Michael Jackson,
The media &
His appearance [a thread]

Michael Jackson’s appearance has been at the center of the public eye for decades – and more than often it has been seen in a negative light. But is the singer to blame for the negative attention he gets?

This thread has the goal of showing how his self/public image, which belonged to him and him alone, was highjacked by the media through decades of slander and bullying, and how, in 2019, it is more than time that we gave it back to its rightful owner.

It will also show that, in the era of political correctness and virtue signaling, society is asking all of the wrong questions when it comes to Michael Jackson and his looks. After all, what are we really talking about when we talk about his appearance?

As the sole owner of his physical body, Michael Jackson was entitled to alter his appearance as he pleased and should be respected in his individuality, like everyone else – but that idea seems to escape part of society. The concept of autonomy should help clear up the confusion.

Autonomy is an ample concept that has been discussed in a variety of fields, such as political science, philosophy, psychology, and even in the medical field. It is connected to the idea of self-determination and the ability to make informed decisions.

The American Psychological Association defines autonomy as "a state of independence and self-determination in an individual, a group, or a society", and “the experience of acting from choice, rather than feeling pressured to act", deeming it a fundamental psychological need.

Autonomy also has to do with personal identity, authenticity, feeling whole and breaking free from stereotypes that largely dictate our lives. The image of a bird breaking from formation perfectly illustrates it.

Michael Jackson was an adult man of legal age living in a democratic society. That means that he, and only he, had the autonomy to make informed decisions about his personal life and his physical appearance, in the pursuit of his happiness and well-being.

If he was free to “act from choice, rather than feeling pressured to act”, then he didn’t have to ask for anyone's approval, including his family, friends and wife/girlfriend. He also didn't have to inform the public of his plans for his own body. After all, it was HIS body.

Sadly, the singer never had his autonomy respected when it came to his appearance. The media and a part of society always seemed to feel the opposite – that his personal issues were public domain, and that their opinions, however negative and mean, needed to be aired out.

The result? Incessant, mean-spirited lies and speculations about his appearance splashed across magazine and tabloid covers. Publications like these were everywhere, and once editors discovered that there was huge profit to be made, Michael Jackson would never find peace again.

Now, as an exercise, imagine it was you having to see your face on these covers when you were on your way to school or to work. For the singer it was a daily challenge, one that he withstood for nearly half of his life.

But surely only yellow journalism and fluff publications would sink as low as targeting a man’s appearance like that, right? Serious journalists/personalities would never do such a thing.

Here’s TV host and body positivity advocate Oprah Winfrey in a 1993 interview, asking Michael Jackson: a) If he wanted a white boy to play him in a commercial, b) If he was bleaching his skin, c) How much plastic surgery he’d had (from 17:37)

And here is award-winning journalist Barbara Walters in a 1997 interview with the singer, blaming him for the abuse he received for his appearance (from 6:43).

Finally, here is journalist and X Factor contestant Martin Bashir taking on the task of badgering Michael Jackson about plastic surgery for over 3 minutes, with the fierceness of a Spanish inquisitor (from 1:16:36)

These examples show worrying patterns in society’s treatment of the singer and his appearance. Firstly, the hijacking of his image and his agency over his own body, which, from these publications’/interviewers' point of view, belonged not to him, but to the public.

Secondly, the blaming of the singer and his personal choices regarding his body - which were his by right - for the illegal and immoral abuse he suffered from the media and the public throughout his life.

This role reversal – which had Michael Jackson constantly explaining and defending himself, when no explanations were owed – is a typical and perverse display of what not only the singer, but many other celebrities are forced to endure every day.

Now let’s look into the second fundamental concept in this debate: the right for privacy. While autonomy is more of a generic concept, the right for privacy, on the other hand, is concrete and is present in the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights (article 12):

It’s safe to say that, of all of his rights, this is the one Michael Jackson was denied the most. For someone who wanted his public persona to be only about his work and his humanitarian efforts, he saw his life be taken over by a media frenzy that quickly spun out of control.

