來源：MJJCN.com /赫芬頓郵報)
作者：Rev. Barbara Kaufmann 翻譯：ilmj1314
作者：芭芭拉·考夫曼牧師（Rev. Barbara Kaufmann）
在這場“世紀審判”，控方休息了，辯方休息了，陪審團現在也可以休息了，他們已經解散。邁克爾·傑克遜（Michael Jackson）何時能休息下來？對於媒體，這不是康納德·莫里（Conrad Murray）的殺人案審判，這是“邁克爾·傑克遜的死亡案審判”。盡管已經去世，但大多數時間是邁克爾·傑克遜在受審。
邁克爾·傑克遜沒有被當做人來對待，而是搖錢樹。他的死亡也沒有改變這點。傑克遜被這些人無盡的開發——熟人、雇工、同事、音樂行業、司法系統、想要掙錢的家人、他的依附者、獻媚者，特別是媒體。傑克遜之名產生數百萬美元。公眾不知道的是，這種開發利用有多麼諷刺和蓄意。作家喬·沃格爾（Joe Vogel）在最近一篇名為《我是你想像的怪物嗎？》（Am I the Beast you Visualized?）中寫到了關於傑克遜被廣泛地文化濫用現象。
最近的一次背叛是康納德·莫里的一部紀錄片——就是這位醫生因害死傑克遜而被定罪。莫里被控過失殺人罪，但在兩年前就與十月影業（October Films）為一部關於他和傑克遜關系及傑克遜最後歲月的紀錄片達成了協議。傑克遜家人和歌迷正在質問，憑良心NBC怎麼能製作和播放一部在傑克遜死亡後仍剝削利用他的電影，並且主角正是殺死他的醫生？就在傑克遜被安葬之時，莫里卻簽訂了一份合同。
這部紀錄片包括了描述傑克遜家裏“私人房間”的場景，並且有在員警們打砸搶一番之後2003年夢幻莊園的照片。同樣的照片，原先被用於提出有關傑克遜私人習慣的看法，同一些旨在詆毀傑克遜的人為評論進入到莫里的“紀錄片”中，而同時提升莫里自己。當一部電影為影響和收視率被精心的剪輯，它和其意圖到底有多可靠？這讓人想起馬丁·巴舍爾的《與邁克爾·傑克遜共同生活》（Living With Michael Jackson），另一部精心剪輯的電影被稱為“偽紀錄片”，為了收視率和利潤而製作，後來被傑克遜自己的電影團隊製作的紀錄片所反擊，傑克遜的電影團隊在巴舍爾團隊錄制的同時也進行了錄制。莫里的紀錄片繞過了司法系統，庭審時他拒絕出庭作證，盡管傑克遜家族急切想知道他們的親人邁克爾到底發生了什麼。
康納德·莫里的殺人案審判變成了“邁克爾·傑克遜的死亡審判”，因為媒體很早就認識到任何事聯系上傑克遜的名字都會增加收益。人們宣傳自己的品牌仍然諷刺的聯系上傑克遜的名字，他們知道有關他的負面故事會增加注意力。記者編造故事，只為牟利，主流媒體紛紛效仿。一大部分的人仍然相信有關傑克遜的小報報道以及他已被證明清白的那些指控。他們錯誤地相信那些自詡的“邁克爾·傑克遜專家”——這些人甚至沒有見過傑克遜本人，他們有意有理由要保持住那些歪曲的迷思——以防止自己過去的背叛行為被曝光——他們曾利用這個人來獲得利益和擴展事業。關于傑克遜的宣傳，其中意味最多的是作者，而非他們的主題。尼克·戴維斯（Nick Davies）在他的《平面地球新聞》（Flat Earth News）中揭示，媒體的伎倆會讓公眾生厭以及他們如何將八卦報道手法使用到主流媒體中去。
傑克遜的歌迷多年來一直試圖警告消費者關於針對傑克遜的種族陰謀和媒體壓榨，他們上周發布了一個聲明，“邁克爾·傑克遜的歌迷已經受夠了。嘲笑我們，罵我們，告訴我們只有我們視邁克爾為‘偶像’——但我們不是那些出賣他回憶的人，反對他的人，從他身上賺錢的人。”他們已經對NBC合其贊助人進行了聯合抵制。
莫里或許給傑克遜注射了致命的異丙酚，但關於傑克遜，媒體對公眾看法的毒害則是殘酷和持久的。為了收視率和利潤，媒體是不是將一個人折磨至死？世界上最著名的人也被最殘忍的欺淩。利用並將傑克遜處以私刑的小報運動是空前未有的，持續了數十年。傑克遜的剝削者來自每個角落——從清潔女工到醫生，到發布了傑克遜私人錄音的拉比精神導師——都從他的名號中掙錢。
莫里不計後果的行為，對健康保險流通與責任法案（HIPAA）和病人秘密的違反，惹怒了醫生們。他們不敢相信，一個現在已經被定罪的醫生避開了法律和在法庭作證，拉出自己的紀錄片從他害死的人身上獲利。
歌迷們意識到了公眾對於他們的看法也被操縱了，擔心公眾繼續允許下三濫的媒體剝削利用公眾人物，並被不知不覺的被騙到它的消費騙局中。一個歌迷寫到：
“我們的客廳不應是下三濫報道的垃圾堆積場，這些東西不僅剝奪了人們的尊嚴，還有他們的人性——以及正在剝奪我們的。公眾何時會強烈抗議並喊出‘夠了夠了’？當魯伯特·默多克（Rupert Murdoch）電話竊聽醜聞和病態聳人聽聞的信息被爆在頭版頭條，人們義憤填膺。他們現在在哪里？播出這部紀錄片是可恥的。”
英國赫芬頓郵報（Huffington Post）記者查爾斯·湯姆森（Charles Thomson）在傑克遜2005年審判期間，記錄了媒體無恥的不負責任的報道，這篇文章叫做《新聞業歷史中最可恥的事件》（The Most Shameful Episode in Journalistic History）。
或許有可能值得沉思，為什麼一個看似擁有一切的人需要這樣極端的方式幫助睡眠。為什麼他需要這種藥物，不僅幫助他睡覺而且為了休息使他每晚都處於無意識狀態？一個厭惡藥物的素食主義者和純粹主義者如何依賴它們？記住，傑克遜沒有猥褻男童，但這個指控將永遠玷污他的遺產。然而，莫里案件呈現出的，以傑克遜自己的話來說，他的夢想是建一座兒童醫院。他的律師托馬斯·梅瑟若（Thomas Mesereau）的話語中表達了對利用和誇大故事從而獲得利益和收視率的不負責任媒體的擔憂。與他一道的還有其他律師，像馬特·薩米諾（Matt Semino）和馬克·傑拉格斯（Mark Geragos）他們也擔心名人盲目崇拜和媒體操控了公眾的看法而占去了正義的先機。
