Rolling Stone’s Habitual Disrespect of Michael Jackson & The Bigger Issue It Represents

Rolling Stone placed Jackson's "The Lady in My Life" on its list of "Terrible Songs on Great Albums," continuing its long-standing incivility towards him & generational disconnect with Black music.

(Cartoon rendering of Michael Jackson as the cover art of a September 1987 issue of Rolling Stone magazine. Illustration: Anita Kunz)

Last week, Rolling Stone released a list of 50 Terrible Songs on Great Albums. The publication listed Michael Jackson's “The Lady in My Life” on this list at No. 20. The paragraph, written by Rolling Stone Senior Writer Andy Greene, reads, “If Michael Jackson had just capped off Thriller with track eight instead of track nine, he would have created one of the most flawless works in music history. But for reasons that are hard to fathom, he tacked “The Lady in My Life” onto the end.”

I’m not sure why Greene felt the need to besmirch “The Lady in My Life.” I’ve heard distaste for some of Jackson’s solo songs (#JusticeForTheGirlisMine), but I’ve never in my life heard a bad thing about the Thriller closing track. Although it’s one of only two non-singles from Jackson’s landmark LP, it’s widely regarded as one of the most beloved songs in his canon by fans, particularly Black fans. Speaking of which; Jackson is one of only two Black artists listed here (Kanye West was the other, and yes, it was “Drunk & Hot Girls”). You can look at that a couple of ways; either Black artists who have great albums tend to not have bad songs on them, or they singled out MJ because of some vendetta. I think it’s a little bit of both, but today, I’m concentrating on the latter theory.

Ordinarily, I wouldn't bother to react to such a thing because that is the point of a list like this: to get readers riled up to increase clicks and engagement. If you respond to a troll, you’re part of the problem. I firmly believe this. Rolling Stone has purposely tried to make a list that will elicit a visceral response from the public. Why? My guess is to maintain relevance now that its target subject matter, Rock & Roll, isn’t the most important genre in the music business. Just look at their 2023 list of the 200 Greatest Rap Albums of All Time. To say that albums like Cardi B’s Invasion of Privacy, Kanye West’s Yeezus, and Future’s Dirty Sprite 2 rank higher than Nas’ Illmatic, A Tribe Called Quest’s Midnight Marauders, or J Dilla’s Donuts is either informed lunacy or pure rage-baiting.

I understand that such music opinions are subjective; there are no right or wrong answers when it comes to comparing or ranking music against music, album against album, and artist against artist. But when I was studying journalism and broadcasting, my college professors told me the long-time tenets of newsworthiness. I was taught phrases like, “No news is bad news,” or “If it bleeds, it leads.” These ideals more or less reward negative behavior for the sake of notoriety and profit. If I tweet or post about my displeasure, they win. So, if something I don’t like happens or is said, I don’t engage because I don’t want to give power to the negativity and willful ignorance.

Not this time. I have to hold Rolling Stone accountable.

Granted, Jackson is my favorite singer and I understand that I am biased. But Rolling Stone has disrespected Jackson numerous times both during and after his lifetime. I'm calling it out now for two reasons. First, they have been implicitly attempting to minimize Jackson’s global, multi-generational impact, which is journalistically irresponsible. But more importantly, it’s a microcosm of how Rolling Stone has been leading a charge of anointing Rock and Roll practiced by white artists as creatively and intellectually more appealing than any other American genre led by Black artists.

Let's start with the 1st issue; Rolling Stone's habitual disrespect of Michael Jackson.

---

The Rock publication's first official acknowledgment of Jackson came in a 1971 cover story about him and the success of his group, The Jackson 5. The article was the first of five times Jackson appeared on the magazine’s cover. From that point all the way to the present day, Rolling Stone has treated Jackson, his music, and his memory inconsistently at best and rudely at worst.

