unfair treatment of individuals or organisations in programmes." This section of the code is constantly flouted when dealing with Michael Jackson. Does calling somebody a child abuser when they've been acquitted in a court of law constitute treating somebody unjustly or unfairly?
Section 7.9 of the code demands that, "Before broadcasting a factual programme, including programmes examining past events, broadcasters should take reasonable care to satisfy themselves that material facts have not been presented, disregarded or omitted in a way that is unfair to an individual or organisation." Material facts were clearly omitted and disregarded during Kelvin MacKenzie's unprovoked diatribe against Jackson. He ignored the facts, evidence and verdict in Jackson's trial and accused the star of being a child molester. The host did not point out Jackson's acquittal, either. MacKenzie also ignored the children's comments about their upbringing and proceeded to portray Jackson as the exact opposite of what they claimed.
Section 7.11 of the code demands that, "If a programme alleges wrongdoing or incompetence or makes other significant allegations, those concerned should normally be given an appropriate and timely opportunity to respond." Clearly, Jackson could not respond to Kelvin Mackenzie's inaccurate allegations, but no representative of Jackson's family or estate was invited to appear on the show or to offer a rebuttal in the aftermath.
This is totally unacceptable and I am seeking formal actions from ITV on this matter. Propagating lies is not what I understand the media to be about and ITV needs to take some steps in formally apologizing about this totally inaccurate portrayal of Michael Jackson; at least equal airing time should be spent on the apologies as initially given to Kelvin McKenzie to vent his inaccurate allegations.
I would appreciate to be kept informed of the status of this complaint.
Yours Sincerely
xxxxxxxxxxx
Michael Jackson Army of L.O.V.E
For those in the UK (please see previous email), you may also want to send a complaint to OFCOM, it will take you less than 5 minutes if you paste my earlier message. it however needs to be done before 12 noon tomorrow (I think!) they work on tight deadlines.
With L.O.V.E
-
Sooooo, is this the final letter?
-
Great idea! Count me in to send some emails out. It's time we get the world to spread L.O.V.E not hate!
-
Done.
-
I'm in, make it a blizzard.
-
So how are we going to do it? Set a date and all mail on that date? Like this Friday for instance so we have a day to notify the rest?
-
So how are we going to do it? Set a date and all mail on that date? Like this Friday for instance so we have a day to notify the rest?
Maybe you can invite other friendly Mods and forums to join us?
The Vendetta letter is perfect so send the Mods the letter.
Pick a Vendetta day and we all email on that day?
V=Vendetta- a global petition to remove yellow jounalism and yellow jounalists!
We love you, Michael. :D
-
So are we holding off sending this great draft [thanks Running Girl] and all bombarding them on Friday? Help! need instructions.
-
I think that we should set a date so that we do it all together and to let as many people as possible know about that action.... and Friday seems good for me.
-
Me too. So that's official then, we all send on Friday?
-
So it's this Friday? We send the one that TheRunningGirl made and sign with our names?
-
So -- Let's all send the letter above to ITV on Friday signed with our own name. I think that having as many people as possible sending one letter is more effective than sending multiple emails from the same address. One email from one person CANNOT be seen as Spam and in theory if the title of the email says: Complaint: The Kelvin McKensie portrayal of Michael Jackson in This Morning, then they should log it as a formal complaint and investigate.
Souza/Mo ---> Would it be possible to send a short email to the Army of Love, so that to give people the opportunity to participate? It may also be one of those topics temporarily placed in the announcement folder?
With L.O.V.E
-
So -- Let's all send the letter above to ITV on Friday signed with our own name.
EDIT. Found it
-
I send the letter forward to friends and family to sign and send it too.
-
So -- Let's all send the letter above to ITV on Friday signed with our own name. I think that having as many people as possible sending one letter is more effective than sending multiple emails from the same address. One email from one person CANNOT be seen as Spam and in theory if the title of the email says: Complaint: The Kelvin McKensie portrayal of Michael Jackson in This Morning, then they should log it as a formal complaint and investigate.
Souza/Mo ---> Would it be possible to send a short email to the Army of Love, so that to give people the opportunity to participate? It may also be one of those topics temporarily placed in the announcement folder?
With L.O.V.E
Sure, I will make an announcement tonight when I get home!
-
Count me in :!:
-
So how are we going to do it? Set a date and all mail on that date? Like this Friday for instance so we have a day to notify the rest?
Friday is good. There needs to be a deadline.
