It’s refreshing, to say the least, to have someone say it like it is. Rolling Stone magazine is in a pit where coverage of Michael Jackson is concerned. Yes, “shade” is usually there, along with the virtual cultivation of mistrust of Jackson’s talent and motives. (Of course this goes hand in hand with the magazine’s worshipfully uncritical attitude towards aged (or dead) white rocker artists such as Dylan and Cobain, or white pop groups like the Beatles.) At one time I might have considered the magazine a voice for significant stories being neglected by other mainstream outlets. But now I’ve lost all respect for Rolling Stone’s insight, honesty, and relevance because of the suspect narratives that one or the other writer there has foisted on the legacy of the single greatest American popular artist.