(Michael Jackson on the cover of a April 1971 issue of Rolling Stone magazine)

It all started when Jann Wenner, Rolling Stone co-founder, wrote a letter to Jackson’s management in November 1979, rejecting their request to do a cover story on Jackson months after the release of his Off The Wall LP. Off The Wall would later gain the distinction of having the most top 10 Billboard Hot 100 hits on one album. However, Wenner and Rolling Stone felt that he wouldn’t move the needle enough to sell issues with him on the cover.

Jackson would wind up with a cover story in 1983, less than three months after his album Thriller was released. But that would be the last time Jackson would have a sit-down interview with Rolling Stone.

Since then, Rolling Stone has gone out of its way to downgrade Jackson. In 1987, the publication listed superlative awards for various artists. Based on a poll of 23,000 Rolling Stone readers, Jackson was declared Worst Male Singer, Worst Dressed, Worst Album, Worst Single, and Most Unwelcome Comeback following the release of his album Bad (which Rolling Stone gave a 4 out of 5-star review).

(Rolling Stone’s Special Commemorative Issue of the legacy of Michael Jackson in October 2009, four months after his death)

When Jackson died in 2009, Rolling Stone released a special edition tribute issue (which I still own today). While most of the magazine does praise Jackson and highlights his most famous moments, it printed some snarky remarks about his achievements. In a rundown of all his solo albums, the paragraph on his Blood on the Dance Floor: HIStory in the Mix album spoke ill of the album, downgrading its impact also. It stated that despite becoming the highest-selling remix album of all time, it was “breaking records no one cared about.” It also called “You Rock My World,” “his last visit to the Billboard Top 10 with one of the least memorable things he’s ever recorded.” Even though I do feel that “You Rock My World” is somewhat overrated, a tribute edition of a deceased artist is not the time or place for such criticism.

In 2021, Rolling Stone released its 100 Greatest Music Videos list. They prefaced the list, anticipating getting some polarizing comments, with the criteria and rationale of the updated list. They insisted the new list was based on “originality, influence, the depth of an artist’s catalog, and the breadth of their musical legacy.” In its intro, it warned the reader right away, “Yes, Michael Jackson is on here. No, “Thriller” is not.” That’s right. They weren’t even shy about their straight-up erasure. Jackson’s lone video mentioned, “Billie Jean,” was listed at No. 10. Meanwhile, Janet Jackson, Madonna, and Beyoncé all got more than one placement on the list. It’s not subjective to think that Jackson should’ve had multiple videos (or short films as he called them) on this list, particularly “Thriller,” the first music video ever to be added to the Library of Congress.

To cap off recounting this litany of Jackson's disrespect is his place on Rolling Stone’s 200 Greatest Singers of All Time list in 2023. In a previous version of this list in 2008, the magazine ranked Jackson at No. 25. In the new list, he dropped to No. 86, in between Diana Ross and Johnny Cash, and lower than Rihanna (68), and Radiohead’s Thom Yorke (34). Its paragraph mentioned his allegations (which he was acquitted of in 2005) as if they were true, which is libelous and irresponsible.

(Michael Jackson on the cover of an August 2009 issue of Rolling Stone magazine, two months after his death)

“What we now know about his life makes his music harder to enjoy, and it’s been argued that as his world darkened his voice devolved into a parodic arsenal of tics.” Meanwhile, on the same list, the paragraph on Elvis Presley (21), or the 2008 list with Jerry Lee Lewis (67) makes no mentions or implications of their predilection for and abuse of underaged girls, which is well-documented and proven.

---

Now, all this exposure about Rolling Stone’s attempts at devaluing Jackson’s reputation and place in music history is not only to protect Jackson’s legacy. It speaks to a larger issue at hand. For decades, mainstream American music journalism has had a problem with properly documenting the events and importance of Black American music in its proper context. Sure, there are jazz publications that have offered brilliant and nuanced articles and reviews of Black music and artists. Still, given that a great majority of the reporters, critics, editors, and publishers are mostly older white men, that is problematic for different reasons. Mainstream publications have employed people outside of Black culture to document Black art, and Rolling Stone is at the root of this problem.

