Michael Jackson is a genius. To ignore the essence of Michael Jackson is to distort his being so boldly that such a portrayal is not even excusable on the trashiest tabloid, let alone, the mainstream media. Martin
Bashir's documentary, shown in Britain by ITV last Monday, drew one of
the biggest audiences all season for ABC, and a ratings-busting 27
million Americans watched it on Thursday.
ABC News
reportedly paid between $4 million and $5 million for American broadcast
rights and when it was aired on their famous, investigative show, 20/20,
on February 7, 2003, it was billed to be an intimate documentary about
Michael Jackson. Indeed, according to ABC, Living With Michael
Jackson provides "unprecedented and exclusive access to Jackson's
private life."
The film
follows Jackson for eight months of his life, with British journalist
Martin Bashir interviewing him extensively about his personal life.
Bashir and his cameras were even with Jackson on the day he famously
swung his baby outside of a Berlin window. Ignorant critics may claim
that he deliberately endangered his child, but anybody who knows Michael
Jackson understands the fact that he is very loyal to his fans and when
they chanted the request to have a peek at his child, Michael Jackson
momentarily dangled it in their direction, so they could see it. The
suggestion that Michael Jackson deserves to be investigated for
endangering his child is too preposterous to entertain, but the media
never fails to dramatize even the most spontaneous and innocent gesture,
if it advances the zeal to legitimize the latest media circus event.
Any competent investigator, who looks into allegations against
Michael Jackson the way writers like Mary Fisher have, cannot avoid the
conclusion that Michael Jackson is a target of vicious exploitation.
Jackson's troubles began when his van broke down on Wilshire Boulevard
in Los Angeles in May 1992, and David Schwartz, the owner of the
car-rental company, called his wife, June, and told her to bring their
6-year-old daughter and her son from her previous marriage, to meet
Michael Jackson. The boy, then 12, was a big Jackson fan, and upon
arriving, June Chandler Schwartz told Jackson about the time her son had
sent him a drawing after the singer's hair caught on fire during the
filming of a Pepsi commercial and then she gave Jackson their home
number.
"It was
almost like she was forcing [the boy] on him," a witness recalled. "I
think Michael thought he owed the boy something, and that's when it all
started."
Jackson
began calling the boy, and a friendship developed. After Jackson
returned from a promotional tour, June Chandler Schwartz and her son and
daughter became regular guests at Neverland. Jackson showered the boy
and his family with attention and gifts, including video games, watches,
an after-hours shopping spree at Toys "R" Us and trips around the world
-- from Las Vegas and Disney World to Monaco and Paris.
The
following excerpts from Mary Fisher's investigative report should make
the plot to frame Michael Jackson as clear as the media's reluctance to
expose the truth about frivolous, sexual abuse allegations:
The sole
allegations leveled against Jackson, then, remain those made by one
youth, and only after the boy had been give a potent hypnotic drug,
leaving him susceptible to the power of suggestion.
"I found
the case suspicious," says Dr. Underwager, the Minneapolis
psychiatrist, "precisely because the only evidence came from one boy.
That would be highly unlikely. Actual pedophiles have an average of
240 victims in their lifetime. It's a progressive disorder. They're
never satisfied."
Given the
slim evidence against Jackson, it seems unlikely he would have been
found guilty had the case gone to trial. But in the court of public
opinion, there are no restrictions. People are free to speculate as
they wish, and Jackson's eccentricity leaves him vulnerable to the
likelihood that the public has assumed the worst about him.
So is it
possible that Jackson committed no crime -- that he is what he has
always purported to be, a protector and not a molester of children?
Attorney Michael Freeman thinks so: "It's my feeling that Jackson did
nothing wrong and these people [Chandler and Rothman] saw an
opportunity and programmed it. I believe it was all about money."
font face="Trebuchet MS">To some
observers, the Michael Jackson story illustrates the dangerous power
of accusation, against which there is often no defense -- particularly
when the accusations involve child sexual abuse. To others, something
else is clear now -- that police and prosecutors spent millions of
dollars to create a case whose foundation never
existed. Needless to
say, as we witness the absolute zeal to slander Michael Jackson, it is
now safe to say that Michael Jackson has absolutely nothing to worry
about, not because the media and the police are on his side, but because
he has never harmed any child.
The civil
suit, brought on behalf of Jordan Chandler was settled for an
undisclosed sum, prosecutors in Santa Barbara chose to leave their
criminal complaint against the singer "open but inactive" and little has
been heard of the affair since. In retrospect, it is not reasonable to
believe that sexual abuse allegations were anything more than about
exploiting Michael Jackson's eccentric kindness, and if anybody doubted
it before, Martin Bashir's "documentary" has made it absolutely clear.
Watching
the media reaction to Bashir's so called documentary about Michael
Jackson, is absolutely fascinating. Jackson was skewered and baked,
while host-journalist Bashir used dramatic effect throughout to tell his
viewers he was "becoming increasingly worried" about Michael Jackson. It
is incredible to watch the media march lockstep to this shoddy
journalism, to the point where Connie Cung and other media blowhards
wholeheartedly promoted the claim that Michael Jackson is creepy and
weird.
It would
take an extremely delusional person to suggest that Martin Bashir's
dramatic effects exposed the fact that Michael Jackson is weird. After
all, the condescending, Martin Bashir appeared to get quite the hoot
from jumping in a go-cart and racing Jackson around Neverland.
Eccentricity can be a harmless, peculiar habit or it can be a malicious
deviation, and if Martin Bashir believes that he is not eccentric in the
worst possible way for producing a biased "documentary," he does not
understand the fact that journalists do not have the right or the power
to impose their peculiar values on others. They can certainly publicize
and distort, but they can never penetrate the sound reasoning of
discerning viewers.
We do not
call journalists like Barbara Walters eccentric for dancing with Al
Pacino or for interviewing ninja turtles, and we do not expect any
competent journalist to call Michael Jackson weird, as a consequence of
the creepy tactics that Martin Bashir used, to make Michael Jackson feel
uncomfortable. The only thing that Martin Bashir's documentary really
proved is that the pop star does not pretend to be somebody he is not.
In his heart, Michael Jackson is Peter Pan, and if Martin Bashir can
produce a single shred of evidence to prove otherwise, he will be able
to convince the world that he is a competent and a credible journalist.
In the meantime, Martin Bashir has much to learn, to earn the right to
be called a journalist.
We do not
understand "journalists" like Martin Bashir because if we have merely
been placed on this earth to ridicule and to make fun of "weird" people,
where do we begin and where do we end? Who do we demonize and who do we
spare? Jesus said, "Unless you become as little Children, you can't see
God's kingdom." Peter Pan said, "All you need is trust... and a little
bit of pixie dust!" Martin Bashir is "becoming increasingly worried"?
Why is Bashir worried? Is it because he does not have the skill one
requires, to interview a genius like Michael Jackson? If I was Martin
Bashir, I'd be worried too. His documentary demonstrated the capacity to
capture the attention of the entire world but he failed to scandalize
Michael Jackson, in a "becoming increasingly worried" sort-of-way. To be
sure, all kinds of eccentrics picked up all the right cues as one would
expect, but that merely exposed the power of publicity. Let's be very
clear about what I am complaining about here, because I am not attacking
the messenger. How can I possibly attack a messenger who produces a
documentary that has nothing to say? To be sure, some people harbor the
mistaken belief that controversy is a message, but in fact, it is
nothing more than unresolved confusion, and that certainly explains why
Mr. Bashir routinely contradicts himself and why he has produced a
fiction which is mistakenly called a documentary. The truth is very
simple and journalists never fail to obscure it, because in the final
analysis, the claim that Michael Jackson is weird is entirely minimized
by the fact that it is absolutely bizarre to call what Martin Bashir has
produced, a documentary.
Michael
Jackson is an easy target because he is necessarily "different" by
virtue of the fact that he has has never lead a normal life. He has been
a celebrity since childhood and it is therefore not appropriate to judge
him from the lense of trying to create the impression that a word like
"normal" applies to Michael Jackson. He is the one and only artist whose
childhood celebrity has grown rather than waned, and he relies, not on
the inherited customs that say a prince or a queen uses, to act in an
"appropriate" manner, but upon his own creativity, to define a life of
infinite possibility. Under the circumstances, the humanity of Michael
Jackson is far more "normal" than anybody has the right to expect.
font face="Trebuchet MS">It is very
easy to make fun of a man who claims to be Peter Pan, because in his
heart, he is just like a child, but it is his dream, his life and
anybody who attacks Michael Jackson because he has the ability to do
what others fail to accomplish (live his dream) are cruel and envious.
If the lives of most people are too pathetic, too scripted or too
obsessive to pursue a worthwhile existence, we can understand
journalists who would like to impose the claim that they feel sorry for
Michael Jackson or that they pitty him. What we do not understand is the
zeal to convince the world that their prejudices are more important than
Michael Jackson's right to be treated like a human being, rather than
like a freak show..
Confucius
said we are all alike in ignorance and that the only difference between
us is experience and education. Confucius was wrong. Some of us are
kind, reasonable and decent human beings, while others seek to impose
their values and their perversions, on the entire world.
According
to Roger Friedman of Fox News, "Michael Jackson is over. His career is
over. And if he's not careful, he will wind up logging some jail time
before his life is over." Sounds like this guy thinks he controls the
world. The media likes to promote the claim that the Michael Jackson
interview was "like watching a speeding train derail in slow motion -
both horrifying and fascinating at the same time." The nauseating,
Gloria Allred, a celebrity lawyer from Los Angeles, wrote to the
authorities in Santa Barbara County and said: "I am hopeful that child
welfare services will initiate a much-needed investigation into Mr
Jackson's activities with children at Neverland." Needless to say, she
is trying to become the next Dominick Dunne, a
demagogue who has "obtained his power through impassioned appeals to the
emotions and prejudices of the populace and has become the Joseph
McCarthy of the publicity treadmill."
The
hilarious campaign to lynch Michael Jackson has backfired, and even the
artist himself is fighting back and has produced film which revealed
that Bashir betrayed Michael Jackson's trust during the making of
Living With Michael Jackson. Michael Jackson appropriately
condemned Bashir's documentary, calling it "a gross distortion of the
truth" and film footage which shows Bashir flattering Jackson,
complimenting his parenting skills and generally ingratiating himself
with the pop star, indicates that "Martin Bashir was lying to Michael or
was misleading his audience in his voiceovers on the film." If Martin
Bashir likes to praise the way Michael treats children and to comment on
how good a father he is, in private, he should be willing to do the
same, in a public documentary.
The
obsession to create the impression that Michael Jackson is a reckless,
incompetent parent is astounding. Clearly, the media campaign to "prove"
that Michael Jackson endangers the safety of his own children is
bizarre, especially since Michael Jackson cannot go anywhere without
body guards, and if that doesn't make him the least reckless parent,
then what does? Compare Michael Jackson to any number of parents who
routinely yell and scream at their children, and it won't be long before
you get the impression that the media almost always gets it backwards.
Normal
people are not obsessibe about trying to control Michael Jackson's
image. If you read the posts of normal people, they say things like:
Unlike
British Intelligence, which plagiarized selectively distorted, academic
papers, to "frame" Sadaam Hussein, Britain's, February 8, 2003, Sunday
Telegraph, provided the balance that slanted reports deny, when Tom
Utley wrote,
"The point
about Michael Jackson is not that he is odd but that the man is a
genius. As a dancer, he ranks well up there with Fred Astaire and Rudolf
Nureyev. As a singer, he has been dazzlingly brilliant since he first
cleared his throat on stage when he was eight. To put it at its lowest,
Michael Jackson is an extremely important figure in the history of
popular culture.
Almost no
sense of that came across in the Granada interview. Mr Bashir treated
Jackson like a mildly interesting psychological case study, firing
endless questions to him about his sex life, his relationship with his
father, his plastic surgery and his eccentric little ways. For all the
interest that he showed in his interviewee's artistry, he might as well
have been talking to any old loony dragged out of the local bin.
It was as
if Mr Bashir had been given eight months' unfettered access to Napoleon,
and could think of nothing to ask him about except his relationship with
Josephine, whether or not he read bedtime stories to Nappy Junior and
how far his behaviour fell short of the suburban English ideal of
morality."
To put it
mildly, Mr. Bashir created the perfect, "media circus" interview, and
ABC News turned it into the perfect, "media circus" event.
The
political aspect of the Michael Jackson interview is that it was aired
on the very same day and at the very same time that Larry King spent an
entire hour interviewing former President, Bill Clinton. Was that a
coincidence? Is the fact that the mainstream media spent more time
promoting the suggestion that Michael Jackson is nothing more than a
freak, than covering an interview with the former President of the
United States, a mere coincidence? In business, the media and any other,
worthwhile endeavor, timing is everything, and it would be quite naive
to think that it was just a coincidence.
To be
brief, the following mesage posted on the Internet, immediately after
the freakish, Jackson documentary aired, strongly suggests that the
timing and the publicity that Michael Jackson received, was more
diversionary than newsworthy:
When ABC
News essentially determined that the slanderous, Michael Jackson
documentary was more newsworthy than a one hour interview with the
former President of the United States, it essentially proved that "the
media circus is the message".
Internet
newsgroups did not miss the significance of President Bill Clinton's
appearance on Larry King Live, and one poster who summarized Clinton's
appearance had this to say:
Ladies and
gentlemen, make no mistake about it. We are creating a bizarre world
where the media
circus is the message and we must reject this absolute lunacy
because it is causing absolutely nothing beyond extreme heart
ache. The extreme gap between the truth and the rhetoric of a demagogue
like Nancy Grace, speaks for itself.
GRACE: Well, it's my understanding that there was a very, very long
and intense police investigation that the file is, as they say, inactive
because, I believe, the victim did not want to go to court. That's what
I think. That's what I can deduce. And we all know that there was a
civil settlement of millions and millions of dollars. And interestingly
enough, on February the 10th, there was a response by the Jackson camp
to this affidavit being made public online. It didn't negate the truth
of the affidavit, it just simply attacked the breach of the
confidentiality agreement
TRUTH: The so called victim's family was after MONEY not JUSTICE. The
victim did not have a case to go to court with. Clearly, the D.A. did
not refuse to prosecute the case because evidence that Michael Jackson
sexually abused children, existed.
GRACE: And you know what, Larry? I think that if a father had tried
to extort Michael Jackson for millions of dollars, you want to tell me
he would not have been arrested or charges filed? At the beginning --
and the panel laughed when I brought this up, specifically the Jackson
family lawyer. But the Jackson camp changed their stories so many times.
First, they said this was an extortion attempt; they would never pay.
Then, suddenly, as police began to develop evidence, they did pay
millions of dollars... Right. And I'll make it quick, Larry. I've got in
my hand again the affidavit of Jordy, not the cancer victim. This is
another boy that had sleepovers with Jackson. You said that this was all
about extortion. Question to you: Why wasn't this child's father
prosecuted for extortion if you claim that was why, what this was all
about?
TRUTH: The police SHOULD HAVE charged Michael Jackson's adult
accusers with extortion. Nancy Grace likes to blame Michael Jackson
because the police didn't do their job properly. Nancy Grace cannot
blame Michael Jackson for the fact that the police did not do their job
right. The police even failed to investigate the kidnapping of Laci
Peterson because demagogues like Nancy Grace blame her husband, why
would anybody expect the police to help a "weirdo" like Michael Jackson?
Moreover, if, as Nancy claims, the police had developed credible
evidence to support outrageous charges of criminal, sexual misconduct,
why didn't they file criminal charges? After all, Nancy Grace was
"talking about oral sex, manual masturbating, taking baths together",
not about a harmless sleepover.
2E
|