-
Here is the email address so that those of you not in the UK can complain directly to the TV channel (ITV) who broadcast this. No need to a UK address doing it this way:
You are not allowed to view links.
Register or Login
I have just sent my complaint off. Just so that you know, the show is called 'This Morning' and was broadcast today, 9th Nov 2010 on ITV.
Here is a copy of my email to ITV below for those who wish to re-use part of it:
Dear Madam or Sir,
I am writing to formally complain about Kevin McKenzie totally unprofessional portrayal of Michael Jackson on ITV during the This morning programme aired on the 9th November 2010 at 10:30.
Kevin McKenzie's comments on Michael Jackson were inaccurate, biased, cruel, and breached numerous segments of the OFCOM Broadcast Code.
Section 2.2 of the code demands that, "Factual programmes or items or portrayals of factual matters must not materially mislead the audience.” MacKenzie's comments were clearly misleading. He ignored the facts and evidence presented at Jackson's trial and dismissed the verdict. He also ignored the children's firsthand accounts of their lives with Jackson in order to portray them instead as having been 'corrupted' and said that they were potential victims of 'abuse'.
Section 2.3 of the code demands that, "Broadcasters must ensure that material which may cause offence is justified by the context." MacKenzie's comments were patently not justified by the context. In a discussion about an interview between Oprah Winfrey and Michael Jackson's children, MacKenzie irrelevantly raised the subject of Jackson's trial and proceeded to dismiss the verdict, insinuating that Jackson was a child molester.
Section 7.1 of the code demands that, "Broadcasters must avoid unjust or unfair treatment of individuals or organisations in programmes." This section of the code is constantly flouted when dealing with Michael Jackson. Does calling somebody a child abuser when they've been acquitted in a court of law constitute treating somebody unjustly or unfairly?
Section 7.9 of the code demands that, "Before broadcasting a factual programme, including programmes examining past events, broadcasters should take reasonable care to satisfy themselves that material facts have not been presented, disregarded or omitted in a way that is unfair to an individual or organisation." Material facts were clearly omitted and disregarded during Kelvin MacKenzie's unprovoked diatribe against Jackson. He ignored the facts, evidence and verdict in Jackson's trial and accused the star of being a child molester. The host did not point out Jackson's acquittal, either. MacKenzie also ignored the children's comments about their upbringing and proceeded to portray Jackson as the exact opposite of what they claimed.
Section 7.11 of the code demands that, "If a programme alleges wrongdoing or incompetence or makes other significant allegations, those concerned should normally be given an appropriate and timely opportunity to respond." Clearly, Jackson could not respond to Kelvin Mackenzie's inaccurate allegations, but no representative of Jackson's family or estate was invited to appear on the show or to offer a rebuttal in the aftermath.
This is totally unacceptable and I am seeking formal actions from ITV on this matter. Propagating lies is not what I understand the media to be about and ITV needs to take some steps in formally apologizing about this totally inaccurate portrayal of Michael Jackson.
I would appreciate to be kept inform of the status of this complaint.
Yours Sincerely
xxxxxxxxxxx
With L.O.V.E
This one seems perfect.
I like this one too.
-
So -- Let's all send the letter above to ITV on Friday signed with our own name. I think that having as many people as possible sending one letter is more effective than sending multiple emails from the same address. One email from one person CANNOT be seen as Spam and in theory if the title of the email says: Complaint: The Kelvin McKensie portrayal of Michael Jackson in This Morning, then they should log it as a formal complaint and investigate.
Souza/Mo ---> Would it be possible to send a short email to the Army of Love, so that to give people the opportunity to participate? It may also be one of those topics temporarily placed in the announcement folder?
With L.O.V.E
Sure, I will make an announcement tonight when I get home!
Thanks - Much appreciated
With L.O.V.E
-
Continuing the beasts lurking, I'm gonna have me sign my name, and with respect to the day on Friday I think this very well.
-
I'm in too with great pleasure, on Friday i'll send my letter to them as a member of the L.O.V.E. army
-
I'm in too for Friday. Thanks for all your organizing this. I'm wondering if this Kelvin McKenzie of the Sun, under Robert Murdock slander is part of a concerted effort that is much bigger than them. Something very diabolical, who know Michael's vision for the planet. This will be good practise for us as his Army of Love, for even more serious action in the future. It's too bad we couldn't email the Jackson children a show of our support and concern, through another family member.
