Please enable JavaScript in your browser preferences and then Reload this page!!!

Michael Jackson Justice: Sony and the Press Unprecedented Character Assassination

God: Reconnect to Him

The Conspiracy against God is about "The Word", and the profaning of His Holy Name within us. Adam fell in the garden, breaking the direct connection to God. Jesus, the "last Adam" was a quickening Spirit, the Word made Flesh, and the only one with whom we can re-establish our relationship with God. Michael's story is still unfolding. He is the one who is, is not. But Jesus is the only name given under heaven by which we must be saved. Many are trying to rewrite HIStory. We were given a help to instruct us. Learn more "here".

Tuesday, August 10, 2010

Sony and the Press Unprecedented Character Assassination



August 10, 2010 – Sony and the Press Unprecedented Character Assassination

In August of 1985, Michael Jackson became more than just a popular celebrity pop star with big, Bambi eyes and a smile that lit up a room. Michael officially became a multi-billion dollar corporation. He didn’t know it yet (maybe he did), but that is what he became.

During that same year, rumors were also propelled towards a once adored, respected and revered artist. Rumors such as the Elephant Man bones got started, and the gas chamber sleepy-thing and the proposing to Liz Taylor and the resurgence of the gay rumors, the turning white rumors/trying to be white rumors and behind it all, feeding the press was Frank DiLeo. Katherine Jackson had words to say about Frank’s brilliant publicity ideas, once telling DiLeo that he was making her son “look like an idiot.”

Michael during his "BAD" Days


According to this article back in June of 2009, Frank DiLeo said he had to tell the children Michael died. He also said that the nanny was in the room (who was that then? Because supposedly Grace wasn’t hired back yet) and DR. MURRY?!!! I thought he had fled the scene as soon as they got to the hospital? Source

However, there was another article I found in which Frank said he was edged out by an insider, an executive at Sony. That made me sit up. This was the first I had heard of this:

“Frank Dileo himself was asked Why Michael fired him by an interviewer. His response was, He felt that Michael had fired him because it was "politically" asked of him. He stated that there was an outside record executive with a big time lawyer and one executive at Sony who wanted to see Michael’s power cut in half.” Source . . . Whoa?

This could have been divisive tactics by DiLeo to cause doubt amongst fans back then or it could have been the truth. That is reason number three I have read so far, as to the reasoning for the firing of DiLeo.

1. He was fired because of the rumors he fed the press about Michael
2. He was fired because of failure to get “Moonwalker” released world-wide
3. He was fired because of pressure put on Michael by an outside record executive via a lawyer and a Sony exec.
Names, Frank . . . we want names!

"Who is It", Michael?


Remember Charles Thomson? Remember Taraborrelli? Remember I had written that they sounded like paid bloggers for Sony?

Remember the abuse not only I but Muzikfactory2 endured? Let me back up a bit here because I want to explain something to you about Muzikfactory2. She is the one who helped me uncover Thomson. If it weren’t for her suspicions I would have never discovered that Thomson and Lowly were one and the same. Muzik was brutalized on both twitter and on my own blog. Instead of backing down or compromising she closed down everything and yes, she said some things in the heat of the attack that I would not have condoned . . . but she was right. And when you are right you do not back down. She is focused when it comes to seeking out and uncovering the lies and she does not give up. She took a breather offline for a couple of days, then came back and offered her help.

Below is the result: Charles Thompson Update

Paid Blogging

Do Charles Thomson and Randy Taraborrelli blog for Sony? Are they paid bloggers for Sony? It would not be an easy trace to make, I mean Sony wouldn't exactly advertise it, but since they assume that Michael was a drug addict and put that in print, I'm going to assume that they could quite possibly work for Sony. We know that Sony DOES hire bloggers.

I found this story on company paid bloggers on Newsweek. Source

Paid bloggers, according to one comment, are basically committing fraud. There may be nothing inherently illegal about it, but it is at best unethical to secretly blog for a company while pretending to advocate for, review or recommend a product as a impartial bystander. On both of Charles’s blogs he cited inside “Sony” sources and on “LNH”, he chided AEG’s “excuses” for Michael’s lateness to the O2 Press Conference, citing stories of the goings on at the hotel room before he was due to arrive. With a pro-Sony/Anti-Michael/Anti-AEG bent on that particular blog, it is completely understandable as to why he would “lockdown”. Boss’s orders? After all, they have an image to uphold to the fans.

