That Girl from Derwent dwells on the value of religion this Christmas.
That Girl from Derwent has learned a few more things about prejudice since moving up North.
That Girl From Derwent reckons if you're going to be offensive, you should find a better reason.
That Girl from Derwent considers why it is that some words have wider implications than others.
So, Michael Jackson has died.
And again, social networking sites are gradually filling up with mundane comments like ‘RIP MJ’, for no-one but their friends to see. If someone gets hit by a car down my road, I’m not going to tie flowers to my friends’ walls. If you genuinely want Michael Jackson to know that you would like it very much if he could Rest In Peace, you’re a bit late. He’s dead. It’s times like these when I miss the MSN names consisting of self-pitying song lyrics, surrounded by images of roses.
But I think I’ve worked out a way to be accused of a pretty heinous crime, and still be mourned when I die. Make the best selling album of all time. Most people in society would not recover from being accused of ‘grooming’ and abusing young boys as easily as Michael Jackson did. Especially due to the amount of evidence against him. Also, I think it’s important to remember that being acquitted is not the same as being found innocent. Neil Acourt and Luke Knight were acquitted of killing Stephen Lawrence due to “insufficient evidence”, despite one of the accused having fibres from Lawrence’s clothing under his nails, and a knife similar to the one in the attack in his living room.
I think I’ve worked out a way to be accused of a pretty heinous crime, and still be mourned when I die. Make the best selling album of all time.
I’m not suggesting in any way that Michael Jackson was definitely guilty of abusing young boys, but even if he were innocent, people accused of such crimes are not often released of the label. The public don’t tend to forget such an accusation. If the person accused is a celebrity, on the other hand, we seem to be much more forgiving. Footballers are famous for both playing football, and acting like complete penises. A string of rape claims and accusations of assault trail footballers around like smoke from an old car: they flare up for a minute, and then disappear. A Daily Mail report on Christian Bale allegedly punching his mother discussed stress caused by the paparazzi and Heath Ledger’s death, before moving on to give the story from the mother’s perspective. This is just one example of how media reporting favours the famous.
Maybe we’re easily pleased, but to celebrate people who could potentially have damaged lives seems a bit twisted. Many people seem willing to forget when some celebrities are accused or convicted of crimes, simply because they’ve made a contribution to entertainment. Some fans of MJ even reacted to the accusations with cries of “we’re living in a paranoid nation”, and “what happened to the days when a man could share a bed with a child and not be accused of touching him?” To try to convince themselves that MJ was innocent, some people blamed the allegations on a modern society that does not accept men who have close relationships with children. Some people idolised a fictitious past in which men could share a bed with teenage boys, and condemned modern society’s (understandable) paranoia, as if Coca-Cola invented paedophiles. MJ’s behaviour was not normal or acceptable, but it seems that people view a defendant differently if they released Thriller.
A psychologist who supported Michael Jackson in the case argued that his mental age is that of a ten year old, and so he wasn’t capable of being a paedophile. His exact words were “[he’s] a guy that's like a 10-year-old child. And, you know, he's doing what a 10-year-old would do with his little buddies. You know, they're gonna jack off, watch movies, drink wine, you know. And, you know, he doesn't even really qualify as a paedophile. He's really just this regressed 10-year-old." ‘Neverland’ gave Michael Jackson this Peter Pan image that made him seem harmless; but would it be as playful if it were in a semi-detached in Romford? I think not.
The fact is that people choose who they detest and who they idolise. If the man down your street was acquitted of grooming and abusing children (despite sharing a bed with them), would people assume his innocence, or be careful to not let their children play too close to his house, just in case? Or does a celebrity’s impact on the world of entertainment give them a bit more leeway? I doubt that an acquittal in a sexual assault or rape trial would regain complete trust in a Tesco worker. Especially if this case were not the first.
Many celebrities have been accused of a string of offences, but were acquitted, often because they settled the case outside the court. Just as my Facebook status won’t change when the people accused of killing Stephen Lawrence die, I do not intend to alter it for celebrities who have evidence against them for disgusting crimes: acquitted or not. But then again, no-one will change their statuses for the Stephen Lawrence murderers. After all, they were acquitted, but they didn’t make top-notch records.
All good points.
I still can't help but feel uncomfortable though. The guy may have been innocent, and although it looks unlikely, we just don't know. I guess part of me just wonders if we can consider ourselves a reasonable society when we assume, even after somebody has been aquitted due to not enough evidence or for whatever other reason, that they are still probably guilty, and should be treated as such.
Saying that though, like you say Jackson could easily have bought his way out of the situation with eitehr brilliant lawyers or an out-of-court settlement. I guess it was really only him who knew the truth.
When somebody dies, the sincere thing to do is remember the positive effect they had on society. Michael Jackson made an astounding contribution to music - an endless list of phenomenal musicians list him as their number one influence.
I personally think he was very troubled from his difficult time growing up in the limelight, and he's not to blame for that. Without focusing too much on the details of a questionable court case, should we really be remembering his darkest hour in this moment of loss for a lot of people? If all he had done in his life were harmful things, I could understand people's frustration at the overwhelming mourning the world seems to be displaying, but he influenced so many people in a positive way - an infinite number more than in a negative way. Shouldn't that be something to celebrate?
I don't think it's a case of him simply being a celebrity treated in a 'special' way - it's because he left an incredible legacy behind him. And in times like this, the most respectful thing you can do is, as the saying goes, "if you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything at all".
