How Society is 'Made' to Think? [Michael Jackson and Jimmy Savile Cases]

page: 1
1

log in

join

posted on Oct, 6 2012 @ 12:55 PM
link   
Firstly, let me say I am not starting this thread for a debate on who is guilty and who is innocent. I want to use this thread to discuss how the reactions of society seemingly show how the public's perception is controlled and manipulated.

Of course, people have different opinions, but from who I have spoken to so far, many think Jimmy Saville was innocent. For those who are not aware of Jimmy Savile, he was a household name in the UK for children's shows who since his death last year, has been accused of child abuse. Here is a CNN link for those who are unaware of the case-

edition.cnn.com...



London (CNN) -- Britain's public service broadcaster, the BBC, was caught up in a growing furor Saturday over claims that a late children's TV presenter sexually abused young women and girls, sometimes on its premises, in the 1960s and 1970s.

The abuse claims, which come almost a year after presenter Jimmy Savile died, were made by five women in a documentary screened by rival broadcaster ITV Wednesday.



On talking to my girlfriend, she firstly thinks it is disrespectful to look into the Saville case because he is dead. She even stated that the 'supposed victims' are coming forward to get some compensation hoping they will get paid off!

At the same time, she firmly believes Michael Jackson is guilty.

As I said, I'm not here to give my opinion on the cases, I just find it interesting that she would take these views. Michael Jackson was certainly discredited by the media and they made a huge deal over the child abuse claims. I'm not saying he was innocent, but the media was used to make society in general believe he was guilty. His image was never the same again.

What I want to get at is that when the MSM make such as huge effort to descredit a massive star, then I believe there is an agenda at work. That agenda, as seen with Michael Jackson, is almost always incredibly effective amongst the general public who buy up what they are told and read in the papers etc.

A lot has come out regarding the Savile case, perhaps much more evidence than was ever used against Michael Jackson, but people are having a very hard time believing Savile was guilty of such crimes because before his death, he was friends with the Royal family and known for his charity work etc- ie, he a solid image and therefore society's mindset is going to be hard to change no matter how much evidence may or many not emerge in the coming weeks.

It's just one of many ways in how society in general is guided in how and what to think. I know I'm making generalisations, but those are the experiences I have so far- people I talk to think Jackson was in fact guilty, whilst they think Savile was innocent.

Thoughts?




posted on Oct, 6 2012 @ 12:59 PM
link   
Michael was Innocent, Savile is sa-VILE,

IMO
edit on 6-10-2012 by Sinny because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 6 2012 @ 01:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Wonderer2012
 


I understand your premise.
But what would be the reason to discredit these individuals?
In other words....why did the media influence the opinion of the masses?
What was their (the medias) agenda?
Those are my questions...
Trust me, I detest networks and the propaganda they push.
I see exactly how they can influence a nation, or people.
But there has to be a reason.

Besides...
I don't care if either person was guilty or innocent.
They were never charged with a crime, everything was allegations.
Why on Earth would people care now?
To get reparations from their estates?

Alot of people go their entire lives being guilty of crimes.
They undoubtedly suffer their own personal demise.
If they never did anything then it was all show.
But:
You reap what you sow.






posted on Oct, 6 2012 @ 01:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sinny
Michael was Innocent, Savile is sa-VILE,

IMO
edit on 6-10-2012 by Sinny because: (no reason given)


Well my theory is the conspiracy minded, will tend to see Jackson as innocent and Savile as guilty. Yet the general public opinion would be the opposite.

Very aware I could be very wrong of course!



posted on Oct, 6 2012 @ 01:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wonderer2012

Firstly, let me say I am not starting this thread for a debate on who is guilty and who is innocent. I want to use this thread to discuss how the reactions of society seemingly show how the public's perception is controlled and manipulated.

Thoughts?


What else is going that the media don't want us to notice?

I find some of the stories somewhat difficult to find credible. Even poor Freddy Star is getting dragged into it. Apparently one underage girls claims he tried to force himself on her while smelling of drink. He is a teetotaler.

Why is this campaign being launched now?

Is it so that we have another reason to distrust other people, men in particular, thereby further breaking down Western society, in the UK at least?

The way the media is projecting this, as if there were pedophiles everywhere in the BBC, they are arguably trying to plant the idea that male pedophilia is extremely common and that men in general can not be trusted with children.