This was also an interesting read. On October 5, 2009, an article appeared in the “Videomaker” online ezine, by Jennifer O’Roarke, “FTC Goes After Paid Bloggers and Celebs”. Source

In this article, the FTC is said to be levying fines of $11,000 for “shilling” for companies as “average joes” who blog as paid or incentivized bloggers for a company or product. This could be why Thomson declined to “take legal action” and shut down his commenting on his blog, deleted “LNH”, deleted all but personal friends from his facebook page and restricted his Twitter account. Taraborrelli also neglected to “take legal action”. Or . . . it could just be because I didn’t do anything wrong.

Sony is also taking a beating in their hardware department. Source Could someone explain to Sony that you can’t do to consumers of your product what you do to the artists under your record labels?

Sony trying to skirt the Feds on paid blogging? Source

Sony pays P.R. firm to lie about wanting a PS3 for Christmas. Source

Oh lookie! As of May 17, 2010, Sony is even HIRING for Social Media specialists for Blogger outreach! Source

Paid bloggers in the U.K. Editorial sites. Source

And it goes on and on.

It stands to reason that if Sony does this for their hardware and gaming products, they most probably do this for their ARTIST PRODUCTS too, shaping the opinions and attitudes of tomorrow, they were AT MICHAEL for 20 + years! Thanks to Michael and a man named Corey Rooney, we are no longer in the dark on the music industries "preferred practices".

Michael "Can't Stop Loving" his music or his fans


Negative press can employ people to write just as well as positive press (about a product or service). One of the more persistent negative issues about Michael was the drug abuse issue.

“Arnold Klein, Jackson's dermatologist, confirmed that Jackson misused prescription drugs, and that Klein had diagnosed Jackson with vitiligo and lupus. Yet, Klein said, when he saw Jackson at his office three days before his death, the singer "was in very good physical condition. He was dancing for my patients. He was very mentally aware when we saw him and he was in a very good mood." In none of multiple hospitalizations in latest decades, did medics find drugs in Jackson's system” Source

Let’s remind ourselves just why Sony would go to such lengths to sabotage Michael and the reward for them in doing so. The Catalog

Let’s remind BRANCA, and any of those FANS out there that insist patronizing Sony is helping Michael's children (it is not)and that Branca did a good thing in “continuing the 30 year relationship" that this is exactly how Michael FELT about Sony. Source Yes, with Sony making sure Michael was in hock by refusing to promote an album they were contracted to promote and refusing to let Michael release “What More Can I Give”, I’m sure Michael was more than happy to return to those vultures.

Roger Friedman said in this article on Fox News:

“In other words: Jackson will be in hock to Sony for the rest of his life. I think I've told readers of this column many times that Sony would not foreclose but instead let Jackson have a graceful exit from the company. To foreclose on the catalog would have been a public relations nightmare for Sony.”

Of course. Key word in this paragraph being “public relations”. This article was published June 18, of 2002. The famous Sony Speech in London took place on June 15th 2002 and the Press Conference in Harlem on July 7th, 2002.

Martin Bashir “lived” with Michael Jackson for a period of eight months between May of 2002 through January 2003. It was edited, NOT cleared by Michael’s attorneys as promised, and aired on Feb. 3, 2003 in the U.K. and on Feb. 6th, 2003 in the U.S. When did Bashir first convince Michael to let him interview him?

“The footage that they show in this documentary was filmed by Hamid Moslehi privately. He states that he was not "secretly" videotaping the interviews, as was popularly believed. He said Bashir knew they were also filming, but that Bashir probably didn't know that when he told his camera crew to cut, that he was still filming.”

The video has been shown in a Fox Network special. Part of the footage was not aired because the videographer Hamid Moslehi refused to hand it over, owing to a financial dispute with Jackson. It was found by police in a search of Moslehi's home in November 2003, and showed the accuser's family praising Jackson.” Source

Uri Gellar introduced Michael to Bashir in early 2002. Michael’s album “Invincible” was released on October 30, 2001.

“Jackson was waiting for licenses to the masters of his albums to revert back to him, thus allowing him to promote his old material and preventing Sony from getting a cut of the profit. Jackson expected this to occur early in the new millennium, however, due to the fine print and various clauses in the contract, the revert date is still many years away. Jackson began an investigation, and it emerged that the attorney who represented the singer in the deal was also representing Sony, creating a conflict of interest. Jackson was also concerned about another conflict of interest. For a number of years, Sony had been negotiating to buy Jackson's music catalog. If Jackson's career or financial situation were to deteriorate, it would be in Jackson's financial interest to sell his catalog. Thus, Sony had something to gain from Jackson's career failing. Jackson was able to use these conflicts as leverage to exit his contract early.” Source

During the time that this was going on, Bashir enters the picture via Uri Gellar (who still insists Michael is a drug addict even though no hospital Michael was ever admitted to found any drugs in his system). Michael battles with Sony over Invincible, finds out that the masters of his albums would NOT revert to him when he believed they would. During the audit and investigation Michael finds his lawyer also working for Sony. Who was that? John Branca. Why would John Branca negotiate a contract for Michael in which Sony not only would misrepresent when Michael’s masters would revert to him, but a contract in which Sony would benefit from the failing of Michael’s career with both the Mijack Catalog and the co-owned Sony/ATV?