作家阿弗洛蒂特·瓊斯（Aphrodite Jones）的《驚天大陰謀：邁克爾·傑克遜的故事》（The Michael Jackson Story），傑梅恩·傑克遜（Jermaine Jackson）的《你不孤獨：兄弟眼中的邁克爾》（You Are Not Alone: Michael Through a Brother's Eyes）和喬·沃格爾（Joe Vogel）的《音樂中的男人：邁克爾·傑克遜的創作人生和作品》（Man in the Music: The Creative Life and Work of Michael Jackson）以及阿蒙德·懷特（Armond White）及其他人都在設法澄清問題，用新書講述傑克遜的故事，反擊垃圾小報和以前的故事。
甚至現在，很少有人知道兩次指控傑克遜傷害兒童的案件中都有同樣的黑手出現——被叫做“瘋狗”的地方檢察官，兩個控告家庭都雇傭同樣的代表律師以及報道指控精神病學家也是一樣的。很少人認識到這個幫派仍然聯合在一起。聯邦調查局和社會服務部門都調查了傑克遜，都沒有發現罪行。
很少有人理解傑克遜真正發生了什麼，因為小報中他人性喪失的形象是如此有意為之，諷刺漫畫也如此徹底地描繪。公眾看法將他毀滅，媒體如此讓人痛心，執法人員如此踐踏他的人權，使傑克遜萎靡不振心灰意冷，他離開了自己的祖國，這個從貧民窟一路努力到好萊塢的黑人小男孩的國家。最後的侮辱來自魯伯特·默多克《太陽報》（Sun）在頭版上刊登出了傑克遜的死亡照片，用種族主義綽號“Jacko”標注著——最先用於描述猴子和用於非洲血統的侮辱性詞匯。這張照片在HLN放出後的幾小時內，極端虐待成性殘酷的惡棍將這張照片發給了傑克遜的子女，附帶留言寫到“來自爸爸的愛”。
傑克遜家族的第二代，包括邁克爾·傑克遜的子女也是被欺辱的受害者——他們的生活、人際關系和父親身份是謠言的素材，因為小報記者顯然避開了談及合法收養或無子女家庭的受精技術，並認為另一種親情關系和養育是無論如何都不正常的。公共場合下佩戴面具避免了他們在遊樂場地被認出，後來由保鏢尾隨——他們代替了避免導致媒體追逐和給員警帶來安全問題而不能跟隨子女出門的父親角色。然而，公眾的看法卻在嘲弄傑克遜為避免子女受到傷害而採取的保護方法。
有些人堅持認為，公眾人物和他們的生活屬於公眾而不是自己，他們期望知道任何事和所有的私人資訊，他們感覺名人不該享有每個人都享受的人權。有些人為了取悅為了收視率和利潤，會奉上不管真實或虛假的垃圾——做出不合法的事，電話竊聽、支票新聞，為故事花大量的錢——故事越下三濫，買故事支票上的零越多，在頭版上將真實的人處以私刑加以瓜分——為了利潤。
成人們對孩子們從何處得到看似殘酷無情的觀點而感到擔憂。著迷于名人的孩子們模仿著最流行的人物，並強烈的感知周圍成年人的價值觀。自邁克爾·傑克遜去世以來，新的一代才剛剛重新發現他。你以為他們天真地錯過了打擊邁克爾·傑克遜的小報？他們從哪里學到的欺淩？他們正在看著媒體，看著我們！
Barbara Kaufmann: Michael Jackson on Trial Again -- Part I
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rev-ba...b_1093132.html
In the "trial of the century," the prosecution rested, the defense rested, the jury can rest now that they're dismissed. When does Michael Jackson get to rest? To the media this wasn't the manslaughter trial of Conrad Murray; it was "the Michael Jackson Death Trial." And much of the time, Michael Jackson, though dead, was on trial.
Michael Jackson was not treated as a human being, but as a cash cow. His death hasn't changed that. The exploitation of Jackson was legion -- by acquaintances, hired help, colleagues, the music industry, the justice system, by families looking for deep pockets, by hangers-on, sycophants and especially by the media. Millions were made off the Jackson brand. What the public doesn't know, is how cynical and deliberate the exploitation was. Author Joe Vogel wrote about the widespread cultural abuse of Jackson in a recent article titled "Am I the Beast you Visualized?"
The latest betrayal is a documentary by Conrad Murray -- the very doctor who is convicted of killing Jackson . Murray , charged with manslaughter, struck a deal two years ago with October Films for a documentary about his relationship with Jackson and his final days. Family and fans are asking how could NBC, in good conscience, produce and air a film that exploits Jackson yet again after death and by the very person responsible for that death? Murray inked a contract as Jackson was being laid to rest.