The breach of his privacy took many shapes, and when it came to his security and the security of his family, no one was more harmful than the paparazzi. Here is what an ordinary outing looked like for the singer and his children:

The paparazzi are known for their lack of physical and ethical boundaries in their eagerness to capture celebrities’ most private moments. In 1997, they were largely responsible for the car accident that took the life of one of Michael Jackson’s dear friends, Princess Diana.

But in his case, there was more than safety at risk. The paparazzi had a huge part in turning the public against him by constantly photographing him in awkward moments, unflattering angles and under bad lighting, purposefully trying to make him look like a caricature of himself.

Nowadays, when celebrities respond to rumors by engaging with their audience through social media, the power of a photograph seems minimal. But for most of Michael Jackson’s life, that wasn’t the case. The media controlled the narratives, and fighting back was that much harder.

Once the media had decided which narrative of the singer they wanted to go with – at best, of a buffoon and an eccentric; at worst, of a freak and a child molester – all they had to do was cherry-pick exactly the type of visual content that matched that story.

To illustrate the malicious intent of the media regarding Michael Jackson, let’s do a quick case study of some of his worst pictures that circulated in the media in the early 2000s.

Let’s start with the year 2002, when the singer was photographed in court during a civil trial. The picture on the left, taken on November 13th, was widely disseminated and helped propel the freak/monster narrative. The other two, taken the following day are somewhat… different.

On November 15th, attending court again, Michael Jackson had a particularly distasteful photo taken of him (on the left) while on the stand, but also a very normal-looking (some might even say good) photo taken of him as he arrived in court.

The singer attended court for the same civil trial on December 3rd. The media chose to publish/disseminate the photo on the left, which was clearly meant to portray him as devilish, while casting aside the flattering photo on the right, taken the same day, as he left court.

Remember the photo on the left? When the singer went to the Radio Music Awards ceremony in October 2003, photographers snapped what is perhaps his most unflattering shot, which had him looking pale under the heavy white lighting. Now take a look at him on stage that night.

And now to his famous mug shot, from November 20th, 2003, which to this day is waved around by his critics as definitive “proof” of the allegedly extensive alterations in his appearance. One can wonder how many people also saw the photo of the singer leaving the police station.

The 2003 to 2005 period, which culminated in the trial, saw the tarnishing of Michael Jackson’s image escalate to levels never before seen. From the pictures published to the continuous mocking on TV, it felt as if he couldn’t take a single step without being harshly criticized.

And it wasn’t just the usual mocking and ridiculing. There was something else in the air, an undertone to each comment. A new narrative was being built – a narrative that profited visually from having the singer look isolated and vulnerable instead of strong and empowered…

A narrative that rathered paint him as sad and tormented, never confident and smiling.

March 10th, 2005, which became known as “Pajama day” - the day when the singer, who was receiving medical care at a hospital, showed up late to court in pajama pants – would be the perfect storm. The media salivated over seeing him in distress:

To a keen observer, the media’s agenda was clear as day: by portraying Michael Jackson as either as lunatic, a frail mess or a master manipulator, the goal was to have the public believe he was guilty even before verdict had been reached.

And once the verdict came out and it didn’t support their narrative, they simply left, as if nothing had ever happened. Here are Tom Mesereau, the singer's 2005 defense attorney and author Aphrodite Jones speaking on the matter.

By now, it should be clear that: 1) The media has always cherry-picked his worst photos to suit their narrative; 2) When it comes to him, angle, lighting and the look he chose to go with play a much bigger part in his looks than any plastic surgery he’s ever had done.

If you still doubt it, take a look at these two photos of the singer, which cover a span of 10 years. The one on the left shows him at 35 (in 1993), and the one on the right shows him at 44 (in 2002). Where is all of the ‘dreadful’ plastic surgery? (source: @VeenaAdoresMJ)

And these ones, that show that his facial features remained basically the same his entire adult life. The loss of skin pigmentation due to Vitiligo, style choices and the natural process of aging play a much bigger part in his looks. (source: strictlymj on IG)

Still, the media will have you believe that not only he had excessive plastic surgery, but that the change in his skin tone meant that he wanted to ‘become white’. How else can the popularity of the ‘before and after’ photo montages of the singer be explained?