So in early 2002, Bashir is just ushered into Michael’s private life by Gellar. May of 2002, Bashir begins interviewing and filming the documentary. June 15, 2002 Michael finally goes public with his struggles with both Mottola and Sony. No mention of this in the Bashir interview. Bashir highlights the “baby-dangling” incident but not this landmark speech in which Michael airs one of the music industry’s dirtiest business secrets?

July 7, 2002 Michael and Al Sharpton press conference about the music industry’s treatment of black and minority artists, where Michael publicly calls Mottola “racist” and “devil”. In January 2003, Bashir completed filming/interviewing of Michael for “Living with Michael Jackson”. In February of 2003 after heavy editing and negative narrating, it was aired in the U.K. and the U.S. without approval of Michael after final edits.

New York times described Michael as being in a musical decline even before the trial in this article posted the day of Michael’s acquittal on June 14, 2005. Source

Read down on this list of press releases to July 3, 2002, where Marc Schaffel berates Sony for it’s corporate greed after learning that Sony refused to let Michael release his charity single, “What More Can I Give” in which Schaffel worked on:

“Says Marc Schaffel, "Sony Music are punishing many innocent people who would have been the much needed beneficiaries of the proceeds [of this project]. This the most blatant disgusting act of Corporate greed. Sony should be ashamed of themselves and the public should not let them get away with this, without a stink."

An orchestrated trial and destruction of an innocent soul.


Asked about what the public could do to push Sony Music to release "What More Can I Give," Marc Schaffel answered: "Publicly bringing this [subject] to the attention of the world is the best thing to do. I know that hitting Sony in the pocket book, and bad PR, is another great way of ensuring this gets released and is done properly.”


Marc Schaffel sued Michael in 2005, during Michael’s trial, for $2 million, which was whittled down to just under $900,000, Michael counter-sued for $250,000 and the case was settled with both parties having to pay the other. I never knew Marc Schaffel was so critical of Sony. Source

The above link should keep you busy with Michael Jackson press timed between “Invincible” and the 2005 Trial. This is one of the longest blogs I’ve written to date, so I will close for now and we will continue with more on the Press and Sony later this week. In the meantime, I want to focus your attention on BOYCOTT SONY.

Also, please sign this petition to yet another airing of the lies of Martin Bashir’s documentary, which is being aired in Germany on N24 repeatedly. View this video This petition is requesting the “Footage You were Never Meant to See” instead, Please sign to help raise awareness to these T.V. stations that they continue to air lies.

43 comments:

  1. Thank you. Great info. Erroneous blogged information: Michael Jackson - drug-addicted, poor, hates his family, spend-thrift, lost his nose:{,leveraged his half of the catalogue. Three great reasons why all of the above is a lie or just plain misinformation: Paris, Prince, and Blanket. Enough said.

    Taborelli: Bottom feeder, when will fans stop quoting him as regards to Michael? He lures with the sweet in order to spread lies.
    Thomas: Employs the same tactics as Taborelli. He tries to hide it, but it oozes through. He is recommended on many blog sites that are dedicated to Michael Jackson truths.
    Uri Geller: Slime that cannot admit that he used his friendship with Michael to attach Bashir to Michael. Will not accept the, or should I say refuses to admit that Michael allowed Bashir into his inner circle because of Uri's introduction and assurance. You let down your guard when a friend recommends something, don't you. Claims to know Michael is a drug addict: Liar.
    Friend is foe, Foe is friend? Confusing

    ReplyDelete
  2. I'm going to comment about boycotting Sony...First, you cannot simply boycott Sony Music. Go to their website: http://www.sonymusic.com/ Click on LABELS to see for yourselves. In addition to boycotting Sony, you will also need to boycott all of the following: Arista, Arista Nashville, BNA Records Label, Columbia Records, Columbia Nashville, Epic, Jive, j Records, Legacy, Sony Music Latin, Masterworks, Provident Label Group, RCA Records Label Nashville, RCA, Verity

    Sorry Michael fans, but not many of you truly realize that. This is why I mention it.