The documentary included scenes depicting "private rooms" in Jackson 's home with clips recognized as photos of Neverland Ranch taken in 2003 after sheriff's deputies raided and rifled through it. The same photos, originally used to slant opinion about Jackson 's private habits, made their way into Murray 's "documentary" along with a few contrived comments designed to denigrate Jackson while elevating Murray . How honest is a film and its intentions when cleverly edited for impact and ratings? Reminiscent of MSNBC Martin Bashir's Living With Michael Jackson, another cleverly edited film called a "hit piece mocumentary" that was cynically produced for ratings and profit was refuted later by Jackson 's own film crew who taped the same footage simultaneously with Bashir's crew. Murray 's documentary circumvented the justice system allowing in the testimony he refused to give in court despite a family's frantic search for answers to what happened to their dead loved one, Michael.
Conrad Murray's manslaughter trial became "the Michael Jackson Death Trial" because media long ago learned that connecting Jackson 's name to anything increased revenues. People promoting their own brand still cynically link to Jackson knowing that negative stories about him increases attention. Reporters invented stories and not to be left out of the profit making game, mainstream media soon followed suit. A large segment of the population still believes the tabloid caricature of Jackson and the accusations from which he was exonerated. And they mistakenly believe self proclaimed "Michael Jackson experts" -- who never even met the man and have an agenda and a reason to perpetuate the caricature myth -- to avoid being exposed for their past treachery -- using a human being for profit and to future careers. The propaganda about Jackson says more about the writer than it does about their subject. Nick Davies in his Flat Earth News exposé claims the public would be sickened by cynical media tactics and how they manipulate á la tabloid journalism gone mainstream.
Jackson fans, who have been trying to warn consumers for years about the racist agenda and media exploitation of Jackson , issued a statement this week: "Michael Jackson fans have had enough. Ridicule us if you must, call us names, tell us we only think of Michael as an 'idol' -- but we are not the ones selling his memory, objectifying him and making money off him." They have called for a boycott of NBC and its sponsors.
