"With the world still in disbelief at the death of Michael Jackson, tonight Richard Wilkins hosts a special presentation that focuses on the controversy that plagued his life."
Even though reading the guide listing it says that the presentation focuses on the "controversy" in Jackson's life i would have thought that they would have atleast presented it in a way that focused on what the tabloids had been saying about MJ and then providing the real facts to dispute these claims. Instead, what this documentary did, was to fuel all the rumours that the tabloids we're reporting prior to his death and for the past 10 years or more. On top of that they we're claiming in it that Michael Jackson was creating this wacko Jacko image of his to hide his real persona. That persona they hint as being a child molester. To top all that Richard Wilkins didn't even host the show. It was a documentary by journalist Jacques Peretti.
Now i had to turn it off after about 20 mins cause i didn't want this show to cloud any of the facts i had been reading about for the past few days. I have also found discussion about this documentary on some forums. Here is an intersting post i've read.
From: http://forums.digiguide.com/topic.asp?id=22305
diirii Thursday, October 25, 2007 - 21:44   |  Quote(IP Logged) |
Love Michael Jackson or loathe him, this documentary was the most inaccurate and one-sided account of Michael Jackson's life and tribulations to date. Had the network or producers spent just 15 minutes researching the subject matter discussed within the documentary, they would've been able to factually disprove most of it and seriously question the rest. Shame on Channel 4 for airing such a fabricated and unverified special.
What this documentary did not tell its viewers was that the man with the most graphic "dirt" on Jackson (Victor Gutierrez) was sued by Michael Jackson in the mid-1990's for libel and slander relating to sexual allegations he could not prove, and was found by the judge and jury to have falsely created and disseminated stories in the media in attempts of ruining Michael Jackson's reputation. Victor Gutierrez was ordered to pay $2.7 million dollars to Michael Jackson for damages, but fled the country instead and still owes Jackson that amount. Diane Dimond was also part of this lawsuit, and again she could not prove the claims alleged and was found to have lied about various aspects of it, but was eventually excused from the suit because of "journalistic" reasons. Diane Dimond was also the one who claimed that the 2003 accuser's DNA evidence was found amongst other claims, when it really was not.
Likewise, the documentary failed to mention that when Bob Jones testified under oath in 2005, he admitted that many of the stories he wrote about in his book (after being fired) were sensationalized and he could not recall even writing most of them, let alone the events that they described. he admitted that he was running low on money and he had no sordid tales to tell while under oath. His testimony did nothing to help the prosecution and only bolstered the claims by the defense.
The other biographer interviewed in this special is the same person who claimed last year (based on a tabloid report) that Michael Jackson was near death after a drug overdose and that there would be an emergency family intervention (an allegation the family has denied), and then just a day or two later Michael Jackson made a public appearance and was just fine. He's another one who's made his life and career off of Michael Jackson, even the other few biographies he's written somehow tie Michael Jackson's name into the story.
Everyone interviewed in this documentary had an axe to grind or otherwise have made their lives off of creating and discussing stories about Michael Jackson. That much is obvious.
Michael Jackson was not booed at the World Music Awards, several other artists were as the crowd awaited Michael Jackson. This, again, can be proved immediately by watching any of the recordings of the special on YouTube or television.
The picture of Jackson allegedly dressed as a woman was confirmed false and the paper that published the pictures issued a retraction.
The memorabilia auction was apposed by the Jackson family and Michael/Janet Jackson even filed a lawsuit against the agency in attempts of getting the auction stopped. Prior to the auction, dozens of the most valuable items were removed per court order, and none of it was endorsed by the Jacksons.
The 1993 civil settlement does look BAD for ALL parties. If my child was molested, I would not be accepting any monetary damages until the molester was locked away. The civil settlement did not prohibit the child from taking Michael Jackson to criminal court, in fact the DA gave him years to do just that. Grand juries heard the evidence in 1994 but did found it lacked merit and did not indict. Jordan Chandler was offered the chance to testify in 2005 and again he did not. Why not?
Unlike the documentary, everything I just mentioned in this post is factual and can be verified in a matter of minutes.
Edited by diirii on Thursday, October 25, 2007 - 21:45
1 comment:
Hello from Canada and thanks for this post. Glad I found it.
Last night CBC, Canada's
supposedly national network, ran this documentary on their doc series, "The Passionate Eye." I am sure this has aired previously, but I only caught it last night, and I have to say, I was really dismayed at CBC's lack of judgement in airing this piece of tabloid trash. Right after I finish this comment, I'm going to be writing to CBC to express my opinion, because someone has to. Did no one at CBC vet this before airing it?
I am not one of those rabidly fanatical fans you read about, but I do enjoy Michael's music, have always admired his extraodinary talent, and from all I have ever seen and read over the years, truly believe this man has never been given a fair shake by the media.
There must be something in the human psyche that pathologically wants to destroy the bright, the beautiful and the gifted. This so-called documentary is just another example of lurid tabloid journalism posing as investigative reporting. (One big laugh-out-loud moment comes when Peretti actually refers to Diane as "Di" - my, how chummy we are.)
The looming question remains, will Michael ever get the respect he is due? In the cosmic scheme of just retribution, if such a thing could ever exist, there is one massive apology owed this man.
I am still shaking with fury when I think of how the film was so unctuously crafted not to reveal "truth" as it claims but to put forth a constructed truth: note the words selected, the narrative tone, his intonation and emphasis on certain phrases, the material omitted, the people he chose to interview ... this list could go on and on and ... you know this all too well ...
Sadly, most people do not analyse what they hear or read. They just
inhale it all as truth. And that is
probably the most irresponsible aspect of CBC's decision to air this. This "junk journalism" then gets recycled, over and over, until it becomes accepted knowledge.
Like the generally accepted opinion that he did nothing great after Thriller or Bad. Evidently, they did not listen to some of his later work, which included some interesting collaborations, a return to some great old R&B, and lyrics about larger issues - pieces clearly more nuanced than the early disco-influenced material. Michael grew as an artist, actually. But no one ever acknowledges that. The trite, lazy-thinking comparison is always made to Thriller.
So I hope that as you put together your book you can expose some real truths, like the fanatical agendas of the people who were determined to tear him down at any cost. This Peretti film needs to be analytically dissected frame for frame and exposed.
Best wishes for your book.
Post a Comment