I’m sure you have seen the absolute s**t-storm that “Leaving Neverland” has created on the internet. If you don’t know what it is or haven’t seen it, it’s a very shocking and surprising documentary which describes (in a lot of detail) how MJ sexually abused two people when they were children. Wade Robson and Jimmy Safechuck tell us their encounters with Michael when they were younger. I recommend you watch it before you read or comment on this article.
Leaving Neverland has divided the internet into two. One side are absolutely horrified and can’t believe their childhood idol (across several generations) is a disgusting monster. The other side are not having it. They think Robson and Safechuck are lying. They think this documentary has 0 truth and that the whole thing is a scandal to make money because, as you may know, a dead man can’t defend himself.
No one WANTS to believe this. We all loved Michael. But I can see why there is such a divide in opinions. If the accounts told are false, then it’s just another fine example of how the industry cares about literally NOTHING other than cash.
Personally, I have never said MJ is guilty. I have also never said he is innocent. But, unlike many viewers, this documentary changed nothing for me. I still don’t know. Both sides of the argument do have valid points. I want to cover both sides of the argument here.
THIS IS IMPORTANT. MJ wasn’t just anybody, he was one of the greatest to ever grace the Earth. His music would still be played in 100 years, that’s how impactful he was. But now, I’m not so sure…
Take His Crown!
For many, Michael’s reputation is gone. Finished. He’s guilty, clear as day. I can see why. The stories in this documentary were very detailed. VERY. And I think it’s fair to say if literally any middle-aged man on the planet did the same thing Michael did, the whole world would be screaming for his head.
Michael has always seemed to be a bit off-key. I mean the fact he wanted to have slumber parties with young boys is weird. The fact he paid millions of dollars to avoid a lawsuit seems strange too. The telephone calls which were mentioned in the documentary could also be perceived in that manner. There are not many other points which I can say regarding why and how he might be guilty because that is literally it. He wanted young boys to live in his house. Need I say more?
The level of detail which Robson and Safechuck went in to was disturbing to say the least. But, considering the relationship they had with MJ, it does have a lot of plausibility. But like I said, a dead man can’t defend himself…
The other side of the internet think it’s all a scandal to get money. In fact, when the question was raised, one Twitter follower had a lot to say about it. You can see the thread here. They suggested that “Robson started off this whole accusation with a book deal” and that the “UK broadcast was 45 minutes shorter” than the USA. There was a lot more said but these points stood out for me. Was this just a ploy to gain some sort of profit? Whether it be financial or reputational? Was this documentary, knowing it was going to get attention because of the context, created for the purpose of gossip? Gossip which would lead to more interest? Interest which would lead to views and greater financial gain? Everyone involved in the documentary knows how eventful it would be because of how one-sided it is and how defenceless the accused is.
Personally, there was a lot of it which I didn’t buy. The accusation is definitely plausible. But, Robson and Safechuck, as well as their mothers if I am going to be honest, seemed off. The way the story was told sounded like it was being made up on the spot. Elements sounded true but a lot of it sounded like they were just making it up as they went along. It felt like they were thinking ‘hmm maybe I can add one or two more things here to make this sound even worse.” There was even one point when one of them said ‘MJ abused me while my parents were in the next room.’ The whole documentary they made it seem like MJ played EVERYTHING safe, so they never got caught, but that did not fit in at all. The tone of the mothers was strange as it always felt like their attitude towards the whole thing kept changing. Either they are just some weird people, or they are very bad at storytelling. I’ve heard all sorts of rumours saying that ‘Robson and Safechuck are struggling financially so they need the money’ and a billion-dollar lawsuit being raised. There are a lot of strong points defending MJ after this documentary and they seem to be somewhat more factual in comparison to the accusation approach from the opposing side.
Why did this have to happen?
The legacy of one of the greatest musicians in history; one of the most influential people ever; the master of the moonwalk; the one and only King of Pop; has been severely damaged, if not, destroyed. The worst part of this is that we still don’t know if he deserves that or whether his name is being vandalised for commercial benefit.
Is this all just a big money thing? Seriously? That’s horrible if it is the case. I’m unsure of whether this is true, but I have been told the Michael Jackson Estate are making a ‘counter’ documentary in response to this one. Are they doing that for the right reasons? Or because it’s going to bring down their gain in royalties when angry consumers boycott his music…
I’m still down the middle. I think a lot of us are. But one thing is for sure and that is that I strongly believe this documentary was not made to “expose the truth”. This documentary was made for commercial purposes. Regardless of whether the stories from Robson and Safechuck are true or not, it was Dan Reed who made this. It was his idea. He made it happen. In my opinion, he doesn’t care about the truth. He see’s dollar signs… and that’s a damn shame.
What do YOU think?
I wrote this article as my interpretation of the documentary only. There are a few points from my Twitter followers in here too but I have not done any extensive research to determine more about whether he’s guilty or not. To be honest, the purpose of this article was to just put the product in the spotlight. It doesn’t prove anything, so was there any need for it? At most, this documentary has caused a massive debate worldwide.
But I’d like to hear your take on this. Do you agree with what has been said? What did you think of the documentary? Tweet us using the hashtag #YouHerdItHere or comment below!
Or for more content…
Click on the handles below to follow us on the socials or, alternatively, hit the subscribe button!