Michael Jackson Interview?

I heard on TV news this morning that there will be a show on Fox TV next week that will show out-takes from the interview - and MJ will choose them himself. It's supposed to be called something like "The Michael Jackson Interview They Didn't Want You to See". What do you say, let's boycott!

macsm

I've seen part of Michael Jackson's tape. Apparently Jackson, or his lawyers, prepared their defence in advance. Maybe that's as a result of previous experiences with the media. It's a common method of covering your own a**, in interview situations. A form of evidence, in case of misquoting, dubious editing etc.

Rather than boycott it, you should watch it. It may be interesting to compare and contrast the two versions. Examine the art of TV editing.

Although Martin Bashir is now expressing unease at Jackson's method of parenting, it was somewhat different, while he was making his documentary. His praise for Jackson was glowing....bordering on sycophantic. Strangely, his generous praise for the way Jackson raises his kids, and his comments about the affection displayed between father and children, didn't make it into the final edit of the documentary that was broadcast last week.

People might want to step back, try to think objectively, and ask why Bashir now has a different spin on the story. From originally praising the loving father, to now creating a figure for criticism. Maybe the latter version, attracts more attention in the press, and receives better viewing figures.

At the very least, it places a question mark over Bashir's style of journalisim. What does he really think? Is he a media manipulator? Was he trying to manipulate Jackson in order to gain his trust? Or is he manipulating us? Playing with our emotions, in order to create a bigger story than actually exists? Boost the ratings for his show, and make a reputation for himself?

Maybe instead of thinking objectively, people would simply prefer to believe everything they see on TV, or read in the tabloids!

I don't know enough about Michael Jackson, to make an in-depth comment on his lifestyle, but I do know that facts can be twisted in order to fit a story. From our glimpse at Jackson's lifestyle, it certainly appears untypical, and maybe even people view it as bizarre. But until I know the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, I wouldn't wish to make any assertions about a person, no matter how rich or poor they are, in relation to their behaviour with children. It's one thing to be critical of someone's appearance, or how they spend their money, and so on, but to suggest a man is sexually abusing kids, without ANY hard evidence to support the allegations, is one step away from forming lynch mob.

Innocent until proven guilty. Words that anyone with respect for the rule of law, would surely support. People can't be selective. That one simple rule should apply to everybody, all the time, or not at all. We don't get to choose on which cases we apply it, or which alleged criminal will benefit from the presumption of innocence. Once you start making exceptions.....your own rights start to erode.

My suggestion that we boycott is only based on my feeling that I have given Michael Jackson and Martin Bashir entirely too much of my attention. Both of them, IMO, are simply trying to become more famous. I've spent enough time on the whole subject. Good luck learning more about the art of TV editing!

Stinger<

Don't be too hard on Bashir. He was merely doing a job that documentarians have been doing since the first one shot a film.

That is, all documentaries have a subjective point of view. You would not see the same approach if you had made the film, Living with Michael Jackson.

When talking about bias here, what you really mean is subjectivity. It is Bashir's subjectivity that you find offensive. Now, it seems, Fox News will tell Mr. Jackson's version of the way he lives. This, of course, is his subjective presentation.

It is the purpose of journalism to guide and guard the public interest. If we are indeed shown Mr. Jackson's side of Bashir's story, then it will be left to the public to decide which one to believe.

Between the two stories, it is the public that will be the ultimate judge of believability. Of course, if any criminal charges are brought against Mr. Jackson, the focus of believablity turns to the legal system, rather than journalism.

The press and other media in the United States has often been called the "fourth branch of government." Sometimes it's on target and at other times, it's just a bunch of claptrap. Like the Executive Branch, the Legislative Branch and the Judicial Branch, this so-called "fourth branch" is held accountable for its actions by a myriad of case law which dates back to our earliest days as a Republic.

So, Stinger, don't be too upset yet with Mr. Bashir. He was presenting his case to the court of public opinion, and I am delighted to know that Mr. Jackson will rightly get to present his.

The Onion's take.

Thanks sozo - "Is Bathed Nightly by Teletubbies."