    Also, take note that one of the Labels is Columbia. Well, Columbia Records is also linked to Columbia Pictures (the movie company)!!! Is everyone following me here yet???

    Yeah, they're tough to "bring down", unless you don't plan on buying ANY music or going to the movies in the near future at all.

    However, some Jackson fans are even smarter. Some of us believe that the taking down of Sony is a lot like dominoes (Hey...they in basic did it to Michael, so return the gesture!). So, here's the "hot tip":

    Hit Sony hardest in their main source of income--the Parent Company-- Sony Electronics!!! Don't buy their Computers, TV's, Stereos, Home Entertainment Systems, DVD Players, Cameras, Camcorders, and most importantly--the Playstation 3 and all its associated games and accessories!!! And, they posted a HUGE Billion dollar loss for 2009 (the year MJ passed over) to top things off--their first in 14 yrs. to note.

    Now, when the Consumer (us) do that, it forces Sony to take the profits from their "sub-contractors"-- in this case, Sony Music and all of their associated recording labels and in the case of Columbia Records, it also means dipping into Columbia Pictures revenue in order for "Mama Sony" (Sony Electronics) to stay alive. Karma sucks...

    Anyway, think dominoes...

    ReplyDelete
  3. Oh, and don't forget!!! Sony has its own movie label too: Sony Pictures. So, you have to boycott anything from there too.

    ReplyDelete
  4. @Bonnie- I've given you a "free ad" for your blog site here on mine: http://ladyaquarius62.blogspot.com/2010/08/death-of-michael-jackson-and-boycott-of.html

    You've earned it! Kudos n' hugz...

    ReplyDelete
  5. jomc12 - I am in the process of wiping tears, I just read Muzik's blog about Michael's 1993 "Sneddon-ordered" photo session OMG. I had never read that before. Just when you think you have finally exorcised feelings about that be it in your past or someone elses, it all comes back to engulf you. How can something like that be allowed to happen! They never even went to court about that so why did he have to endure that??? How many other suspects are asked to disrobe and be photographed?? And why isn't SNEDDON IN JAIL?!!! Anyway, back to YOUR comment (sorry), I agree. All of them! Bashir, Gellar (the integrity bender, never mind the spoons!), Taraborrelli, Thomson (him, Chandler and Halperin, obsessed with something they covet but can't have) and the press who's sole job it is to encourage, nurture and feed the worst in human behavior, creating the very means of their existence . . . MISERY!

    ladyaquarius1962 - Thank you for the list of labels. That helps me out a lot. While this may be hard for some, it won't be for me. In this economy I don't think anyone will find it hard not to go out and buy music. We have radio, we have Youtube. I have what I already have and that is the way it will stay with me for a long time. I haven't even bought any Christian Contemporary because of SONY!!!

    I do think it is a good idea to concentrate on the hardware first, but Sony could easily explain it away with you guessed it . . . the economy. The parent corps of many companies have managed to stay afloat via their subsidiaries and there is way too much money to be made in the music industry by those very companies. It is NOT just Sony that has practiced these tactics with artists, it is industry wide. It is VERY realistic for consumers not to buy music. You just have to go back a bit in history when people thought other things were important . . .like time with family away from a celuloid screen with a James Bond movie playing in it, or buying the latest CD. There ARE other things to do in this world then to support thugs.

    It is because of them that there is no art to music anymore . . . it's all driven by numbers and marketing and dollars. The restraints that puts on an artist is one of the reasons WHY the music industry will NEVER ALLOW another Michael to develop. Never. The other artists are ASLEEP . . . coddled by the money and harnessed by it and it keeps them from reaching their TRUE POTENTIAL. Once you sign a record deal, that label will spend the rest of YOUR CAREER trying to stuff you into a box you don't fit into!

    Am I going to support that?? NO WAY!!!!

    Sony! BITE ME!

    ReplyDelete
  6. Bonnie, this is your best post yet! Very well researched!

    ReplyDelete
  7. Bonnie Thank You for your blog, You have Really
    open my eyes. WAKE UP EVERYBODY.
    God Bless. Keep Up your Good Work
    L.O.V.E. You Thanks Again

    ReplyDelete
  8. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Bonnie said, "The restraints that puts on an artist is one of the reasons WHY the music industry will NEVER ALLOW another Michael to develop. Never. The other artists are ASLEEP . . . coddled by the money and harnessed by it and it keeps them from reaching their TRUE POTENTIAL."

