Calling Jackson fans ‘Truthers’ is a sign of psychological weakness & fragility.

By Pez Jax

“A view or judgement formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge.”

This is the definition of an opinion – something abundantly exercised in relation to Michael Jackson, not least because of this year’s ratings flop, Leaving Neverland. 

The movie instructed journalists and members of the public to watch without question and then formulate their opinion based on what they had seen and heard – and many have. It seems that like clockwork, everybody needs to exercise an opinion on Michael Jackson and the movie worked to present one narrative, void of supporting evidence or space for doubt.

Those who chose to take the movie as gospel seem to be unwilling to accept that there could possibly be any other version of events, other than the narrative they were told was true in the movie. But why are they so resistant to explore the subject further? Could it be that they struggle to accept that the opinion they’ve formed, based on an open-and-shut telling, is wrong?

Psychologist Guy Winch Ph.D suggests that a “push back against the facts” and “a refusal to admit (you’re) wrong, even in the face of overwhelming evidence” is to do with one’s ego and a weak psychological constitution. 

“How we respond to such people is up to us. The one mistake we should not make is to consider their persistent and rigid refusal to admit they’re wrong as a sign of strength or conviction, because it is the absolute opposite — psychological weakness and fragility.”

What’s now become a coping mechanism for this ‘psychological weakness’, ‘rigid refusal’ and inability to accept a challenge to the opinion, is to refer to a person offering the facts in the Jackson case as a ‘truther’.

The first time I was referred to as a ‘truther’ by a member of the editorial team for TimeOut Magazine, I had absolutely no idea what it meant. I was stating the proven facts of the point we were debating and she referred to me as a ‘typical truther’. At first, I assumed it a compliment. I was telling the truth, so sure, consider me a ‘truth teller’ or ‘truther’. But then I researched its meaning, which concludes as follows:

A person who doubts the generally accepted account of an event, believing that an official conspiracy exists to conceal the true explanation; a conspiracy theorist.

I quickly understood that her labelling of me was meant as an insult, but it’s interesting that she chose that particular term when discussing this particular issue.

In relation to Leaving Neverland, what is the ‘generally accepted account of an event’? Would it be the one the movie puts forward…or one of the many (many) varying accounts, submitted to the court under oath? Which version should we view as being ‘generally accepted’?

Additionally, generally accepted – by who? Jackson’s streaming numbers continue to grow year to date, the Cirque-Du-Soleil show in Las Vegas continues to sell out, as does Thriller Live in London’s West End and Halloween demonstrated that Jackson continues to be celebrated the world over. So, who is ‘generally accepting’ Jackson was guilty?

The second part which suggests ‘an official conspiracy exists to conceal the true explanation’ – Would this be the same ‘true explanation’ that has the movie’s producers ‘HBO’ fighting at all costs to prevent public arbitration? Furthermore, pointing out that Robson and Safechuck are seeking monetary compensation in the tens of millions of dollars from the Jackson Estate isn’t an ‘official conspiracy’ – It’s a fact.

The dismissive demeanor exercised by the mainstream media has demonstrated their lack of understanding on the Jackson discussion. You’ll notice a pattern of a disparaging tweet about Jackson, followed swiftly by commentary about how they’re being “hounded” by “Jackson Truthers”.

Put simply, calling a Jackson fan a ‘truther’ for sharing information that supports Jackson’s innocence, is a cop out! It demonstrates that the name-caller lacks the basic comprehension of the discussion topic to be able to provide an educated, fact-based response or argue their point in knowledgeable fashion. If the initial opinion-laden tweet wasn’t put out to be discussed, challenged and debated, then what was its purpose? 

Virtue Signalling seems likely as the ‘truther’ rhetoric screams of “how dare you challenge my opinion”. To which the response is simple – Back it up! If you tweet about Michael Jackson, then you need to be ready to back up what you say – especially if you include a hashtag, meaning you want your tweet to be found.

We’ve reached a point in time where the media still operates a powerful medium, yet we’ve largely moved from researched reporting to opinion-led pieces. Not one of the mainstream media articles about Leaving Neverland was focused on research or additional information pertaining to the accusations made in the movie. It was all about how the individual ‘felt’, how they expect you to ‘feel’ and how if you do not ‘feel’ the way they’re telling you to, you’re a horrible person – an apologist – a truther.

You can almost hear the “I have a blue tick, I’m a member of the media, I’ve told you what to think, who are you to challenge me?!” echoing across twitter. And the answer is simple – An educated person should always challenge the opinions of the ignorant.

All in all, it lacks critical thinking from those who are meant to be highly researched and well-worded – as a profession. Why would Jackson fans persist in creating videos, building websites, explaining court documents, recording podcasts, writing articles – what would be the point to invest time and energy if they didn’t feel like they had the information to back it up?

It’s often suggested that Jackson fans continue to defend him across public platforms because they ‘like the music’ – a suggestion that makes absolutely no sense when anybody can enjoy anything they like in their headphones, driving in the car or in the comfort of one’s home. Why would Jackson fans need to defend him publicly to enjoy his work privately?