William Henry

I wasn't suggesting Bashir was biased. I was actually suggesting that he has a self serving hidden agenda. That's a little different, and slightly more distasteful, than simply sharing his subjective opinions with us. I don't mind someone in the media having an opinion, in fact, it can be a refreshing change from the blandness of total impartiality on everything. What I do object to, is the dishonesty of creating an illusion of journalistic integrity, and factuality in the presentation of a story. Unfortunately, opinions are too often presented as fact. It's dangerous to blur the dividing line. That's were the confusion arises, and people start to believe everything they see or hear. In an ideal world, everyone will realize the difference. But this isn't an ideal world.

Bashir is now critical, or at least voicing concern about Jackson's lifestyle and role as a parent. But at the time he was with Jackson, he was effusive in his praise of Jackson's relationship with his kids. However, for some reason, Bashir's comments were left on the cutting room floor, prior to broadcast. Imagine if those comments had been left in the documentary. How would that have changed the overall tone of the documentary?

Bashir's honesty has to be in question? Either he was lying to Jackson in order to gain his trust, or he's lying to us, in order to make a better story. Which is it? He hasn't said. I doubt he will. If I can't trust him, how can I trust the content of his documentary? Of course, he could have changed his mind over time, but I don't think he's been making that point either.

The way in which you edit a newspaper or TV documentary etc, can distort the facts. It's not just words that can be twisted. Images can also be manipulated, and I don't mean with computer enhancement etc. It happens all the time. On a daily basis, viewers of TV shows, listerners of radio shows, and readers of newspapers and magazines, are subject to the whims and agendas of journalists and their editors. Often, Joe Public is blissfully unaware that they are seeing the world via the media, as others want them to see it, rather than having the luxuary of seeing the world, as it really exists.

This is just one high profile example of manipulation by the media. The way Michael Jackson lives in Neverland, is relatively unimportant in the bigger scheme of things, but isn't it interesting how people are quick to form opinions, based on what they see on a TV show. Even when they are not presented with the whole story - just opinions and eight months of recording, edited - in a selective and suspect manner - down into less than a couple of hours of footage.

Imagine if this same type of agenda creating / emotional manipulation was used by the news media on a rather more important story.....like a war for example. But of course, that would never happen....would it?

Propaganda involves the manipulation of emotions. The art of modern propaganda, has been around since the early 1900s. It was a nephew of Freud, that give the world 'Public Relations', and it's been with us ever since. It hasn't really changed that much. For as long as Joe Public is capable of emotional response, then propagandists, in all their forms, will be able to ply their trade. It's just a matter of knowing which buttons to push.

If you don't think it can effect you, bear in mind that governments use it all the time, even to get elected. Focus groups are just one by-product of this need to know how people think. What makes them tick. The data from focus groups is then used to shape policy, or alter presentation, in order to gain support, or votes. The men in suits, want to know how you 'feel' emotionally, since they can then use this knowledge, to press the right buttons. What do you desire? What are you afraid of? Etc etc etc....

From Michael Jackson, to government propaganda, all in one posting. Not bad. It might seem like a large leap, but in reality, it's all the same game.

Stinger<

Your posting re: propaganda, etc., is well-stated, but it misses the point.

The point it misses is that a diversity of media when observed by the public forces the "truth" to the surface, though it make some time in so doing.

The problem I have with your posting is that you seem to think the media is biased. If you see bias on a particular subject, then you have a myriad of other sources to which you can turn to validate your point of view.

This is one way the use of internet technology can help us all to be better informed. With a click of the "mouse," we can go to more news sources in an hour than in any previous time.

Do people actually "search out" differing opinions? Yes, millions do, including me. That's my responsibility as a citizen. We often shirk our civic responsibilites, but there are plenty of us -- left, middle, and right -- who use a First Amendment to insist that our voices be heard.

The fact that you did not like Mr. Bashir's voice is okay. You are entitled to your opinion, and A2k is a great place to express it.

William Henry

I don't think that the 'media' is biased. That's quite a generalisation!

However, sections of the media, and individuals within the media, are certainly biased. In fact, many do not even hide their bias. For example, certain newspapers, in various countries, are biased towards a particular political viewpoint, or political party. The content of each paper, is geared towards supporting a political viewpoint. While you have an optimistic view of human nature (Very commendable), it's actually been shown that people seek out newspapers that they agree with politically, and opt not to read papers with views they disagree with. The same can be said about individual stories. People tend to engage in their own personal censorship campaign. They prefer to reinforce the views that they already hold. The same is true for other forms of media. I suppose it's the same old story, we believe what we want to believe.

