False Info from Brown – MiniBullet #19

APRIL 18 2005 — Well, well, well.  In yet another whiny article written by MSNBC “analyst” {tag Stacy Brown} (Jackson fans have their say ), it seems that the commentary from this website has struck a nerve with him.

As the disclaimer at the bottom of this site states – a disclaimer which Brown apparently didn’t pay any attention to — MJEOL.com has never, nor does it currently have any connection, affiliation, or contact at all with Michael Jackson, his attorneys, or anyone else around this “trial”.

Brown, being wrong again, has seen fit to try to dismiss criticism of his commentary by proclaiming that this site is a Jackson “sponsored website”. If I were in a chat room right now, I’d be typing: “WTF? Is he crazy??”

Instead of simply speaking to the points addressed by what he says are the many emails he’s received, he chose to specifically cite this site, and try to fling off the biting criticism by claiming this is a “sponsored” site. “Sponsored”, my ass!

To piggyback on a phrase from Brown’s own article, we have absolutely no obligation to Jackson; only to be truthful. If Brown can’t deal with that ‘reality’, then that’s his damn problem.

What is funny though is that he writes as if he’s surprised that Jackson fans have an opinion about his commentary from his previous article; surprised that they haven’t just sat back and remained silent about it.

Also in the follow-up article, he claims that his “friend” tabloid reporter Diane Dimond is simply “doing her job” with her “hard-hitting” reports about Jackson. Yeah right. 

That’s his opinion. He’s welcomed to express it, but he can’t get upset when people disagree. There are others, however, who know her reporting all too well and have seen this pro-prosecution slant in action. 

I say that she’s doing her job, alright. That job seems to be “carrying water for the prosecution” with her platform as an alleged “objective journalist”, as another legal analyst said on the air.

That’s my opinion. I would have thought I was welcomed to express it.  But then again, no one at MJEOL.com has ever had the audacity to claim that we are totally ‘objective’ like Dimond seemingly has.

And it is Dimond who has wrapped herself around this ‘objective reporting’ mantra that has caught the eye and raised the ire of many people. Not just those who agree that Jackson’s innocent, but those legal analysts and regular folk with both a public platform and who have publicly criticized her coverage of this “case”. 

You can start with Matt Drudge, who is really not a Jackson fan at all. He, too, has railed against both Dimond’s coverage and Nancy Grace’s coverage. Sometimes stating what’s obvious about slanted news coverage on the Jackson story isn’t a bad thing.

The fact is that some trial observers have taken notice of who slants which way, and have chosen to express that view.  And, I’ll say it again, if Brown can’t deal with that ‘reality’, then that’s his problem.

As for the Jones-Brown book, I guess the proof will be in what they put on paper and try to hock.

Stay tuned.

-MJEOL

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *