DON'T BUY THE NEW GQ MAGAZINE PLEASE | The Official Michael Jackson Site


Hey all,
I'm honestly not trying to tell you guy's what to do, but if you have seen the latest edition of GQ with Michael on the cover, please think twice about buying it. They are rude as heck! Saying "When Michael was cool" Please, Michael will always be cool. I guess they are trying to catch us fan's attention by putting Michael on the cover, but I guess they didn't think about the fact that we can READ, and what they say on the front of that cover is horrible. I only glanced in the magazine to see which pictures they used, and I did come across some other dumb comments. GQ and the editor of that piece on Michael can go do something with themselves if you know what I mean. Eye-wink

Comments (21)

Thanks for the heads up, If I saw MJ on the cover, I probably would have bought it. I agree with musicbizgrl - I'd rather donate my money to heal the world.

ohoho all the other magazine tributes are sold out except this one

i still see this in the philippine bookstores and newsstands

no one wants to buy it... i am dying to get a copy of xxl and word up
mine were destroyed in the flood

Well, if you ask me, buying it, (for whatever reason), supports them and then if they think that sells, they keep doing it. It's why tabloids keep going.

I'd rather make a statement that says that they will NOT make a cheap buck off of grieving MJ fans, that we are NOT gullible and will NOT buy anything and that they will NOT get one dime of my money while taking cheap shots at the man I want to honor. I'd rather instead take the cost of GQ and donate to Heal the World Foundtaion or something. I'd be D@mned if they'd make one dollar off of me, as a fan, at Michael's expense.

Thanks for the heads up! I won't support nonsense that denigrate MJ.

It's a very handsome cover though. Those color stripes on his skin looks nice to me. It's rare I read any of the publications, I just want the pics and the display value.

Thanks for the heads up ladies (and JohnC - yes I saw you LOL!). I won't be buying THIS one!

Hi -
I read the article online and the author takes alot of cheap shots and references Ian Halperin heavily.
I found it odd that he did use Aphrodite Jones; work in his article, as she is a respected NY Times best -selling author, not a tabloid junk writer. The article mentioned something I did not know, about the Jackson's roots, and the name Prince being in their family. So MJ gave the name to his children to honor his mother's family. Sorry for being ignorant but I didn't know that.
But the article is uneven and takes alot of cheap shots.

i don't read GQ so i wouldn't want it anyway, sounds like balls to me
i know the few that do michael justice and thats enough for me Smiling

ok prob im annoying people wit this but i rly need it!!!!!!!!!

I'm glad I don't read GQ. If y'all want a nice magazine, then pick up the latest Sister 2 Sister magazine with Michael ( as a child ) on the cover. It's not entirely about him, but there's an interview in there with Raymone Bain, who was once on of his publicist and became his general manager. It's an interesting read.

I already have it and was DISAPPOINTED with it! Those of us who have read the article need to e-mail GQ and politely tell them that their reporting was extremely poor,that it showed a lack of wisdom,sense and decorum.The author failed miserably is the nicest thing that I can say about that article.

I was going to post this myself. Wendy Williams was talking about it last week. The excerpts that were discussed were horrendous. They talk about how "freakish and weird" he became and "before the world knew him as a child molester or drug addict". (i'm not sure they are direct quotes but they were to that effect.

If that's your bag regarding MJ, then by all means, go and get it. Apparently lots of people are upset with it, including Janet's boyfriend, Jermaine DuPres. He released a statement saying that that was exactly the kind of crap that was useless and that they couldn't say anything nice but they still intended to make their millions and boost their sales by bilking MJ's fans out of money and then they read it and it's disrespectful.

But yeah, if you don't care what's being said, go for it.

Dang Gone! Just when I thought I had em all, they release another... Oh well!

I just want the covers. Thanks for the unintentional promotion LOL

Knowing GQ they probably were talking about the Thriller era when everybody dressed like him. U know people had the jackets, the glove, penny loafers and white socks, jerry curls and aviator glasses. Some of that is back in style now actually like the military look w the shades and the belt buckles n stuff. Whatever, GQ magazine is garbage (and i'm a guy) so I wouldn't buy it anyway unless it had never before seen photos .. which I doubt it does.

Saw it in the store. Saw the cover, looked inside. Piece of crap.

yeah, I just wanted to get it cause I love love love the picture they use

but I won't. It doesn't look like it's a full on tribute magazine anyway.

iiiiiiiiiiiknoooow!! me and one of my friedns went to the mall, and we were buying tigerbeat or j14 magazines, you know, girl thing. Then we both ctach our eye on this magazine and the picture was soo fine but i got mad, when i read the title. How dare they say" When michael was cool!" f... faggots! they should respect him! and i'm even pissed off that the store would actually want people to buy that!

I know I saw that a few days ago. I almost wanted to tear all the magazines and leave the store without paying for tearing them, he he Eye-wink

OH i know ! I thought the same thing when I picked it up. Soo... michael can only be cool and GQ when he was "au natural" and had a huge fro and wore bell bottoms...what about when his style really exploded and he became known for his uniqueness?!!? how about then you punks.

That's what i have always cherised about MJ - The man is unique, one of a kind. I wish I had 1/3 of his style!



yeah i was tellin someone on here the other day not to get it lol the front cover attracted me but then the article was insulting.