No matter how 'diverse' you think the media is, people are not always as open minded, as they perhaps should be! Once they find the 'facts' that suit their opinions, they tend to give up looking for any conflicting information. I'm not saying everybody does that, but alas, too many people do.

Don't even get me started on corporate owned media!

Stinger, I don't agree with you in general about Michael Jackson. But I must say your last post was excellent!

Michael Jackson has just created some sad clown-creature from a once really handsome young man. I guess you could say it's the drugs.

Michael needs help, but convince him of that! He could stay away from the media, he doesn't have to give interviews. The only thing he has left is the addiction to the media.

I feel so very very sorry for those kids.

I"m sick to death of hearing people say that this screwed up freak needs help. CRAP. The only thing he needs is to be locked up.

chatoyant

I'm glad to hear that you liked the post.

Everyone is free to have an opinion. So far, I still haven't made my mind up about Michael Jackson.

Maybe someday, it wil become clear that Jackson is an evil sex fiend, who preyed on kids. Until that day comes, I'm going to keep an open mind on the subject.

It's easy to make allegations. Anyone can do that. It's surprisingly common in fact, for false allegations to made against people. The motivations for doing so, are varied. Revenge and money, probably being two of the most common.

Has Jackson done anything criminal - ie, abuse children? The simple answer, is no. Until he appears before a judge and jury, where convincing 'prosecution evidence' can be presented, and a guilty verdict can be reached, Michael Jackson will continue to be an innocent man. People of course can have 'opinions', prior to a court case or a verdict, but it's only an opinion, not a proven fact.

At present, all we have, is 'trial by television', or 'trial by media'. It's not quite the same, as a trial in open court, where ALL the evidence can be presented in a proper forum. If you have ever been in a court, and watched a criminal case, you may understand that upon hearing one version of events, you may think it's a very convincing case for the defence / prosecution, and wonder how on earth the other side could possibly oppose these 'facts'. But then of course, in a court, both sides get to present their case, and cross- examine witnessess etc. At which point, holes can begin to appear in what may have previously seemed to be an air-tight case.

Trial by media, doesn't quite work like that! Numerous members of the jury in this case, have already passed judgement on the defendant. We still haven't even heard his full defence - what would have happened if he hadn't taped the interview as well as the TV crew?!

The only point I really want to make, is that we shouldn't rush to judgement, based on 'facts' from a TV show. Not when the allegations / charges are so serious. If your court system worked the same way as this 'trial by TV', you would be justified in feeling very concerned. A Stalinist show trial springs to mind.

If people REALLY believe in freedom, then they should want Michael Jackson to have the same rights that they would expect, if they are ever accused of wrongdoing.

Personally, I find this type of TV disturbing, and not in the same way that a lot of other people found this documentary to be disturbing!

Michael is more to be pitied than laughed at! He's a sick puppy and I hope someone has him under their care.

It doesn't matter to me what anyone is, but don't involve innocent children. The fact that MJ has so much money to lure anybody he wants is what has him where he is today.

It's so sad, but he would have been better off never having known success as he has, and becoming as rich as he is. This is one case scenario where a person would have been richly rewarded by being in a position to remain 'himself' .......... he was, (past tense) a good-looking young man, because he had the means, he has become a monster!

Tragic! He should be locked up!

Misti

When you use the word 'lure', are you suggesting Jackson had the intent to indulge in improper / criminal behaviour , with those that he allegedly lured?

I would simply say again, that we have no evidence to prove wrongdoing, or that he lured anyone. He has not been convicted of anything. Innocent until proven guilty.

But I do agree that the whole situation is sad. However, what part has the world's media, and we the general public, played in creating the 'tragic' spectacle?

Yep, money and playgrounds like Never-Never Land are the biggest lure for children.

I have yet to see MJ act/speak as an adult! When he speaks, it's as if his words are coming from Never Never Land, instead of a conscious, intelligent adult.

He is, was and always will be, a child who refuses to grow up.

Stinger, I don't think the media or the public have created anything. Michael Jackson used his talent to become very wealthy. There's nothing wrong with that. But he used his wealth to try to buy an eternal childhood for himself. He loves children because in his mind he is one. However, chrnologically he is a middle-aged man with responsibilities to his children and those around him. It's obvious that MJ is very disturbed. I think that was obvious before this interview, and now it has become more so. I'm not passing judgment, I'm just stating what I've seen right in front of me.

Michael Jackson created the king of pop, he chose what to do with his fame and fortune which is, as you put it, to become a "tragic spectacle."

Chatoyant

It's not just Michael Jackson that got rich from his talent. Record companies, producers, agents, lawyers, accountants etc etc etc....tend to do rather nicely from people like Jackson. The music business is known for it's propensity to make money, while the 'talent', often gets by on relatively little. Jackson is one of the lucky exceptions, who hit it big....financially speaking. But while he made money, so did others around him.

From an early age, he wasn't just a kid that had a great musical ability, he was also a money making machine, and a lot of people undoubtably made sure that he made as much money as possible. In the long term, Jackson may have made a lot of money, but so did other people within the music business. They helped create the situation that we see now. What did they do to protect a kid called Michael? Did they make sure he was having a proper childhood? (You can include his dad in that as well.) What was their priority?

Then of course, there is all the other elements of the 'media', that cash in on artists. The 'news media' (Although in the world of tabloid journalisim, the word 'news', can mean many things) being one of them. The fact is that stories on people like Jackson, can help sell newspapers or magazines, or attract viewers. Princess Diana being another example of a person that shifts extra copies of a publication, when her face appeared on the cover. That's why Bashir made his documentary about Jackson, instead of Joe Nobody! He saw a potential market, and gave the people what they wanted.

Why do they print stories or make the documentaries about Michael Jackson, or people like him? It's because Joe Public buys the papers, and watches the documentaries? The media is not always as altruistic, as we perhaps like to think. It's a business. It has to make money to survive. Attract good ratings, or large readerships, in order to sell advertising space. If a TV network thought that a tapdancing pig wearing a floral dress, would attract more viewers every week, than an episode of 'Friends', then the pig would become a weekly primetime TV attraction for the viewing masses!

So basically, the music business, and those connected to it, saw an opportunity to make money from the talents of a young black kid. and proceeded to exploit him. (Before anyone comments - The fact that he made money in the process, doesn't mean that he wasn't used. Prostitutes make money too. Does that mean pimps are not exploiting women?) The media in general, jumped on the bandwagon, and saw an opportunity to sell papers, or attract viewers. We the public, created the demand, not just for Jackson's music, but all the sensationalist stories, and the media were only too happy to supply them.

Somewhere along the line, the kid was, to put it simply, screwed up, due to his unnatural childhood, and abnormal life in general. The public created the demand, and the media supplied. Lost in the middle, was a little kid who could sing and dance.

The story of Michael Jackson is just one example of what is wrong in modern society. The cult of showbiz personality, is on the rise. People now worship at their TV altars, absorbing the latest gossip. Which of course, means they are distracted from what is going on in the real world.

While the masses are hooked on the modern day 'opium of the people', they are less inclined to interfere in the running of their country, or asking awkward questions about how the system works to their disadvantage! Let's leave the difficult stuff like politics and commerce, to honest politicians, and companies like Enron! They have our best interests at heart, so there's no need to keep our eye on the ball. Let's watch Jerry Springer instead.

I agree that a lot of people have benefitted monetarily because of Jackson and that he's been exploited as much, if not more, than any famous person I can think of.

One of the things that troubles me is that he must know he's a role model for many young and maybe not-so-young people out there. He claims he loves children, but he is such a freak and a liar. I could name a few things here, but do you believe he's only had plastic surgery twice - both times on his nose? That's just the beginning. And I do feel very sorry for his own children.

I don't watch Jerry Springer type shows. I'm trying to think why I did watch the Jackson interview. For one thing, I've always liked his music and dancing. Another reason is that it was something different. I know there are much more important things going on in the world today, but sometimes I just want to hear about something else.

I'm sure I could be doing better things with my time than discussing Michael Jackson, but I have enjoyed reading peoples views on the interview. And I think your views on the media are right on and very well written, Stinger.

The continuing saga of poor Michael Jackson continues Monday, Feb. 17, with NBC's Dateline expose of Mr. Jackson's plastic surgeries.

Mr. Jackson will present his side of his story on FOXnews Thursday, Feb. 20. This presentation will rebut Mr. Bashir's original documentary on ABC.

I would suggest to Stinger that he keep his television unplugged on the 17th and on the 20th. If he chooses not to, then I suggest he have his Valium refilled.

I predict those of us on this thread will be seeing more long-winded posts next week from "the top left corner of Europe."