That's the implication after all.

edit on 6-10-2012 by ollncasino because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 6 2012 @ 01:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by havok
reply to post by Wonderer2012
 


I understand your premise.
But what would be the reason to discredit these individuals?
In other words....why did the media influence the opinion of the masses?
What was their (the medias) agenda?
Those are my questions...
Trust me, I detest networks and the propaganda they push.
I see exactly how they can influence a nation, or people.
But there has to be a reason.

Besides...
I don't care if either person was guilty or innocent.
They were never charged with a crime, everything was allegations.
Why on Earth would people care now?
To get reparations from their estates?

Alot of people go their entire lives being guilty of crimes.
They undoubtedly suffer their own personal demise.
If they never did anything then it was all show.
But:
You reap what you sow.





Well famous people are influetial people.

Just look at the average pop star etc, kids listen to them and are influenced by them.

There are many examples where Michael Jackson changed his stance- he started making songs against TPTB and even outright tried to speak about what relaly goes on behind the scenes, and I feel they targeted him for that.

Charlie Sheen talks about 9/11 and the media portrays him as a nut case.

Therefore the agenda is to discredit people who have influence, ie, famous people. Their voice and opinions are hears by millions, if not billions of people.



posted on Oct, 6 2012 @ 01:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by ollncasino

Originally posted by Wonderer2012

Firstly, let me say I am not starting this thread for a debate on who is guilty and who is innocent. I want to use this thread to discuss how the reactions of society seemingly show how the public's perception is controlled and manipulated.

Thoughts?


What else is going on that they want us to not notice?

I find some of the stories somewhat difficult to find credible. Even poor Freddy Star is getting dragged into. Apparently one underage girls claims he tried to force himself on her while smiling of drink. He is a teetotaler.



That's an interesting stance because from your previous posts, I would argue you do not buy into conspiracies and have stated you find it 'difficult to find it credible'.

I'm just pointing that out, that is typically what I expected and have noticed from people I have spoken to knowing their stance on 'conspiracy' related topics.



posted on Oct, 6 2012 @ 01:25 PM
link   
Some poor lass probably got nonced by Gary Glitter, and remembers seeing Savile on that day.

I think it is disgusting, the poor fellow hasn't even fully decomposed yet and already the leeches are out in full force, trying to grab what compen they can because the guy isn't here to defend himself.

He done so much for kids over the decades and he doesn't deserve his name to be dragged down like this, and as for them involving Freddie Starr?? Well, just look at the evidence they presented (written statement), that's enough to prove they (the accusers) are talking bollocks.
edit on 6/10/12 by woogleuk because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 6 2012 @ 01:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wonderer2012
That's an interesting stance because from your previous posts, I would argue you do not buy into conspiracies and have stated you find it 'difficult to find it credible'.



Well, I don't find it difficult to buy into a conspiracy about the media when its ownership and control is so concentrated.

Look at the war in Syria. The media was banging one drum (pro Free Syrian Army) and the public, judging by on-line comments of newspapers, were overwhelmingly not pro-FSA (the general opinion was that they were a bunch of highly dangerous religious fanatics).

Yet the British media persisted, pretty much to a newspaper/TV station to present an image entirely at odds with the British public's perception.

It's almost as if they were being orchestrated by an invisible hand.



posted on Oct, 6 2012 @ 01:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by woogleuk
Some poor lass probably got nonced by Gary Glitter, and remembers seeing Savile on that day.

I think it is disgusting, the poor fellow hasn't even fully decomposed yet and already the leeches are out in full force, trying to grab what compen they can because the guy isn't here to defend himself.

He done so much for kids over the decades and he doesn't deserve his name to be dragged down like this, and as for them involving Freddie Starr?? Well, just look at the evidence they presented (written statement), that's enough to prove they (the accusers) are talking bollocks.
edit on 6/10/12 by woogleuk because: (no reason given)


But how do you know this, you are showing pretty much exactly the response I detailed my girlfriend gave (clinging to the image society was given by the media).

Out of interest, what are your opinions on Michael Jackson?


CX

posted on Oct, 6 2012 @ 01:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wonderer2012

On talking to my girlfriend, she firstly thinks it is disrespectful to look into the Saville case because he is dead. She even stated that the 'supposed victims' are coming forward to get some compensation hoping they will get paid off!



With all due respect to your girlfriend, it's also disrespectful to accuse people who were abused as children of being in it for the money.

I take it your girlfriend does not live near where these incidents took place? If she did, you would hear a horrifying amount of stories, from all walks of life, coming out of the woodwork....and many of these don't even want to be identified, let alone get money from it.

