Not . . . watch the movie? That would seem to be the most complete way to absorb the information. But sure, finding and reading the transcript instead of watching it is something i’d rather not.
I notice the first link to a transcript search is the Michael Jackson Innocence project. So - look, if anyone hasn’t just watch it. It’s a better experience than this:
I disagree, based on the simple fact that transcripts aren’t often as full of visual trickery, etc. as their video/film products —and not just because “little lies” are essential to the latters’ very creation. ☝🏼
Generally, I think the video format is responsible for a lot of disinformation getting swallowed wholesale. The people I know who fall for disinformation get it from videos. They usually have no other sources than themselves, nobody to challenge in the video itself, and it’s very difficult to reference parts of the video for critical discussion. It’s the perfect medium for a Gish gallop.
So I read it because I didn’t want to take in information passively. 4-hours is too much information to process critically in one go. It’s easy to watch that and be led to the conclusion the producers want with cut scenes, music choices, etc. After hearing so many falsehoods and retractions, I wanted to digest it properly.
The word “documentary” does not mean truth. In some cases it means a completely unchallenged and biased narrative led to deceive, such as the documentary Vaxxed, which was also promoted by a massive platform when it came out. It’s hard to put the genie back in the bottle after something like that.
I’m not necessarily judging the individuals in the video. If they have a case, it was badly represented by a documentary that did not check some facts that are essential to their core claims. Their director is also very odd. Regardless of what happened, to say Jackson was “worse than Epstein” is just not something a thinking person would say in an age where those victims are also trying to get justice.
Are you going to explain what specific audiovisual component might, if seen, lead someone to conclude that Michael Jackson shouldn’t have been acquitted? Or is this just some vague allusion to nonexistent super-important context that invalidates all the legal proceedings so you don’t have to actually make a solid case for your accusation?
What specific audiovisual component? Well, the way he went near-catatonic as the verdict seemed to draw near, and the surprise testimony of Macaulay Culkin were two specifically related to the trial.
Legal proceedings are not necessarily a source of truth, ask Dred Scott.
I’m just saying the full documentary is plenty of evidence. The only people who strongly disagree are those who haven’t seen it. IME.
I’m just saying the full documentary is plenty of evidence.
The evidence available was not enough to convince a jury. If you have new evidence, present it. Be specific. You’re making a claim here, you back it up.
Legal proceedings are not necessarily a source of truth, ask Dred Scott.
And how do you know Dred Scott was a case of bad legal proceedings? Is it because a stranger on the internet went “nuh-uh!” and told you to go watch a documentary? Be honest.
The only people who strongly disagree are those who haven’t seen it.
Sure, sure, and if you didn’t vote for Joe Biden you ain’t black. These are awful fallacious arguments you’re making. Just awful.
The evidence available was not enough to convince a jury. If you have new evidence, present it. Be specific. You’re making a claim here, you back it up.
The evidence in the movie was not the same as presented in trial for a LOT of reasons, not least of which because most people find jury trials interminably boring.
And how do you know Dred Scott was a case of bad legal proceedings?
Not the one you replied to, but I did, and it was very hard to dismiss. I still don’t think I have, completely. Maybe I should, logically, but emotionally it was hard to let go. Still conflicted about it, because the conspiracy against Michael scenario is just as probable.
Did you watch “Leaving Neverland”?
I read the transcript. I was almost convinced until the discrepancies emerged later.
You read the transcript of a 90 minute movie?
Others’re bound to accomplish what you’d rather not.
Not . . . watch the movie? That would seem to be the most complete way to absorb the information. But sure, finding and reading the transcript instead of watching it is something i’d rather not.
I notice the first link to a transcript search is the Michael Jackson Innocence project. So - look, if anyone hasn’t just watch it. It’s a better experience than this:
I disagree, based on the simple fact that transcripts aren’t often as full of visual trickery, etc. as their video/film products —and not just because “little lies” are essential to the latters’ very creation. ☝🏼
The video is a lot longer than 90 minutes. The transcript is around 100 pages. The language is simple so you’d read it in an evening.
But you’re missing the sound and visuals. That informs the context. Plus the transcript is auto-generated. Why read it but not watch it?
And yes, you’re right, both episodes together are 236 minutes total.
Generally, I think the video format is responsible for a lot of disinformation getting swallowed wholesale. The people I know who fall for disinformation get it from videos. They usually have no other sources than themselves, nobody to challenge in the video itself, and it’s very difficult to reference parts of the video for critical discussion. It’s the perfect medium for a Gish gallop.
So I read it because I didn’t want to take in information passively. 4-hours is too much information to process critically in one go. It’s easy to watch that and be led to the conclusion the producers want with cut scenes, music choices, etc. After hearing so many falsehoods and retractions, I wanted to digest it properly.
The word “documentary” does not mean truth. In some cases it means a completely unchallenged and biased narrative led to deceive, such as the documentary Vaxxed, which was also promoted by a massive platform when it came out. It’s hard to put the genie back in the bottle after something like that.
I’m not necessarily judging the individuals in the video. If they have a case, it was badly represented by a documentary that did not check some facts that are essential to their core claims. Their director is also very odd. Regardless of what happened, to say Jackson was “worse than Epstein” is just not something a thinking person would say in an age where those victims are also trying to get justice.
Are you going to explain what specific audiovisual component might, if seen, lead someone to conclude that Michael Jackson shouldn’t have been acquitted? Or is this just some vague allusion to nonexistent super-important context that invalidates all the legal proceedings so you don’t have to actually make a solid case for your accusation?
What specific audiovisual component? Well, the way he went near-catatonic as the verdict seemed to draw near, and the surprise testimony of Macaulay Culkin were two specifically related to the trial.
Legal proceedings are not necessarily a source of truth, ask Dred Scott.
I’m just saying the full documentary is plenty of evidence. The only people who strongly disagree are those who haven’t seen it. IME.
The evidence available was not enough to convince a jury. If you have new evidence, present it. Be specific. You’re making a claim here, you back it up.
And how do you know Dred Scott was a case of bad legal proceedings? Is it because a stranger on the internet went “nuh-uh!” and told you to go watch a documentary? Be honest.
Sure, sure, and if you didn’t vote for Joe Biden you ain’t black. These are awful fallacious arguments you’re making. Just awful.
The evidence in the movie was not the same as presented in trial for a LOT of reasons, not least of which because most people find jury trials interminably boring.
. . . Okay, look, nevermind.
Not the one you replied to, but I did, and it was very hard to dismiss. I still don’t think I have, completely. Maybe I should, logically, but emotionally it was hard to let go. Still conflicted about it, because the conspiracy against Michael scenario is just as probable.