Murray may have administered the fatal dose of poison, but the media poisoning of public opinion regarding Jackson was relentless and protracted. Did the media torture a man to death for nothing more than ratings and profit? The most famous man in the world was also the most bullied. The tabloid campaign exploiting and lynching Jackson was unparalleled and lasted decades. Jackson 's exploiters hail from every possible position -- from cleaning ladies to doctors and a Rabbi spiritual director who published recordings of Jackson 's private sessions -- all to make a buck off his brand.
Physicians are outraged by Murray 's reckless treatment and his violation of HIPPA laws and patient confidentiality. They find it incredulous that a doctor, now convicted felon, skirted both the law and testifying in court and pimped his documentary that profits the very man he killed.
The fans, aware that public opinion about them has also been manipulated, are concerned that the public continues to allow salacious media exploitation of public figures and are duped into its consumption unawares. One fan writes:
"Our living rooms should not be dumping grounds for salacious materials that strip humans not only of their dignity, but their very humanity -- and ours in the process. Where is the public outcry that says 'enough is enough'? People were outraged when the Rupert Murdoch scandal broke about phone hacking for headlines for front page fodder with ill gotten sensationalized information; where are they now? Airing this documentary is shameful."
British Huffington Post journalist Charles Thomson chronicled
the shaming irresponsibility of the media while covering the Jackson trial in 2005 in a piece called "The Most Shameful Episode in Journalistic History."
It might be worth pondering why a man who appeared to have it all needed such extreme measures to sleep. Why did he require medication that did not just help him sleep but rendered him unconscious nightly in order to rest? How did a vegetarian and purist who hated drugs come to rely on them? Remember, Jackson was found not guilty of exploiting children but the accusation would forever taint his legacy. Yet the Murray trial showcased, in Jackson 's own words, his dream to build a children's hospital. His attorney, Thomas Mesereau voices concern about the recklessness of a slanted media that capitalizes and exaggerates drama for profit and ratings; he is joined by other attorneys like Matt Semino and Mark Geragos who worry that celebrity cultism and media manipulated public opinion preempt justice.
Authors Aphrodite Jones in Conspiracy: The Michael Jackson Story, Jermaine Jackson in You Are Not Alone: Michael Through a Brother's Eyes, and Joe Vogel with Man in the Music: The Creative Life and Work of Michael Jackson, as well as Armond White and others, try to set the record straight by telling the true Jackson story with new books that counter the tabloid trash and chronicle history.
Even today few people are aware that in both cases accusing Jackson of harming children the same players appear -- the district attorney nicknamed "Mad Dog," the same attorney who recruited and represented both accusing families and the same psychiatrist reporting the accusations. Few people realize this gang still socializes together. Both the FBI and social services investigated Jackson and found no wrongdoing .
Few understand what really happened to Jackson because his dehumanization in tabloids was so deliberate and the caricature painted so thorough. His ruination by public opinion and the media was so disheartening, the violation of his civil rights by law enforcement so encompassing that it rendered Jackson so dispirited and disillusioned that he left his homeland, the place where a little black kid from the inner city made it to Hollywood .
The last insult came from Rupert Murdoch's Sun tabloid publishing a photo of the dead Jackson front page in Britain with the racist moniker " Jackson " -- whose origin describes monkeys and can be a slur used for those of African descent.
Within hours after the release of that photo on HLN, extremely sadistic and cruel bullies send a copy to Jackson 's children with the message "From Daddy with love."
The second generation of Jacksons , including Michael Jackson's children, have themselves been victims of bullying -- their lives, relationships and paternity made fodder for gossip because tabloid reporters apparently eschew the legitimacy of adoption or fertilization techniques for childless families, and find alternative paternity and parenting somehow aberrant. Masks in public prevented them from being recognized at playgrounds later when accompanied by bodyguards who substituted for a father unable to accompany them in recreational outings without causing a media circus and security problems for police. Yet public opinion ridiculed Jackson for protecting his children from harm.
There are those who seem to insist that public figures and their lives belong to the public instead of to themselves, who expect to be privy to any and all private information, who feel that celebrities are not entitled to the same civil rights everyone else enjoys. And there are those who pander to those compulsions and serve up the dirt whether true or not, for ratings and profits -- doing it with illegal phone hacking, checkbook journalism and paying large sums for stories -- the more salacious the story, the more zeroes on the check for stories that lynch and carve up real people on front pages -- for profit.
Adults wonder out loud where children get the ideas that seem so cruel and heartless. Enamored by celebrity, kids imitate the most popular, and are keenly aware of the values displayed by the adults around them. The new generation has just rediscovered Michael Jackson since his passing. Do you think they naively miss the tabloid battering of Michael Jackson? Where do they learn bullying?
沒有留言:
張貼留言