If i wasn't so close to someone who was directly affected by this, i could see your point, in relation to Jimmy Saville, but what i am hearing every day at the moment is just shocking. This is from people within the industry from back then, and people who were working at the establishments he raised money for.

When you speak to people face to face who experienced what he did first hand, you don't need the media to make you think anything. You tend to make your own mind up.

If anything, in the case of Jimmy Saville, you'd expect the media to hush it up, not force it on you to tell you how to think. A lot of industry hierarchy will be panicking right now.

CX.
edit on 6/10/12 by CX because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 6 2012 @ 01:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by CX

Originally posted by Wonderer2012

On talking to my girlfriend, she firstly thinks it is disrespectful to look into the Saville case because he is dead. She even stated that the 'supposed victims' are coming forward to get some compensation hoping they will get paid off!



With all due respect to your girlfriend, it's also disrespectful to accuse people who were abused as children of being in it for the money.

I take it your girlfriend does not live near where these incidents took place? If she did, you would hear a horrifying amount of stories, from all walks of life, coming out of the woodwork....and many of these don't even want to be identified, let alone get money from it.

If i wasn't so close to someone who was directly affected by this, i could see your point, in relation to Jimmy Saville, but what i am hearing every day at the moment is just shocking. This is from people within the industry from back then, and people who were working at the establishments he raised money for.

When you speak to people face to face who experienced what he did first hand, you don't need the media to make you think anything. You tend to make your own mind up.

If anything, in the case of Jimmy Saville, you'd expect the media to hush it up, not force it on you to tell you how to think. A lot of industry hierarchy will be panicking right now.

CX.
edit on 6/10/12 by CX because: (no reason given)


This is the point of my thread.

My girlfriend thinks Savile was innocent and Jackwas was guilty.

Her opinions, as are many others, formed pretty much solely by the image the meida gives her. Jackson was discredited big time. Savile was portrayed in a very good light- charity work, OBE etc.

Society is controlled



posted on Oct, 6 2012 @ 01:50 PM
link   
I read an article regarding Jimmy Saville a couple of days ago and according to a quote from a well known DJ from that time who wished to remain anonymous, it was common knowledge that he was messing with young girls and that he had been approached by the media and the police on several occassions and each time he had said along the lines of - go ahead and run your article / investigation and you will see the closure of hospitals / wards that are being funded by and rely on my charity work - and the stories and investigations were promptly dropped. The DJ said he was known as The Govenor as he was Untouchable.

Until reading this I thought people trying to make a fast buck, but this sounds very plausable.



posted on Oct, 6 2012 @ 01:56 PM
link   
I don't understand the idea that if someone is dead it's disrespectful to accuse them of a crime. Sure, if the allegations are all false, it's cowardly, but if they're true then good on them. Talking about being raped is hard enough for anyone, but having to discuss it with the media must be an even more frightening prospect. Plus he was a pretty influential figure who no doubt had a load of lawyers to threaten people with, now he's dead, there won't be any threats.

Apparently it was known throughout Radio 1 he 'liked young girls':

Jimmy Saville at Radio 1



posted on Oct, 6 2012 @ 02:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Wonderer2012
 


I'm not sure about Jackson, it didn't help that he paid the accusers off, but there is a part of me feels he did that as he didn't want the torment of being dragged through court.

I'm swayed towards he was innocent, but there is still that niggling doubt in my mind.

I might have been more open to the Savile case if it hadn't been for the blatant lies about Freddie Starr.



posted on Oct, 6 2012 @ 07:49 PM
link   
"My friend Gary Glitter had done nothing wrong, just sat at home watching some dodgy films". Jimmy Savile on Gary Glitter. I think that tells you all you need to know about Jimmy Savile and then some.

For those not aware, Gary Glitter is a convicted child abuser, who was caught with child porn on his computer.



posted on Oct, 7 2012 @ 06:46 AM
link   
reply to post by Wonderer2012
 


Seems to me that he did indeed commit these abuses!!

Even top Exec Chiefs at BBC are saying that he did but they didn't have any proof to show it....

Just by looking at him now i'd have to say that he does look like a guy who was comfortable around young girls and boys!!

It's more credible that he was a Child Molester.... not MJ.
edit on 7-10-2012 by TruthxIsxInxThexMist because: (no reason given)





new topics

top topics



 
1

log in

join