Another hit piece against Michael Jackson with proven tabloid lies. Don't waste your time with this. The real Michael Jackson is not the one the media wants you to think he is.
5 Reviews
Tabloid garbage
kentolaf11 April 2020
Disgusting and False
hamzatalaatbusiness23 April 2022
Cheap, slanderous tabliod sensationalism
massiewalsh25 May 2020
Jacques Peretti made another show about Michael Jackson? Same Jacques Peretti who cooperated with a known member of NAMBLA, Victor Gutierrez? Oh, and BBC aired it? Same BBC that covered up Jimmy Savile? Garbage. If it escaped anybody's attention, Michael Jackson was found not guilty after years of unprecedented investigation, also by 20depts of FBI. Let's do the same with Peretti and see if he comes out clean.
Shame on You, BBC, for Tabloid-Like Content
alexinou9 January 2022
I saw this on the BBC iPlayer, the BBC which prides itself on providing unbiased and factual content.
It was neither impartial nor accurate. I'd say don't bother watch it.
It starts well with a good retrospective on the singer's earlier life and career. Then as we reach the end of the 80s, it claims that was when Jackson started bleaching his skin, and it all goes down from there.
If you're a journalist reporting on trials and accusations and you do your job - i.e. You investigate and go to the source, like legal documents and court transcripts - you cannot come to the conclusions expressed in this programme, it is not possible.
The director either did not do his job or he had an agenda. He clearly appears to know his subject though, so I'd say he had an agenda, and chances are that it was to surf on the cheap wave of "look how low Jackson has fallen".
The director has replied to complaints that it was not impartial by saying "but I interviewed both sides", with the prosecution appearing maybe 3 times as much as the defense, and relying on "evidence" that proved to be false - like the anatomy drawing that, in reality, did not match, as confirmed by the singer's autopsy, which also confirmed he really did suffer from vitiligo and lupus skin conditions.
Jackson was trialled and died in California and under state law, all legal documents are public, meaning anybody interested enough to look them up online will come to different conclusions than those in that programme.
It was neither impartial nor accurate. I'd say don't bother watch it.
It starts well with a good retrospective on the singer's earlier life and career. Then as we reach the end of the 80s, it claims that was when Jackson started bleaching his skin, and it all goes down from there.
If you're a journalist reporting on trials and accusations and you do your job - i.e. You investigate and go to the source, like legal documents and court transcripts - you cannot come to the conclusions expressed in this programme, it is not possible.
The director either did not do his job or he had an agenda. He clearly appears to know his subject though, so I'd say he had an agenda, and chances are that it was to surf on the cheap wave of "look how low Jackson has fallen".
The director has replied to complaints that it was not impartial by saying "but I interviewed both sides", with the prosecution appearing maybe 3 times as much as the defense, and relying on "evidence" that proved to be false - like the anatomy drawing that, in reality, did not match, as confirmed by the singer's autopsy, which also confirmed he really did suffer from vitiligo and lupus skin conditions.
Jackson was trialled and died in California and under state law, all legal documents are public, meaning anybody interested enough to look them up online will come to different conclusions than those in that programme.
Unfactual, tabloid fed, no evidence hit piece.
yuli-erdreich12 April 2020
I had high hopes that after 2019 and the LN fiasco people will learn not to make such slandering programms that completey reeks of agenda to be aired. "The Real Michael Jackson" was nothing but yet another biased, none factual and a hit piece over a dead man - from telling he bleached his skin which was debunked so many times since he had Vitiligo which you can find in his autopsy and to the cases against him which it's obvious no one in there knows what they were talking about, no documents or evidence to back up what they are saying. it is nothing but a lying, manipulative piece that is out there because there is no law to protect the dead from slander. i am utterly disgusted and BBC should be ashamed - really do. a little research, is all is asked from someone that makes something likw this!
the man has family who can never get peace because of these things.
i hope to see this program deleted and to have an apology shared.
ENOUGH IS ENOUGH
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
