Jennifer Christman
If we could forget that Michael Jackson is a real human being (well, if we can conclude that the sum of his not-real parts is still real anyway ), and if we could forget that his accuser is a real person, and if we could forget that a cancer-stricken child could have been violated, and if we could forget that a possibly innocent man's life could be ruined... if we could forget all that, then we might be able to find some amusement value in the E! network's daily re-enactment of the trial.
Human? Violated? What? It seems we've already forgotten! Let's click on the tube, shall we!
For those of you who don't know (and for those of you pretending not to know because you've got an honorable reputation to protect, act really disgusted right now), every night at 6:30 and then again at 8 p.m. the cable entertainment channel airs its special E! News Presentation: The Michael Jackson Trial. The half-hour show features impersonators acting out the juiciest parts of the previous day's no-cameras-allowed court testimony, a panel of experts anatomizing the action and repeated parental alerts warning of "frank talk of a sexual nature."
Tuning in for just a few seconds is like eating just a few potato chips. You know that doing so probably is not good for you, and you promise yourself you'll stop before it all gets to be too much. But the next thing you know, you've devoured it all and you feel guilty and unwell. And you feel a need to wash yourself. Not that any of this will stop you from engaging in this self-destructive behavior again... and in behaviors much worse (hey, look, on www.royalsport.com online gamblers can bet on whether Michael Jackson will be found innocent or guilty!).
After gorging on E!'s trial interpretations - a cross between American Idol (with too many hyper Paulas, Randys and Ryans and no snappish Simon to balance things out) and Divorce Court - for the better part of a week, here are some observations and questions:
If Michael doesn't want to take the stand for his own sake, could he please just do so for the sake of impersonator Edward Moss? Moss does such a great job sitting there grimacing and flicking that polyester hair. But we really want to see what he can do with the role. Oh, and thanks Michael for throwing Moss a few bones on Monday by telling the judge to speak up because you couldn't hear him. That was so thoughtful of you!
We absolutely do not think it is right to giggle at a teenager testifying under such serious circumstances. But we absolutely do not think it's right for someone to use the word "underwears," yes, with an "s" on the end. We'll stop when he does.
Why didn't we become prominent lawyers instead? After all, we have at least as much smarts as Santa Barbara County District Attorney Tom "So when you say he was naked, what was he wearing?" Sneddon.
Why, after airing about 20 minutes of a show full of descriptions of pornographic material, masturbation and nudity, would you find it necessary to then announce "Still ahead, descriptions of the alleged behaviors you just might find - literally folks, we're not joking around - too graphic for your young children to hear." Gulp, were there really kids already in the room? Did they witness the sexual re-enactments using mannequins?
Either Michael is an innocent man or he's cheap. The accuser's underage brother claimed that the Diet Coke can-disguised liquid Michael Jackson allegedly offered him was wine that smelled of "rubbing alcohol." For real, the King of Pop pops open Boone's? With all the money that just my parents alone spent on his albums and Victory Tour concert tickets, posters, etc., for me, surely he could do better than that? The ball is in your court,
http://www.ardemgaz.com/ShowStoryTemplate.asp?Path=ArDemocrat/2005/03/13&ID=Ar06301&Section=Features
If we could forget that Michael Jackson is a real human being (well, if we can conclude that the sum of his not-real parts is still real anyway ), and if we could forget that his accuser is a real person, and if we could forget that a cancer-stricken child could have been violated, and if we could forget that a possibly innocent man's life could be ruined... if we could forget all that, then we might be able to find some amusement value in the E! network's daily re-enactment of the trial.
Human? Violated? What? It seems we've already forgotten! Let's click on the tube, shall we!
For those of you who don't know (and for those of you pretending not to know because you've got an honorable reputation to protect, act really disgusted right now), every night at 6:30 and then again at 8 p.m. the cable entertainment channel airs its special E! News Presentation: The Michael Jackson Trial. The half-hour show features impersonators acting out the juiciest parts of the previous day's no-cameras-allowed court testimony, a panel of experts anatomizing the action and repeated parental alerts warning of "frank talk of a sexual nature."
Tuning in for just a few seconds is like eating just a few potato chips. You know that doing so probably is not good for you, and you promise yourself you'll stop before it all gets to be too much. But the next thing you know, you've devoured it all and you feel guilty and unwell. And you feel a need to wash yourself. Not that any of this will stop you from engaging in this self-destructive behavior again... and in behaviors much worse (hey, look, on www.royalsport.com online gamblers can bet on whether Michael Jackson will be found innocent or guilty!).
After gorging on E!'s trial interpretations - a cross between American Idol (with too many hyper Paulas, Randys and Ryans and no snappish Simon to balance things out) and Divorce Court - for the better part of a week, here are some observations and questions:
If Michael doesn't want to take the stand for his own sake, could he please just do so for the sake of impersonator Edward Moss? Moss does such a great job sitting there grimacing and flicking that polyester hair. But we really want to see what he can do with the role. Oh, and thanks Michael for throwing Moss a few bones on Monday by telling the judge to speak up because you couldn't hear him. That was so thoughtful of you!
We absolutely do not think it is right to giggle at a teenager testifying under such serious circumstances. But we absolutely do not think it's right for someone to use the word "underwears," yes, with an "s" on the end. We'll stop when he does.
Why didn't we become prominent lawyers instead? After all, we have at least as much smarts as Santa Barbara County District Attorney Tom "So when you say he was naked, what was he wearing?" Sneddon.
Why, after airing about 20 minutes of a show full of descriptions of pornographic material, masturbation and nudity, would you find it necessary to then announce "Still ahead, descriptions of the alleged behaviors you just might find - literally folks, we're not joking around - too graphic for your young children to hear." Gulp, were there really kids already in the room? Did they witness the sexual re-enactments using mannequins?
Either Michael is an innocent man or he's cheap. The accuser's underage brother claimed that the Diet Coke can-disguised liquid Michael Jackson allegedly offered him was wine that smelled of "rubbing alcohol." For real, the King of Pop pops open Boone's? With all the money that just my parents alone spent on his albums and Victory Tour concert tickets, posters, etc., for me, surely he could do better than that? The ball is in your court,
http://www.ardemgaz.com/ShowStoryTemplate.asp?Path=ArDemocrat/2005/03/13&ID=Ar06301&Section=Features