-
I am more than happy to do my part on Friday as well. Hopefully there will be enough of us to get some sort of reaction or response.
-
Whatever that dudes name is can go fuck himself and burn in hell who the fuck is he to say someone deserves to die and that his kids are better off what kind of cold hearted bastard is he wow what a way to end my day :evil:
-
Thanks for the email! I just need to have confirmation when it should be sent.
-
I sent it to my friends who also are willing to send their letters too. It's today. Does it matter the hour when we send it?
-
Oh, and I think we should also send some to: You are not allowed to view links.
Register or Login. That's a local independent radio station where I live, I can just imagine them reporting this..
-
I sent the letter today and now I received an e-mail back from them.
Maybe some of you received it too.
Dear Anna,
Thank you for your email regarding This Morning.
I can confirm that I have forwarded your email to the This Morning production office for their attention.
May I take this opportunity to thank you for taking the time to contact us here at ITV as we always welcome viewers’ feedback.
Regards
ITV VIEWER SERVICES - GDL
-
8-) I already start with my bombardment of emails .. 8-) :lol:
-
It's an automated reply. I got the same one this morning.
-
Kanye West as reported in The Sun today under the headline "Kanye West Loses The Plot...Again". I think the underlined section speaks for itself.
"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."
-
I just received an answer
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
-
I received it too.
-
Are there people who will volunteer writing the letter?
I emailed you that I did send mines yesterday.
Here is my response today:
Thank you for your email regarding This Morning
I have passed this on to the This Morning production Office
Their direct contact details for your information are:
Tel 08000 30 40 44 (0900 to 1230 Monday to Friday)
Email: viewerservices@itv.com (http://mailto:viewerservices@itv.com) where we will be happy to discuss your requirement and / or endeavour to provide a suitable alternative.
ITV Viewer Services | ITV plc
Tel: 0844 88 14150 | You are not allowed to view links.
Register or Login
Hours of Opening: 08.00 - 19.00 Mon-Fri, 10.00 - 19.00 Sat. Closed on Sundays and Bank Holidays.
ITV plc Head Office Tel +44 (0) 20 7157 3000 itv.com
Please consider the environment before printing this email
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
Oh, ok. LOL! 4give me. I have had a sort interesting day 2day, my mind is in another world. Let me bring it back. LOL! :lol: Thank you.
-
Here's another response that I received from emailing them.
____________________________________________________
Wed, November 24, 2010 11:15:55 AMKELVIN MACKENZIE
From: "Stroud-Caules, Edith" <edith.stroud-caules@itv.com>Add to Contacts
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
Edith Stroud-Caules | Viewers Enquiries Co-Ordinator | ITV Studios | ITV plc
Tel: 0207 928 3137 | You are not allowed to view links.
Register or Login
ITV plc Head Office Tel +44 (0) 20 7157 3000 itv.com
Please consider the environment before printing this email
-
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.
-
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.
yes, I agree.
-
I sent the recommended letter to itv on November 16, and recieved the following response on November 17 (exact quote; note the last statement following the contact info):
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
Edith Stroud-Caules | Viewers Enquiries Co-Ordinator | ITV Studios | ITV plcTel: 0207 928 3137 | You are not allowed to view links.
Register or Login
ITV plc Head Office Tel +44 (0) 20 7157 3000 itv.com
Please consider the environment before printing this email
-
I also realize that the request to "consider the environment before printing this email" probably meant "don't waste any paper." However, I thought a good alternative meaning might be, "please consider how badly offended people might be (and might attack itv) because of what is said in this email."
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CmRzJvgf6BY (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CmRzJvgf6BY)
The media, etc., all bow to the Illuminati. I wish they would listen. I wish they would be brave enough to just stop and listen to the heart of Michael's message and stop lying about him!
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xoybd_ ... osts_music (http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xoybd_michael-jackson-ghosts_music)
No wonder he needed to Xscape.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G-fYzn-cwDY (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G-fYzn-cwDY)
It's so bad, he wants the world to wake up and fight for freedom.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fTWQxCoYgXI (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fTWQxCoYgXI)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dTPdSSRZJqw (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dTPdSSRZJqw)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W7_sAbakgMU (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W7_sAbakgMU)
If only the whole world would listen and hear the message.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mj3MfUR35CM (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mj3MfUR35CM)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XAi3VTSdTxU (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XAi3VTSdTxU)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dAx84_oy8n8 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dAx84_oy8n8)