With some exceptions, Rolling Stone has only covered Black music and artists in an obligatory fashion. I believe the magazine chooses to prominently cover Black artists when they surpass an echelon of fame that parallels big-name white acts. Therefore, Rolling Stone has rock and pop critics write about R&B, soul, and Hip-Hop acts with little context of how their music is made from a cultural and emotional origin. Such callous practices parallel other big-name organizations; i.e. MTV not playing Black artists because it didn’t fit their target demographic; Run DMC’s only Grammy nominations came in R&B categories; Macklemore and Ryan Lewis’ The Heist taking home the Rap Album of the Year Grammy instead of Kendrick Lamar’ good kid, m.A.A.d. city.

(Michael Jackson on the cover of a January 1983 issue of Rolling Stone magazine)

Rolling Stone is arguably the leading harbinger of Rock and Roll becoming the unofficial catch-all title for all American music. The magazine itself is named after a British rock band that got its name from a Muddy Waters song. So, things have already started on an ironic note. They claimed to cover all types of music since its inception, from rock, blues, soul, jazz, and pop music. Fast forward to the 1980s when Wenner founded the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. Its inclusion of acts of several genres codifies the term “rock and roll” as an umbrella for all music, but not the Little Ricard, Chuck Berry, Bo Diddley rock and roll, if you catch my drift.

As a result of Rolling Stone’s presumptuous audacity, the publication feels that it is the authority on all American music and popular culture at large. They have effectively put in the blueprint of having writers review, analyze, and critique music and artists of cultures outside of their experience and purview. This is how you get publications like Vulture making articles that disrespect LL Cool J by rationalizing why he didn’t deserve a Rock and Roll Hall of Fame induction. Rolling Stone is the reason The New York Times can erase decades of musical history just to push a narrative that Drake was the first artist ever to rap and sing.

The reckless notion of mainstream publications (d)evolved from merely documenting history to re-writing is further represented by the constant search for a new “king of pop.” Rolling Stone has printed no less than two cover stories crowning another artist as a new king of pop. They did so in 2003 for Justin Timberlake - six years before Jackson’s death - and again in 2024 for Harry Styles. Considering Timberlake and Styles were still very early in their respective solo careers, it taints the title since Jackson sold well over 100 million records by the time that moniker was attached to him. Rolling Stone has yet to attempt to put The King of Rock on a contemporary artist besides Presley.

(Michael Jackson on the cover of a January 1991 issue of Rolling Stone magazine)

It’s not just a Jackson issue; it’s a Blackness issue. Mainstream publications have also printed artists attaching white singers to be “soul singers,” as Rolling Stone did for British singer Sam Smith in 2014. Yes, all singers have “soul” as it relates to their emotions and experiences when they create. However, publications understand the implications of the term “soul music” and how it derives from Black innovation and execution. Society has tried to whitewash and take claim to every American music genre that’s been innovated by Black Americans (just about all of them).

I cannot sit back and watch publications get away with altering the history of a culture they know little about and don’t care to know anything about on any genuine level. Jackson sold more records than most of the people who’ve ever graced the Rolling Stone cover, and yet he’s treated inconsiderately. Beyond the issues with Jackson, I won’t sit idly by while Rolling Stone and other mainstream publications continue to alter Black history and disrespect our artists. Especially after Wenner exposed his racist and sexist remarks about Black music in 2023, causing me to read him for filth in print). It’s because of these publications that Black-centric publications like Ebony, theGrio, The Root, Vibe, Essence, and others need to exist; to counteract the damage the mainstream media has done to the contributions of our Black innovators.

And for the record, I don’t think Rod Temperton has ever written a bad song. #JusticeForLadyInMyLife

THANK YOU FOR READING! If you enjoyed this piece, please subscribe to my page and share the piece on social media. Thanks again, and stay tuned for more!