bump

That's all well and good, but he's dead now. What are the claimants going to do, go after his family? That's a pretty shitty thing to do to people who probably weren't in on it.

Wade Robson's story was particularly cringe-worthy. He claims he was molested for seven years. If he didn't like it, why did he keep going back to the person who molested him and the places where it happened for seven years? And why say something only now, so long after the fact and after the person you're accusing is dead. And if he didn't mind it, why is he filing the lawsuit?

I'm not saying I condone Jackson's molestation of all those kids that apparently did actually happen, but like I said before, it just seems like a moot point now that he's dead. I suppose they could all go after his estate like Robson's trying to do. Many of them already got payoffs of huge amounts of money, though. Are they just that greedy?

I'm going to preempt the argument that it's compensation for trauma or some other such thing caused by the molestation by saying: 1)Like I said before, many of the claimants already got huge payoffs; and 2)If such huge sums of money (the payoffs) aren't capable of helping to heal the possible trauma of being molested, more money isn't going to do anything to help people get past it.

>>3 I think the issue is more how easily it was hidden from the general public simply because he had money. Although nothing can be done now, it is still noteworthy and we should have known it from the start. Robson is the only current suer of the Jacksons, the rest have maintained quiet status. Mainly I was just posting this because I always defended MJ, thinking he was just unfairly targeted by the tabloids.

This is actually false. You should've read the comments guy.

>>5 Oh god, never usually check up on comments on news stories. The first couple I found slightly stupid because a lot of what they were saying was "How dare you insult a dead man", but when I clicked show more comments, I found this.

http://edition.cnn.com/2013/07/03/showbiz/michael-jackson-files/?hpt=en_c2

Looks like the story was just a UK tabloid being dirty.

>>5 Well, I feel more than a little sheepish and embarrassed.

On a different note, I don't understand why the media does things like that. Okay, let me back up a bit first, and say that I know it's for ratings. That said, is there no one in these companies who does good reporting, and who doesn't misrepresent or twist information?

It seems unreasonable and illogical to me to assume that everyone who goes into the media business has no conscience or even halfhearted ideals about reporting facts and information without twisting them.

>>7 That's like saying 'why is politics no longer about helping the people' or, 'why is Hollywood not about creative film writing'. Good ideas have been soiled by human nature, it's a sad but common occurrence.

oh my lord that is just wrong. I never knew that, I needa get out more.

Actually going to delete the OP, due to the falsity of the source.

>>8 I agree that good ideas and intentions can be soiled by the negative aspects of human nature, but the impressions I get a lot of the time from the media seem to indicate that they are often very far over on that end of the spectrum, that the twisting and manipulation of information is ubiquitous. It's not something like 70% do and 30% don't twist information. The impression I get is that it's more like 95% and 5%.

There are good aspects of human nature, not just bad ones. It just seems very odd to me that the bad aspects can be so overwhelmingly present in something as broad as the media. So, I can't help but wonder why.

bump