I MEANT what I tweeted a few days ago. Let me reiterate that phrase: We don't all have to agree on everything all of the time. We just need to respect one anothers' views. I have always tried to keep one goal in mind: I am here for Michael. I also try to keep an open mind to many points of view. I have always found it counter productive to turn on other members of the fan community unless there was very, very good reason. After all, we are all supposed to be here for one common purpose and that is uplifting Michael's legacy and fighting the real enemy-which I am still naive enough to believe is not each other. Or shouldn't be. My gosh, don't we have enough battles as is?

In the five years since I started writing about Michael, it seems I've been attacked by just about every faction out there at some time or another, but I keep on doing what I do out of love. I've learned to let a lot of stuff roll off my back. Sometimes I wish not to get drawn into fights or controversies, at least until I've had time to get all the facts and to hear both sides of the story. If that angers or frustrates some, I am sorry.

In regards to the controversy over the new Syl Mortilla book, I had no issues with the book or the author initially, and was willing to keep an open mind. After all, he has a lovely blog and all I had ever seen were beautifully written, uplifting pieces about Michael. I know that there are some issues we may disagree about; however, I am not one of those who believes it has to be "my way or the highway." I am all about keeping an open dialog and trying to build bridges in the fan community. However, my feelings changed to shock and dismay when I saw the article from March of 2009 that was obviously written by Syl Mortilla (Peter Mills). He has not denied writing it, only that it was intended to be a satirical piece. However, it's tone is nastier than anything ever written about Michael in the tabloids; as nasty as anything written by Diane Dimond.

What gets me is not so much that he wrote it. People can change. I think what is so upsetting in all of this is the hypocrisy of many of his supporters, who continue to insist that Michael only has a handful of "real fans." Well, if this was how his "real fans" felt about him before 2009, the poor guy sure didn't need enemies. It is especially heartwrenching now that we know the full story behind that press conference. Michael had just endured being slapped around by Randy Phillips, and then still had to go out and face a public that was judging him this harshly. Sadly, I am not sure if Michael really had a living soul who was in his corner by March of 2009. Mill's article seems to prove it. It has since been removed from rockfeed, but yes, it was that bad.

But this reminds me once again of the similar controversy surrounding Charles Thomson when it was unearthed that he was the writer behind The Lowly Newshound. Coincidentally, the group who "exposed" Charles and was giving Charles so much hell back then are the same people he seems to have aligned himself with now, so go figure but, whatever, that's another matter for another time and it's his right, I suppose, if he chooses to align himself with those who were most unforgiving to him in those days (nowadays the very people who defended him are the "nutcases," it seems). But to get back on point, a lot of us were willing to forgive the past because Thomson had done so much outstanding journalistic work on Michael's behalf since. After all, if we agree that the molestation allegations are the single most damaging thing to Michael's reputation and legacy, does it really matter if Charles and I agree about the number of his surgeries or whether he liked Invincible? Besides, sometimes those Brits are just naturally sarcastic, lol. In that case, I think a lot of us eventually agreed that maybe throwing out the baby with the bathwater wasn't such a great idea. It also reminds me of what happened a few months back with Aphrodite Jones, who apparently now suddenly believes that June Chandler gave "unnerving testimony" when, before, she had been adamant that she was not a convincing witness. Still, she wrote "Conspiracy" which remains the bible of the Arvizo case. Again, do we throw out the baby with the bathwater?

Sometimes there's a part of me that screams "No Quarter" and sometimes I realize that we have to compromise and accept that the world isn't made up of perfect people, nor is it made of perfect journalists and perfect MJ fans. We're all human.

But one thing I know about Michael Jackson fans. Most anything can be forgiven except hypocrisy. How do we know if the man who writes such beautiful words about Michael now still feels the same way that he did in March of 2009? That becomes the dilemma. I have not read the book, and it may be a very good book. I am not judging it-only the words of the author written in 2009. Just the other day, I was enraged to learn about the vicious campaign being waged against many journalists such as DB Anderson who have done so much to promote Michael's legacy in a positive way. Yet there are people who will attack them just because they have chosen to write about what Michael's music means to people, rather than issues pertaining to the estate, which many will openly and honestly declare is not their area of expertise or something they know anything about. It bothers me like hell that there are "fans" who seem to want to suppress anything good about Michael that is written, and to attack anyone who is working towards that good. It, frankly, doesn't make sense to me. Eventually, no one will want to write anything about Michael Jackson at all. What's the point, if the only reward is bullying and harassment?

In the end, fans will have to judge and decide for themselves how they feel about supporting the Syl Mortilla book, just as every fan has to decide for themselves how they feel about purchasing new MJ music or anything else. That has been pretty much the way of it for five years now, and nothing is going to change anytime soon. I think it is good to be informed, though, so fans can make that choice. I don't see what is happening now as a "smear campaign" so much as it is exposing a truth. Peter Mills wrote those words in 2009, and now he must own up to them for whatever they are worth-and every fan must decide what they can and can't abide by. I truly do hope Syl has had a genuine change of heart since those days, but as always, these things are bound to leave a bad and disconcerting taste.

Personally, I may still read the book. I am a firm believer in making up my own mind, and if I do, you can rest assured I will write a review that pulls no punches and is beholden to no agenda.

Reply · Report Post