    That's the TRUTH. Many in the Media are already hailing Lady Gaga as the next MJ, but in the same breath...Look at how the very Media that on the one hand builds her up is tearing her apart with innuendos of her being a hermaphrodite (http://www.snopes.com/music/artists/ladygaga.asp), her waving her middle finger at a baseball game, her costumes, and whatnotall.

    ReplyDelete
  10. I read on Wikipedia long time ago that the lawyer (Wikipedia doesn’t mention the name of the lawyer) who representing Michael was representing Sony at the same time. Now I know it is true it was Branca? What was Branca’s position with Sony while he representing Michael? Was he representing Sony concerning the catalog?

    You hired lawyers to read and analyze fine prints and inform the stipulations of all the contracts to your client. Signing contracts requires expert lawyers who work on your behalf and investigate every detail on the contract. So if his lawyer, Branca, works also for Sony and protecting Sony’s interest, it is so obvious he will protect Sony the one who would give him long lasting relationship.

    Michael trusted Branca just like anyone of us will trust our lawyers, but instead he stabbed him in the back. That was the greatest betrayal that has no match to it. Now he is the one running his estate and some fans trying to protect him as angel who is sent by God for the sake of Michael’s children. Give me a break.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Oh ladyaquaries, thank you so much. Are you saying all those Labels under Sony? I did not know that. The suggestion, the domino effect, is awesome and smart thinking.

    ReplyDelete
  12. LadyAquarious1962, yes it is VERY possible for us NOT to support $Ony in any way. Movies have been tripe for a LONG time, I havent gone to the theater in many years. So there goes the $ for any film companies they are connected to. Second, most music has been tripe for many years, the only music I have bought in the last 7 years has been MJ, and before that, not much else either! So, it's not as ridiculous or impossible as you claim, it's all about priorities and your conscience. And I also think, it's about quality, which we arent missing out on, if we dont go to the movies or buy music. Use what you have already for entertainment, or indulge in your other interests, i.e. books. Bonnie, I'd wish you would link the actual site, instead of fb groups, why do we need a 3rd party when the information is in abundance on the site?? Oh and in regards to your early paragraph where Dileo speaks of others trying to oust him and telling MJ if he did, things would go better? I VERY DISTINCTLY remember reading an article around July, that Dileo elaborates a bit and names a name about who the exec was. I recall the way I found the article, was typing in Frank Dileo in google. Now that I have tried to locate it again, it's gone, no surprise. But I recall the bg was white, & the image at the top was the one where Dileo is smoking a stogy and folding his arms while laughing. BUT, even if we cant find it, an MJ fansite has excerpts from it http://www.mjfanclub.net/home/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=605&Itemid=59 so maybe this will help you discover the actual article, bc the fansite's link to the "full article", no longer works. Also here's another interesting article on Dileo, http://www.hitsdailydouble.com/news/newsPage.cgi?news07696m01

    ReplyDelete
  13. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  14. @ Mimi: Yes! Every single Label that's mentioned must also be boycotted.

    @ Justice: "So, it's not as ridiculous or impossible as you claim, it's all about priorities and your conscience.", your own words.

    May I ask where I said ANYTHING about a boycott of Sony being ridiculous or impossible??? NOWHERE is the correct answer. I was merely pointing out that many of Michael's fans whom are boycotting are ONLY boycotting Sony Music, AND they are not considering just how BIG Sony is!!!

    In order to take Sony down, you must consider EVERYTHING that Sony sells, markets, distributes, does business with and under, and what companies and corporations are also under them.

    MOST people living their daily lives fail to realize such things. That's why I supplied the list of Labels also associated with Sony Music, and also made mention of how to "remember dominoes..."

    ReplyDelete
  15. @ justice: regarding Frank Dileo being fired by Michael, you may be referring to the November 2007 interview given by Dileo where he says that the higherups wanted Michael to get rid of him (to split the power) and hire Sandy Gallin, who could boost Michael's screen career; then goes on to say that as we know Michael never made a movie, but Gallin rep'd Michael for the next six years. Does Gallin have a tie with Sony (she wondered)?

    ReplyDelete
  16. Here's another point that I'd like to draw attention to...

    Some Michael fans out there also think (for example's sake): "Ok. I'm not going to buy anything Sony-related. No PS3, no Sony Music, etc." Okay...AWESOME!!! But, here's where Sony Music ALSO makes money...

    The AWARD shows: MTV awards, the Grammys, and so forth. You tune in to such on the tube, and BINGO...you've given Sony money.

