The Problem with the Michael Jackson Resurgence—From a Fan
Written by: Hadley Balser
From the ages of 7 to 12, Michael Jackson was my favorite artist of all time. I dressed as him for Halloween, learned the “Beat It” dance, and owned posters, pillows, and other memorabilia. To this day, he remains one of my top ten artists. I went into middle school with stars in my eyes, no idea of the conversation that awaited me about my favorite pop star.
I remember it vividly, even now: In the lunch line, I was talking about my idol when I was suddenly interrupted by a friend. “Michael Jackson? The one that did all that stuff to kids?”
I was dumbfounded. I asked what he meant, and he looked at me quizzically, as if it was ridiculous that I could be such a big fan and be unaware of this part of his legacy. Though harsh at the time, he was absolutely right. I went home, confused, and returned having learned more about the world than I wanted to.
Separating the art from the artist is a conversation that will probably continue as long as media and culture are a significant part of human society and interaction (so forever). I’ve gone through it many times: Michael Jackson, The Smiths, J.K. Rowling, and more. I’ve addressed this before, and I tend to err on the side of individual choice; I don’t believe I have the right to tell people if or how they should listen to music or interact with art.
Michael Jackson is a classic example. Jackson was no stranger to controversy, both satirically trivial (skin-bleaching) and deadly serious. For most of my life, Michael Jackson was widely discussed as either the butt of a joke or a misunderstood criminal. Since the biopic “Michael” came out in April 2026, however, I’ve seen very little discourse about the more controversial sides of MJ’s legacy: the court cases, settlements, and trials that dominated much of his later life. A large percentage of Jackson’s fanbase fiercely denies any wrongdoing on his part, citing the lack of evidence and the verdict of “not guilty” as definitive proof. For these people, the idea that money motivated an assassination of character is obvious. My question is: when do we believe survivors? When it isn’t our beloved artist committing the crime?
Claiming Jackson’s innocence is, in the same breath, implying his potential victims are lying by testifying against him. In the time since #MeToo, there’s more awareness than ever about how important it is to believe survivors of abuse, and the many ways in which victims can be prevented from coming forward.
I don’t agree with how Jackson was discussed previous to the biopic. His plastic surgery and skin bleaching scandals were his business and his alone—it isn’t up to us as a society to comment on what a person chooses to do with their body. No one deserves to be made into a joke based on their appearance. That doesn’t mean that Jackson should be washed clean of all sins the minute a biopic highlighting his musical genius comes out—and don’t get me wrong, his musical greatness is unparalleled.
What disturbs me isn’t the lack of a definitive answer on his crimes; it’s the complete removal of the grayness with which many fans viewed him after the allegations. Post-biopic, I frequently see posts talking about how wonderful a person Jackson was, and someone whose soul was pure and untarnished. It makes me uncomfortable, and I love classic rock.
It’s an understandable part of human nature (hah!) that we want to remove the complexity from the situation. I just don’t think we should. This isn’t me loving Bob Dylan despite the generally agreed-upon fact that he is a mean, unpleasant person. This is someone who is accused of hurting someone—of hurting children—in one of the worst ways a person can be hurt. That isn’t something I can ignore: acquittals or “not guilty” verdicts aside. I love Michael Jackson’s music, and I would never hesitate to say he was one of the most talented people ever alive, and genuinely one of a kind. I would hesitate, though, to say he was a “good person.” I don’t know if he was or not, and I never will.
We need to treat Michael Jackson the way we treat other complicated artists. We can love their art without idolizing them to a degree that just isn’t possible for them to achieve. I’m not saying we shouldn’t ever sing MJ’s praises, but think about which aspects of him you choose to uplift, and what you are indirectly supporting when you do.
Comments