This suggestion is why it’s easy for them to dismiss all who defend Jackson as these crazed sycophants who sit in a self-built shrine to Jackson, with Billie Jean on loop, whilst rocking excessively, waiting for the next tweet to springboard on to – it’s this visual that allows members of the media to compartmentalise their own ignorance and move forward with their opinion intact.

Personally, I believe that admitting you were wrong about something when evidence points you to the truth makes you MORE credible, as it shows you’re not afraid to challenge your own perception, broaden your education and admit that you may have not been as informed as you first thought. It does not mean that you need to become an ardent Jackson defender.

———

The alternative term is a ‘Jackson apologist’.

To be clear, nobody is here defending the assertion that Jackson was a paedophile, and asking for an exception to be made. Why is that so hard to comprehend?!

Referring to them as a ‘paedophile apologist’ seems equally bizarre, as the definition claims an apologist is

a person who offers an argument in defence of something controversial.

Surely if this were true of Jackson fans, they would be supporting the horrifying details of what Jackson was accused of and attempting to be ‘ok with it’ or provide rationale. They’re not.

Jackson’s fans are stating very clearly that based on the evidence available, Jackson was most certainly not a paedophile. They’re not ‘in defence’ of the controversy, they’re pointing out its invalidity. They find the mere fact he is accused horrendous and have exercised due diligence in order to ensure they aren’t wrong about Jackson. What they’re now asking is that all who dive head first into the pool, know just how deep it is. 

They defend Jackson’s right to the presumption of innocence, they defend Jackson’s right to a defence, they support the use of evidence. I’ve yet to see a plausible reason for how Safechuck could be abused in a train station that didn’t exist, or how Jackson could be in LA and Australia at the same time.

To dismiss these points as ‘not important’ is not only ignorant, but entirely against due process. If you were accused of a crime, but were proven to be somewhere else, it’s this that could be the cornerstone of your vindication!

The movie on the other hand does romanticize such unspeakable acts and surely anyone who says that what they claim happened, was ‘love’, is the only ‘paedophile apologist’ (defence of something controversial). These are the people trying to find an explanation for such a despicable, claimed action. They’re asking you to buy into the notion that Jackson was a powerful, master manipulator who was exercising a ‘loving’ relationship with a minor – The very opposite to the decades of branding Jackson as ‘crazy’ ‘broke’ and ‘insane’.

With all things considered, the very concept that Jackson was powerful and used this power to ‘pay off’ the FBI, CIA, DA, Judge, Jury, his own staff, friends and witnesses seems a far more truther laden, conspiracy theory than any suggestion that Jackson was innocent because, he actually was. 

It’s frankly laughable to believe Jackson was this all-powerful figure who could make things just ‘go away’. If that were possible, he’d have exercised this power to make it ‘go away’ and we’d be none the wiser. Equally, he’d have almost certainly used this ‘power’ to ‘buy’ his way out of having to stand naked in front of a room full of law enforcement, whilst being requested to lift his penis for an under shot!

The idea that Jackson paid off all these different agencies and was able to evade the 10-year intensive investigation by DA Tom Sneddon is the literal definition of a conspiracy crazed mentality. Just a reminder that a truther is deemed as:

A person who doubts the generally accepted account of an event, believing that an official conspiracy exists to conceal the true explanation; a conspiracy theorist.

The ‘generally accepted account’ is that Jackson was found innocent in a court of law after an intensive investigation and trial. A person doubting this should refer to the above quote.

As the truther and apologist terms continue to gravitate around the Jackson discussion, we’re left staring at a bizarre mindset in which there are those out there who seemingly ‘want’ Jackson to have been a child abuser. They refuse to acknowledge the evidence that points to his innocence and ride the wave of ‘wanting’ children to have suffered. They do not appear to ‘want’ Jackson to be innocent as celebrating his continued posthumous achievements no longer provide them the engagement or clicks it once did.

For media, the idea of Jackson’s guilt satisfies a peculiar need to be the tastemakers – being in control of what and who people like and under pre-determined conditions. Anyone challenging this is challenging the power-hold of the mainstream media, and so its serves as an easy ‘fix’ to write them off as ‘crazy truthers’, rather than to explore what’s actually being said. It’s almost as if they’d prefer a censorship to anything other than their opinion on the subject.

Thankfully, we live a society whose thirst for knowledge is increasing – The google generation. The contribution Jackson fans make to the discussion around the accusations against him ensure that all the facts are available to anybody who decides that a TV movie is not enough for them to consider themselves ‘knowledgeable.’ Whilst in the short term they will be marked as ‘truthers’ and ‘apologists’, their research and dedication to factual evidence cannot be denied or erased.

As the media opinions move on, this work by Jackson fans will remain – and anybody who takes the time to read it, will certainly have a new perspective – It’s a shame members of the media flat out refuse. But as we’ve established – The fragility of their ego just cannot cope with it.

Pez Jax
Follow Pez Jax on twitter @pezjax