    How??? Gee...there is advertising associated with those shows, right? Ok...every time you watch a Sony advertisement--they make MONEY.

    On a second note...Every time you watch an artist perform on any one of those shows (yes...this includes all of the MJ Tributes that have been or will be aired) who is working underneath the Sony Music label or any of their subsidiaries, Sony makes MONEY!

    Also...every time you listen to or download anything pertaining to Michael--even though someone else is performing any one of his songs, or any of the artists under the Sony label(s)--Sony makes MONEY! And...that's the reality of it all.

    Impossible? No. Ridiculous? No. But to truly boycott Sony effectively EVERYTHING and every little nook and cranny needs to be considered.

    ReplyDelete
  17. @ladyaquarius1962 said...
    (August 10, 2010 8:42 AM)

    Thank you for breaking down Sony Corp. into its component parts and putting into perspective what it would take to affect their bottom line. NOT an easy task, especially if you don't know where to start! You've given a much better picture of what we are dealing with.

    To add, and NO disrespect to Michael, but there were bigger things happening in the world when Michael sadly and very tragically died last year.
    You mention Sony's very real short fall in profits last year which is true but I hope you're not implying that Michael's death caused this because it didn't. I'm sure many readers are still feeling the sting of the global financial melt down that occurred over the last 2 years. I, along with millions of others, was w/o work for over a year and could not purchase any kind of Sony product even if I wanted to. (Of course I don't!) The roof over my head and food on the table tends to be a priority over entertainment expenses. Happily, I've recently found good employment, however, I still WON'T be purchasing any Sony electronics. I WILL purchase Michael's music ONLY. This is a drop in the bucket as far as Sony is concerned and besides, I believe Michael still gets the highest royalty rate in the business. More money to his kids.

    As always, I continue to pray for justice in his case and closure for his family...if that is at all possible.

    Thank you once again, @ladyaquarius1962, for your very informative comment.

    ReplyDelete
  18. @ SandyK: No...I'm not implying that Michael's death had "everything" to do with Sony's financial fall from profit last year. The current economy alone is hurting several corporations not just Sony. But, I will say that Michael's death and the current fan-retaliatory boycott of Sony's goods and services also is a "keynote of interest." Anotherwords, the rebellion against Sony by Michael's fans is a part of Sony's fianancial headaches--but it's not the entire reason.

    ReplyDelete
  19. @june said...
    (August 10, 2010 4:52 PM)

    @June,
    Michael DID act in some movies such as the "Wiz" in the 1970's; "Captain Eo" in the 80's; the campy, excellent and UNforgettable long form video for "Thriller" (1983); and the memorable and very well done dual role in his long form music video for "Ghosts" (1997).

    There was also a couple of unfortunate and forgetable cameo's in 2 other movies in the last 10 years; "Miss Castaway and the Island Girls" (2004) and "Men in Black II" (2002). (Who ever got him to do those 2 roles should have been fired!)

    Sandy Gallin was his manager from 1991 to 1997. I would agree she didn't seem to do much for him screen wise during most of the 1990's.

    ReplyDelete
  20. @ladyaquarius1962, by the way, do you know if Dreamworks or Pixar have any thing to do with Sony or its affiliates? Thank you in advance.

    Trivia:
    I noticed that Dreamworks uses a similar symbol to the one Michael used for his Neverland Ranch. I child in a quarter moon although Dreamworks child is fishing. Just thought I'd add that.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Interesting info on Dreamworks. They do have some material licensed to Michael's Sony/ATV catelog.

    "On March 17, 2006, Paramount agreed to sell a controlling interest in the DreamWorks live-action library (pre-09/16/2005; DW Funding, LLC) to Soros Strategic Partners and Dune Entertainment II.[9] The film library is valued at $900 million. Paramount retained the worldwide distribution rights to these films, as well as various ancillary rights, including music publishing, sequels and merchandising—this includes films that had been made by Paramount and DreamWorks (the music publishing rights were later licensed to Sony-ATV Music Publishing when that company acquired Paramount's Famous Music subdivision). The sale was completed on May 8, 2006.[10]"

    (source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DreamWorks)

    It looks like DreamWorks does have some ties to Sony. Just thought I'd add that as a heads up.

    ReplyDelete
  22. @ SandyK: Dreamworks used to be a film company that Steven Spielberg owned. Michael had wanted to be a part of it, but Spielberg declined. As for the similarity in symbolism goes, Spielberg was a bit of a "thief" there. He stole it from MJ.