I don't think the article is an attack on Michael Jackson and doesn't deny that he inspired many people. We can appreciate Michael Jackson's music without viewing him as some kind of saint. The timing of the article could be a little better, but the point is that someone's football skills, musical talent or acting ability should not make them immune from the same treatment that the average 'Joe' receives when they are accused of committing a horrific crime. I think that it is hard to deny that a certain gloss is painted over the allegation of a crime if the person accused is idolised by large numbers of people. Maybe this is due to the fact they can afford to sway the public and get out of tight corners with top lawyers, but this shouldn't mean we have to see them as angels when they die. Celebrity status shouldn't be kevlar and neither should a hard upbringing or the pressure of the media spotlight, they may be reasons, but they are not excuses.
I really like your articles Hannah Cann - they're intelligent enough on their own but seem to spark interesting debates.
In contrast to #3 I don't think this article could have been timed any better. I was astonished at the surge in MJ-related statuses, over the death of this one man. I asked my housemates if his death (at this point not even confirmed) warranted the late night BBC newsflash - 'of course, he was the greatest selling artist of all time'; I'm still not convinced a newsflash was appropriate.
#2 - Yes he has left a musical legacy. But equally, he has left a legacy of a different kind. Especially in recent times, he has been better known as a freak show. His face disfigured by plastic surgery; speculations on what has happened in order for him to become white; calling his kid Blanket, and then nearly dropping Blanket out of a window; regressively locking himself away in Neverland; and, of course, some very serious allegations of paedophilia. While I appreciate that there's not a lot of point dwelling on some of these things now he's dead, your 'if you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything at all' attitude rather dangerously suggests that we should forget the traumatic experiences of the alleged young victims; creating a greater social taboo around issues of sexual abuse than already exists.
I'm really not that bothered that Michael Jackson has died. A couple of his songs I really liked, most of them I think are just all right - better than the modern tosh, but nothing special.
But I was really upset when James Brown died. I love his music and my life would be much worse off without it.
My feelings about both of them are governed primarily by how I feel about their music.
James Brown had a far bigger stack of felonies laid at his door than Michael Jackson - he was arrested many times (almost double figures) and twice imprisoned for three years, for various violent offences. I don't exactly like James Brown for that. But I do love his music. He was also notoriously controlling and frankly hateful to his band, docking wages for the slightest mistake. But I still love his music, so I'm gutted he isn't around to make any more of it.
Likewise, however much I dislike Michael Jackson for his "alleged" paedophilic behaviour, I'm just not that bothered about his music, and that's the reason I don't care that much that he's not around any more.
People don't have to be remembered for just one thing - I mourned the loss of James Brown's musical talent, but I'm glad he's not gonna be beating his wife any more. I'm not fussed that Michael Jackson's musical talents are no more, but again I'm glad he's not going to be inflicting himself on children any more.
I am in full agreement with Hannah - people choose who they idolise, often ignoring major faults in their heroes. People should consider the whole package more, but it's understandable why we don't - the fact is, there are very few perfect people out there to make heroes of.
What was the point of a prolonged court case (in which Michael Jackson was found not guilty of all charges) if people are just going to brand him a rampant paedophile anyway? Maybe we should entertain the possibility that the courts were right and Jackson was wierd but innocent? Just an idea
#6: well said.
I cannot believe it to be a good thing that a persons reputation can be ruined by any such accusation, even if it were false. What would it take for people to believe that he was innocent? If a court case in which he is found not guilty does not convince people, then you have to wonder if anything would, otherwise their opinions carry very little weight.
Failing to prove something beyond reasonable doubt is not always the same as finding someone 'innocent'. Given Michael Jackson's celebrity, and his wealth that could afford him the best attorneys in the country, it would be rather naive to think that his being vindicated equated to his 'innocence'. #6 and #7 should perhaps consider that the criminal justice system is not equipped to justly deal with every crime - cases of rape and sexual abuse, for example, often result in a lack of prosecution due to insufficient evidence, rather than the convicteds' innocence. They rely on victims being used as evidence, which surely isn't fair or too helpful (given the emotional states of these people). In these instances, character and reputation are the things that are relied on and so it's no surprise that damage to one's reputation does immediately evaporate after the trial. It's an unfortunate consequence of the justice system but people would do well to keep their cynicism and not just blindly eat up all they're told. After all, people who behave appropiately usually won't find themselves in this situation (i.e. if Michael Jackson hadn't maintained such, frankly, inappropriately close relationships with other people's children then this case would have been snuffed out from the start).
And, #7, I'd question weather or not his reputation had been 'ruined' at all by the accusation. In my opinion it was just another, admittedly more sinister, thing to add to his disintegrating public persona. Yet people still love his music, sending it to number one, and obviously have still been upset at his death. It seems that in this case, the cynicism of some has been kept in perspective by others clinging to his musical legacy.
Doesn't the old adage 'innocent until proven guilty' hold any sway anymore? I don't believe I have suspended cynicism and simply 'eaten up' the judicial systems judgement. I have simply reserved some cynicism for accusations (and biased media coverage), especially where those accusing (or their families) stand to make vast amounts of money - a priority which became a real possibility during the court case.
#9 - of course people should be seen as innocent before proven guilty, but those who are acquitted due to 'insufficient evidence' are not proven innocent. The point of the article seems to be that regular people who are acquitted are still often viewed with suspicion, whereas Michael Jackson is labelled a 'colourful character'. being accused of child abuse would not make a normal person a 'colourful character'.
You must log in to submit a comment.
Report