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

 

Charles Thomson beside Michael Jackson's star.

 

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.

Read the rest:

Click here if you missed part one:

Click here if you missed part two:

Click here if you missed part three:

Click here if you missed part four:

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.

 

Charles Thomson with Wax Poetics writer Tony Best at Forest Lawn

 

Stay tuned for the final installment this weekend….cheers, Lorette

Michael Jackson is for the Birds

A perfect, original touch for fall- and we all know that fall means Halloween, and Halloween means “the evil of the Thriller. Ha ha hahahaha.”

Taiwanese rice farmer Lee Ping-hsing created two Michael Jackson scarecrows in hopes that Michael will help scare off the birds who steal his rice. Lee is building a third scarecrow for his father’s farm.

Gramps wasn’t fond of the idea, telling the family that they were wanting for a haunting. The scarecrows were an invitation to Michael Jackson’s ghost, he warned.

Lee said, “But I think it would be nice if Michael could come over.”

 

 

 

The top picture is borrowed from www.emirates247.com. The second one is from www.anorak.co.uk.