    ReplyDelete
  23. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Oh, and YES Spielberg STILL owns DreamWorks (with it's on and off-ness--I thought it was gone for good):

    http://www.dvdtown.com/news/dreamworks-30-has-arrived-with-steven-spielberg-and-stacey-snider-at-the-helm/7748

    Oh, and they are no longer associated with Paramount (possibly Sony ties have also been cut)--Read this part carefully:

    Of course, everyone seemed pretty happy back in 1994, when the power trio of Spielberg, David Geffen and Jeffrey Katzenberg took $500 million from Paul Allen to create the entertainment company of the future.

    It didn't quite turn out that way...

    AND...

    Also long gone is a music label that once floated such artists as Rufus Wainwright, George Michael and Randy Newman (it was sold to Universal in 2003), as well as a film library that includes everything from Saving Private Ryan to A Beautiful Mind. (Paramount sold off the controlling interest to the library to a group led by George Soros for $900 million shortly after it purchased DreamWorks in 2005.)

    Relaunching the company last August with support from Indian media conglomerate Reliance, Spielberg now finds himself partnered with the steady, well-regarded Stacey Snider, overseeing a stable, well-regarded staff of about 80 employees who work out of his Amblin Entertainment facility on the Universal lot.

    Now distributing through Disney's Touchstone label, the studio has modest goals to produce about half a dozen movies a year, a few of them tentpoles, the rest of the slate filled out by genre movies.

    ReplyDelete
  25. @ladyaquarius1962, interesting about the symbols. That makes more sense now. Do you know why Spielberg declined? Did he perhaps feel that Michael might try to over leverage himself? (Apologies for this being off topic.)

    ReplyDelete
  26. Bonnie - thank you for this great blog by the way. I watched the video of the London Speech you attached and Michael said “Sony did not think this performer would out think them”. What exactly Michael “out think” them?

    Also I watched this interview of Tommy Mottola after Michael died and he said there is lots of unreleased Michael’s music, and they are like JEWELS. When he was asked who own them, he said SONY, but the Jackson estate gets royalty fees from the sale. He didn’t even say both Michael and Sony. How come only Sony owns them? I am completely confused. Here is the video link:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sItXxlQEmMs&feature=related

    ReplyDelete
  27. @Mesrak (Mimi):
    I'm confused as well. I thought Michael owned most of the rights to his own material in his MiJac Music Publishing catelog?

    How did Sony get the rights...or was that the huge deal that Branca cut with them a few months ago.

    ReplyDelete
  28. @ Sandy: Spielberg for the most part distanced himself from Michael because of the charges/allegations brought against him regarding the molestation crap.

    ReplyDelete
  29. @SandyK: when I was referring to Michael not having had a film career as a result of Sony's(?) firing of Dileo and persuading him to hire Gallin, this occurred in the late 80's; Gallin managed him from about 1990 for six years. I was referring to that period of time, 1990-1996; Michael had no movie roles during that period which is odd if that's the reason he fired Dileo,i.e., to work in film via Gallin.

    Katherine Jackson in her book Never Can Say Goodbye states that Michael had been privately studying directing and his son Prince was also going to participate; I've read elsewhere Michael wanted to direct when his performing days were over. I couldn't figure why he would give up this dream of becoming a director (with his son) to tour in London for two years unless there was some financial or other coercion placed upon him. We can only dream ourselves what great filmwork his fertile imagination would have created.

    ReplyDelete
  30. I've noticed that Charles Thomson has been mentioned alot and even vilified. Forgive my ignorance but I'm still confused as to why? I have read his blogs, his current one and the Lowly News Hound (now gone), which he doesn't deny authoring. I dislike and disagree with many of the things written in LNH, especially the repeating of rumours, but I wouldn't put him in the same category as Taraborrelli (a user, media hound and so called "friend" of MJ and, unfortunately, a casual associate of Thomson's) or Halperin (also a media hound and complete incompetent fool spewing fantasized nonsense at best). Thomson has genuinely done an excellent job of defending MJ against child molestation charges. His Huffington Post piece this last June on MJ's 2005 trial is excellent work, and very much in favor of MJ and very critical of the media with detail examples to back up the criticism. No one else has done in-depth reporting like this on that case. Apparently, he does feel very strongly about that issue which is what his current active blog has focused on. The other, now defunct blog, was a dissappointing collection of trivial critisms and rumours. As annoying as that was, I still wouldn't pile him in with "T" or "H".

    I'm looking forward to your comment, Bonnie, or anyone else. I know this is a controversial issue. I guess I'm not ready to "throw-out-the-baby-with-the-bathwater" yet in his case even though some of that bath water might be stinky.