Like this one, that has a projection of ‘what he would look like at 50 without plastic surgery” and completely ignores the fact that the singer had Lupus and Vitiligo.

And the classic 10-year-old-to-40-year-old comparisons, which not only ignore his illnesses, but also seem to disregard the process of aging.

Now, if at this point you still doubt that Michael Jackson had Vitiligo, or want to know more about this disease, please read this thread: https://twitter.com/smilexmj/status/1185219852711145474?s=20

If you didn’t know that, aside from Vitiligo, the singer also had another autoimmune disease, Lupus, and want to know more about it, please read this thread: https://twitter.com/BjerreAmalie/status/961665924288925698?s=20

And if you still think that the change in his skin tone means that he wanted to ‘become white’, please read this thread: https://twitter.com/manuelabezamat/status/1186598490178240512?s=20

Mean jokes and references to the singer’s appearance have been all over pop culture, especially from the early 2000s forward. They are disrespectful and will not be addressed by this thread. What should be addressed, on the other hand, is his response to these attacks.

Here is Michael Jackson speaking to Geraldo Rivera in 2005 about his reaction to a then newly released Eminem music video where the rapper mocked the singer in the most hurtful ways imaginable (from 36:51):

With the rise of the social medias, the internet has become fair ground for the manifestation of all points of view. While freedom of expression is essential, it can also give way to bullying and body shaming. Once again, in comes the mocking and ridiculing of Michael Jackson.

On YouTube, lately there are two trends that revolve around the singer. One is the Ayuwoki, a horror character that resembles him and now even has its own online game; the other is the make-up tutorials to "look like Michael Jackson", which are a modern-day version of blackface.

Needless to say that these videos, which are targeted at (and often produced by) the younger audience, are helping spread to future generations the notion that he is a caricature, a person that doesn't deserve respect, and that mocking him is an offense that goes unpunished.

Meanwhile, Twitter has been the perfect environment for the fake woke crowd that condemns body shaming and racism…. Except when it comes to Michael Jackson. See below a tweet by *serious* director Dan Reed, the driving force behind the Leaving Neverland documentary.

Lastly, what other male celebrity do you know that gets openly and constantly compared to women? White women with dark hair saying that they look like Michael Jackson and people comparing other female celebrities with the singer is a recurring theme on Twitter these days.

Throughout this thread it was shown that Michael Jackson’s fundamental rights for autonomy and privacy were seized by the media, who turned his distress into profit by painting him in a bad light and turning the public against him.

It was also shown that his looks and the way the public perceives him are almost entirely connected to how his photo was taken, his style at a given moment, the aging process and the effects of his illnesses, being only vaguely connected to plastic surgery.

As a final conclusion, let’s try to answer the question raised in the beginning of this thread: what are we talking about when we talk about Michael Jackson's appearance?

We are NOT talking about plastic surgery, since it’s been proven that the interventions on his face had limited effect on his appearance. We ARE talking about a society that openly embraces some while harshly judging others.

We are NOT talking about a black man who wanted to become white, since the singer was proud of his race and stated it many times. We ARE talking about society's obsession with the "fall from grace" narrative and with the tarnishing of the legacy of powerful people of color.

Michael Jackson was no victim. He was strong, and he endured a lifetime of abuse without ever casting a stone at his critics. It wasn't his style. He's no longer with us, but his family, friends and fans are, and when you mock him, you are hurting all of them by association.

It's time that we, as a society, move past the double standards that reward some with empathy and understanding while stripping others of their dignity and their fundamental rights. Fairness and common sense shouldn't be applied only to the people that we like.

When was the last time you looked at your neighbor and tried to put yourself in his shoes, tried to understand his struggles, before you judged him? Like the man said himself: if you want to make the world a better place, take a look at yourself and then make that change. //