Think Twice: Michael Jackson

Loses a star for allowing the rocket money scam to advertise on the podcast, otherwise would be 5 stars

I got through almost the entire series until a little ways into the final episode, when I could no longer stomach the one sided nature of it. While it was clear from the get-go that the hosts were in the “MJ is guilty” camp, I still listened in, as many of the episodes were interesting and entertaining, aside from their perpetuating a false narrative. However, it was hard to overlook how *exceptionally* one sided and biased this podcast is, all while feigning to be neutral. They left out SO many details of the cases that poked clear holes into accusers’ stories. One glaringly obvious and deceitful thing that stands out (though there were many and I cannot recall them all) is how they failed to note that DA Tom Sneddon in the Arvizo case tried to falsify fingerprints!!! They just conveniently left that part out and left the listener to assume that Arvizo’s fingerprints were indeed on MJs porn magazines. When covering the Chandler case, there was no speak on the absolute dubious nature of the father and how he was attempting to extort MJ for money for a screenplay. The episodes are littered with either purposeful deceit or complete incompetence in terms of journalistic research and integrity. Had I not studied the cases myself, I could have EASILY been convinced of MJs guilt. I actually came into this podcast with an open mind. But I have also studied the cases pretty extensively and was shocked at what was being omitted or manipulated. I’m giving it two stars because I still did enjoy some of the other music related MJ stories I hadn’t heard. Anyway, listen at your own risk and please go in INFORMED of the other side of the story.

Great podcast, but a big misunderstanding of the Jehovah’s Witnesses, we don’t follow the Watchtower and Tract Society, we follow Jehovah’s teachings which can found in his book, the Bible. There has to be organization, and structure, but do not be misled…we follow NO man.

I enjoyed the clear storytelling, but the hosts do far more psychoanalyzing the perceived motives of the subjects than just stating the facts. It’s more J Smoove’s take on Michael than actual journalism.