07/162026

Richard Morrison, once a name that carried some weight in cultural commentary, now reduced to recycling tabloid smears dressed up as moral outrage. His recent screed against the Michael biopic is not criticism; it is a hit job wrapped in the stained robes of false virtue.

Morrison whines that the film “whitewashes” Jackson and turns him into a “saint.” He sneers at the $1 billion box office as if public enthusiasm were evidence of public stupidity. He draws lazy, slanderous parallels between Jackson, J.M. Barrie, and Benjamin Britten, as if unsubstantiated allegations and genuine complexity could be flattened into a single, ugly equivalence. And he revives racist tropes to attack Michael Jackson.

This is not journalism. This is cultural bankruptcy masquerading as conscience.

Disputing Morrison’s Fallacies

Fallacy #1: “Jackson had relationships with children that were certainly inappropriate and probably abusive.”

Certainly? Probably? Morrison offers no evidence, because he has none. Michael Jackson was investigated by the FBI. He was tried in a court of law and acquitted on every single count. The 2005 trial lasted months; the jury deliberated for days and found him not guilty. Morrison presents allegation as fact, innuendo as proof. That is not ethics. That is libel by implication.

Fallacy #2: “The film was always going to be a shallow, sugar-coated singalong.”

Morrison admits he hasn’t seen the film, or if he has, he refuses to engage with it on its own terms. The Michael biopic celebrates Jackson’s artistic genius, the very thing that made him the King of Pop. Is it a sin to honor a man’s work? Must every biography be a prosecution brief? Morrison demands a film that exists only to confirm his prejudices. That is not criticism; that is narcissism.

Fallacy #3: False equivalencies—Jackson, Barrie, and Britten are “the same.”

This is Morrison’s most intellectually dishonest move. Barrie photographed boys naked. Britten took pubescent boys to his bed. Jackson was acquitted. Yet Morrison lumps them together as if “allegation” and “conviction” (or even admission) were interchangeable. This is moral laziness dressed up as courage. It requires no thought, only the smug satisfaction of condemning from a safe distance.

Fallacy #4: “The public is overlooking terrible behavior.”

The public is not “overlooking” anything. The public has weighed the evidence, the FBI files, the court records, the accusers’ changing stories, the lack of physical evidence, and reached a conclusion Morrison finds inconvenient. He mistakes his own certainty for truth.

Fallacy #5: “Powerful American corporations are feeding misinformation to young minds.”

This is pure fantasy. A billion-dollar box office is not “misinformation,” it is consensus. Morrison cannot fathom that millions of people, including young fans discovering Jackson’s music for the first time, see something he refuses to see: a transcendent artist whose legacy dwarfs the tabloid circus that hounded him.

A History Lesson: The Racist Roots of “Wacko Jacko”

Morrison uses the slur “Wacko Jacko” with casual cruelty, as if it were a nickname, not a weapon. Let us educate him.

The term “Jacko” traces back to “Jacko Macacco,” the name of a famous monkey used in monkey-baiting matches at the Westminster Pit in London in the early 1820s. “Jacco” or “Jacco Macacco” became Cockney slang for monkeys or apes. By the 1950s, “Jacko Monkeys” were popular children’s toys in Great Britain.

When the British tabloid The Sun dubbed Michael Jackson “Wacko Jacko” in 1985, they were not being clever. They were deploying a centuries-old racist epithet that dehumanized a Black man by comparing him to an ape. As journalist Joseph Vogel documented, “Even for those with no knowledge of [the nickname’s] racist roots and connotations, it was obviously used to ‘otherize,’ humiliate and demean its target.” Vogel also noted that “while the term was used widely by the white media, it was rarely, if ever used by black journalists.”

Michael Jackson himself rejected it with heartbreaking clarity: “I’m not Jacko, I’m Jackson.” He said he should not be called a “freak,” a “pervert,” or an “animal”—that he had a heart, that he could be hurt.

Morrison uses this slur as if it were harmless. It is not. It is racial violence in print. And Richard Morrison, by deploying it so casually, reveals exactly where he stands.

In Support of Michael Jackson

Michael Jackson was not a saint. He was a human being, flawed, complicated, extraordinary. He was also the greatest entertainer who ever lived. He broke every barrier. He unified the world through music. He donated hundreds of millions to charity. He opened his home to sick children because he knew what it was like to be denied a childhood.

He was also hounded, humiliated, and dehumanized by a media that could not tolerate a Black man wielding that much power, a man who transcended race, genre, politics, boarders, and gravity itself. The allegations against him were weaponized by those who could not stand his success. He was tried. He was acquitted. And still, the slur “Wacko Jacko” followed him to his grave.

Morrison writes as if he is defending children. But he is defending nothing, except his own relevance. He offers no solutions, no compassion, no curiosity. Only contempt.

Richard Morrison: Irrelevant and Cultureless

Let us be blunt, Richard: you are no longer relevant.

You write for a newspaper whose best days are behind it. You recycle tabloid smears from the 1980s as if they were fresh insights. You mistake cynicism for wisdom and cruelty for courage. You cannot see Michael Jackson’s genius because you are too busy clutching your pearls.

You are cultureless—because culture is not about moral scorekeeping. Culture is about creation. And you, Richard, create nothing. You only tear down. You offer no music, no art, no joy—only the cold satisfaction of condemnation.

The young fans flocking to Michael are not ignorant. They are free; free of the poison you and your tabloid predecessors injected into the public discourse for decades. They see Jackson as he was: a man of staggering talent, profound vulnerability, and enduring magic. They are not “overlooking” anything. They are seeing clearly for the first time.

Final Word

It is despicable that Morrison frames the biopic as a “saint-making” exercise, as if celebrating a man’s art were an act of denial. It is despicable that he uses a racist slur without a flicker of self-awareness. It is despicable that he equates acquittal with guilt, genius with pathology, and public joy with mass delusion.

Michael Jackson deserves better. His fans deserve better. And Richard Morrison, if he has any integrity left, owes an apology. Not for his pissy opinions. For his ignorance.

But we won’t hold our breath and neither should you.

About the Author

Andrew Greene is a quality-obsessed, results-driven powerhouse with nearly two decades of experience transforming complexity into clear, actionable solutions. His secret weapon? A mix of analytical sharpness, problem-solving precision and a communication and leadership style that’s equal parts clarity and charisma. From Quality Assurance to political data analysis, you can think of him as the Swiss Army knife of operational excellence, minus the corkscrew (unless it’s a team celebration).