Tabloid junkie

> High profile mags hock crap for clicks

Adam Tatelman
Arts Editor

 

QO: June 25, the anniversary
of the King of Pop, Michael

Jackson’s death, Internet rumour-
mill Radar Online published

an article claiming that a
previously undisclosed stash

of child pornography had been
discovered by the FBI in their
2003 raid on Jackson’s Neverland
Ranch estate. Although it creates
a shocking impression at first
glance, probing deeper into this
claim reveals it to be nothing
but a lurid speculative clickbait,
devoid of any empirical fact.

To begin with, Radar’s
“leaked video” of the Neverland
Ranch raid had no pornographic
materials whatsoever. This is
not merely because the video is
incomplete. Publicly available FBI

records and Santa Maria court
documents clearly state that no
child porn was recovered in the
raid or entered into evidence.
Even if it were, there is no point
to publicize such information
a decade after the case was
settled, other than to line the
pockets of the muckrakers who
present the story as gospel.
During the 2003 case,
accuser Gavin Arvizo claimed
that Jackson gave him a Hustler
magazine. The presence of his
fingerprints on the pages would
seem to corroborate his story, and
yet the magazine in question had
been published several months
after the initial accusation was
made. The eyewitness testimony
of journalist William Wagener
reveals that prosecuting D.A. Tom
Sneddon removed the magazine
from its evidence bag and handed
it to Arvizo during a pre-trial

It's time to pay to play

> It’s 2016 and pirating media is an increasingly jerk-ish move

Sharon Miki
Columnist

 

1; admit it: there was once a
time that I thrilled at the ease
that came with downloading
songs, movies, and TV shows
for “free.” As a child of the ’gos,
l remember having to go to the
store and wait in line and pay
hard-earned money if I wanted
access to a CD or DVD, so when
it all-of-the-sudden because
so easy—just a few clicks!—to
instantly access whatever creative
work that crossed my mind,
I didn't hesitate. It took the
same amount of mouse work to
download a movie illegally as it
did to buy it on iTunes for $9.99,
so I often took the easy way out.
But, lately, things have
started to change. | literally don’t
know how or where to pirate
anything anymore, because
I haven't done it in years.
Id like to think that this

leap to the legal side is grounded
in some burgeoning maturity
or moral rightness (and, maybe
that’s part of it. Like, at least six-
or-seven per cent of it). Actually,
though? Our current media
landscape has evolved to make it
so simple and affordable to pay
for content that it’s weird not to.
Subscription streaming
services like Netflix, Shomi,
CraveTV, Apple Music, Spotify,
and more start at less than $10
a month, and provide access to
more current music, television,
and movies than you could
possibly ever peruse. If you
want a single-access option fora
specific title that’s not available as
part of your streaming bundles,
you can buy or rent media on
iTunes or Amazon. It’s totally
possible to access all-you-can-
consume media for less than the
price of a CD (does anyone still
buy CDs?) each month. It’s so
easy, and so (relatively) cheap.
But why, some may argue,

interview. That is tampering by
even the strictest definition.

If the FBI had truly
discovered a mountain of child
porn in Jackson’s home, there
would be no reason for the
prosecution to fabricate evidence
in favor of a smoking gun. And
yet empirical fact is not the only
thing that contradicts the story—
Radar’s previous publications on
Jackson’s sex life also fly in the
face of these claims. In a baffling
display of self-contradiction, the
Radar article links to an interview
with Jackson’s girlfriend, Shana
Mangatal who published a book
describing her and other women’s
relationships with Jackson.

In Radar’s interview,
Mangatal was quoted as saying,
“He loved women and I know
that for a fact. He wasn’t a
child molester.” Tellingly, the
link to the interview no longer

should I pay even $10 or $20

a month to entertain myself,
when I could just download it
for free? It’s true that, in Canada,
it is very unlikely that illegally
downloading media would ever
result in more than a warning
letter from your service provider.
However, just because you

may never be caught doesn’t
mean that you should deny the
creators of the media you love of
financial support. Just because
your girlfriend may never catch
you cheating on her, should you
still be trolling for randos at the
Roxy? In either case, you might
get away with it, but there’s really
no need for you to risk moral
corruption (or, at the very least,
a lingering tingle of personal
dishonesty) for a few bucks or

a quick fuck, respectively.

It’s time to sail away from
the Pirate Bay—if entertainment
is a priority in your life, make
it a part of your budget.

functions but instead redirects
the reader to a Kim Kardashian
fluff piece. Not the most idiot-
proof way to cover one’s tracks,
considering the link text still
describes the Mangatal interview.

Normally I would not waste
the ink necessary to dismiss
such vacuous crap, but ina
nakedly desperate attempt to
generate site traffic, several
high-profile news sites have
circulated Radar’s article as well,
including Breitbart, Jezebel,
and the Huffington Post. That
they chose to air the story on
the date of Jackson’s death is
no coincidence, and speaks to
the sensationalist nature of the
article. That it accuses Jackson’s
family of being in deep denial
over “the truth” only makes
the content more odious.

In the King of Pop’s own
words: “Just because you read

 

 

it in a magazine or see it on the
TV screen don’t make it factual.”
This story is slanderous to the
man’s memory and is shamelessly
disrespectful to his loved ones
and their right to privacy. Jackson
has long since paid the ultimate
price for any wrongdoing he

may be guilty of. There is no
reason to continue pissing on

his grave and hounding his
family, apart from the clicks.

If the aforementioned news
sites have a fibre of journalistic
integrity between them, then
they will retract this unsourced,
opprobrious drivel. If not, then
they passively prove themselves
accessory to the decadence
and decay of modern media,
where objectivity is secondary
to shock value, and facts are
merely inconvenient statics.

Image via thinkstock