    Thanks in advance!

    ReplyDelete
  31. @june said...
    (August 10, 2010 7:39 PM)

    Thanks for the clarification. I agree with your reply.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Also, I'm not yet convinced that he was a "shill" for Sony...:-)

    ReplyDelete
  33. SandyK - read July 21st blog "Staying on the Path and Watching the Trip Wires" and it will explain your question about C.Thomson.

    ReplyDelete
  34. @ladyaquarius1962 said...
    (August 10, 2010 7:38 PM)

    Thank you for responding to my Spielberg question. That does make sense. I was forgetting the time line. Also, your use of the word "crap" is very much appropriate and appreciated...:-)

    ReplyDelete
  35. Correction:
    When I said that no one had done in depth reporting on the MJ 2005 trial I neglected to mention Aphrodite Jones and her excellent work. Her focus, of course, was the trial itself. Thomson's focus was the media's reporting of the trial. Sorry for the slip.

    ReplyDelete
  36. ladyaquarius1962 - Thank you for the free add! Will return the favor next blog update (sometime today??? sleep? Oh well...)

    David - Thank you. I thought your article on Martin Bashir was fabulous. I linked it on the Martin Bashir blog last night.

    Ella - Thank you so much!

    ReplyDelete
  37. For whomever was looking for a pic of Dileo, I think this is the one???

    http://i122.photobucket.com/albums/o263/ladyaquarius1962/FrankDileo_MJ_QuincyJones.jpg

    ReplyDelete
  38. @ Bonnie: TY...I've only just started blogging on Blogspot. I'm a MySpace refugee. LOL

    ReplyDelete
  39. SandyK - On Charles T...He lied. He lied and then threw the biggest toddler tempertantrum I have ever seen because he was found out. He did deny writing the LNH, both on twitter, on this blog. I have not vilified him, I just pointed out that he lied and that he called himself a "paid" Michael expert for the whole two articles he had published about Michael. Charles is part-n-parcel with what is going on out on the net in regard to Michael-profiteering, creating fan division and basically making Michael look like a "lazy" "unreliable" "drug addict" while trying himself to vilify the press for what he himself spent the last two years doing to Michael.

    I'm not convinced yet that he was a "shill" for Sony either . . . But we know Sony has them, we know Charles says on his own web site that he is a "paid" Michael Jackson Expert, and we know that he did a flip-flop on Michael somewhere between May of 2009 and September of 2009 when he abandoned writing for LNH and began writing for CTJblog, and we know that he spent a lot of time on MJStar.com ripping Michael apart while trying to appear "impartial" as he deleted anyone contradicting his disgusting remarks.

    JUne - Michael did want to make movies. On Taj Jackson's web site, Taj says that Michael even told him that at the anniversary dinner at Chakra's that night in May of 2009. So that is what Taj is going to do with his future. I wish him luck and love ♥ I hope they are GOOD movies with inspirational story lines. We soooo need some wholesome, feelgood movies back! I CRY for them!

    ReplyDelete
  40. Mesrak (Mimi) - Sony owns Michael's publishing rights (they share them) until 2011. Michael was due to obtain his master recordings on a lot of his songs in July of 2009. He didn't make it. Michael would have been free and clear of Sony with his master recordings, publishing rights to MiJack including 100% royalties and all obligations to Sony Dec. 31, 2011

    ReplyDelete
  41. @ladyaquarious We are boycotting all products, others that say they are and only do a portion, make no sense to me, but I cant force anyone. Be advised, we aren't trying to bankrupt $ony, we're just following our convictions to not pay murderers or abusers.

    @June I believe your correct, I think Dileo did say it was Sandy Gallin who was the one to replace Dileo..thanks!

    ReplyDelete
  42. @ladyaquarious Also, in regards to your comment about us boycott-"fans", we are aware of the television connections. & if you've followed me on twitter ever, on many occasions I have advocated destroying your cable box, or at least staying away from most channels. In addition, I have also voiced my hate for nearly all shows or programs about MJ since he was murdered. The rest of the people boycotting may not share my beliefs, but I know my friends, and others like Seven agree.

    ReplyDelete
  43. @Justice thanks for your belief, as is my belief based on Frank D.'s interview, that Sandy Gallin replaced him as Michael's manager in 1989, supposedly to get Michael more involved in film. The direction to replace Dileo came from higherups. Anyone know if Sandy Gallin had/has ties with Sony? Gallin managed MJ from 1990 through 1996 approx.

    ReplyDelete

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.