Did the Media Mediate Abuse Case Against Michael Jackson?

Over the past two years, much hubbub has been made regarding entertainer Michael Jackson and his propensity of having children unrelated to him sleep in his bedroom. This is not meant to be a debate as to the perceived appropriateness or inappropriateness of the practice, nor is it an examination per se of the mechanics surrounding it. This is instead a look at the role the media has played in assisting with the creation of the molestation charges for which Jackson is currently on trial.

Recalling the firestorm of negative publicity that the documentary "Living with Michael Jackson" generated in February 2003, one is almost left to wonder if the over-the-top reaction to the program was at all intentionally calculated. Of course, this is all merely speculation at this point. However, in retrospect, was the "storm" intentional?

Although the documentary was largely sympathetic towards Jackson, and many felt the pop star had been exploited by its brooding creator Martin Bashir, very little discussion went into the disingenuous tactics used by the interviewer to get Jackson to open up and speak candidly. The unexpected dark turn of the program was signaled by way of dramatic music and voiceovers by Bashir, who said he found aspects of the entertainer and his life to be "disturbing," particularly Jackson's fondness for children.

Before the program had made its westward cross over the Atlantic, the media was already abuzz over statements Jackson had made in regards to sharing his bed with children unrelated to him. As if on cue, self-described "civil rights/victim's rights advocate" Gloria Allred called a press conference, as usual, to ask Santa Barbara authorities to look into Jackson's fitness as a parent and investigate statements he made about having children in his bedroom.

Looking to capitalize on the furor that had erupted, VH-1 and ABC secured the rights to air the scandalous U.K.-produced piece for America's consumption. Thanks in large part to the likes of Allred and her cohorts, ABC, who managed to get VH-1 to hold off on broadcasting the program first, didn't need to do much by way of promotion. The publicity was already there.

That's not to say the network did nothing to promote the highly anticipated program. The day before and day of the special's broadcast, "Good Morning America" placed an inordinate amount of emphasis on Jackson's children, whether his behavior around them constituted child abuse, his finances and spending habits, and how the Bashir program could impact his music career.

On February 6, 2003, the day of the broadcast, the Santa Barbara District Attorney's Office put out a release in response to what they called "widespread public interest" relating to the Bashir special. Recalling the 1993 investigation into abuse allegations against the music legend, the District Attorney stated that the Sheriff's Department would record the broadcast, and review it.

It was further stated that though Jackson's admission was disconcerting, "mental leaps of misbehavior" by the media "are not acceptable as legal substitutes for credible, cooperative victims or percipient witnesses." This statement was immediately followed by a call out for any potential "victims" or "anyone who...has credible evidence" of a crime committed by Jackson.

District Attorney Thomas Sneddon was watching and so was the rest of America.

Bashir's program featured the "journalist" finding his interview of Jackson and his future accuser to be "the most disturbing moment" of the eight months he spent filming Jackson on and off. Though Jackson emphasized twice within the heavily condensed program that he allowed the cancer-survivor and his brother to have his bed while he stayed on the floor, it did absolutely nothing to quell the media onslaught.

Meanwhile, the Jackson camp struggled to derail the runaway train that was dragging the singer's name across hot coals and broken glass. Statement after statement was released to counteract the innuendo and speculation regarding Jackson and the boy in the special, but it seemed as though they were light years away from balancing out the coverage.

A 1993 affidavit of Jackson's first accuser was soon leaked to the Internet. A cast of familiar characters from that situation suddenly reappeared, Diane Dimond included. ABC's Charles Gibson asked if authorities should be talking to the boy, who was seen clutching onto Jackson's hand in the program.

Along the way came "media psychiatrist" Dr. Carole Lieberman, who lodged a complaint against Jackson with both Los Angeles and Santa Barbara County child protection agencies on February 11, 2003. Like Allred, her request to have Jackson's three young children removed from his custody following the balcony incident in Germany had been "closed" with no action taken against the superstar.

Her latest complaint included a "psychological analysis" of the Bashir documentary, which was to serve as evidence as to why Jackson should be investigated. Among several matters subjected to her psychobabble, Lieberman wrote that in her estimation, "there was an unmistakable sense that something sexual had occurred with [the boy], as evidenced by his body language and submissive demeanor towards Michael." This letter would turn out to be one among others that would launch probes into accusations of purported misconduct.

On the money side, Jackson proved to be a ratings and sweeps bonanza. The major networks subsequently sought to capitalize off the wave. ABC rebroadcast the infamous program and dedicated a special to Jackson's plastic surgeries, while FOX showed Jackson's rebuttal to the Bashir piece. NBC, who lost its bid to showcase the rebuttal, also dedicated an expanded "Dateline" to Jackson's face. CBS was the only network without a special, the interview they were to have of the singer scrapped at the last minute.

The scandal eventually subsided only to return in November 2003, when Santa Barbara law enforcement raided Jackson's Neverland Valley Ranch. Within hours, it was learned that the boy included in the controversial program nine months earlier was at the center of new child molestation allegations against Jackson.

Media Mediated?

As the February 2003 events transpired with much media fanfare, Michael Jackson himself seemed to be missing in action. Jackson had been in Miami when the Bashir documentary was broadcast in both the United Kingdom and the United States. The airdates were respectively February 3 and February 6, 2003.

At the time, British reporters managed to track down the boy and his family. One media account has it that the mother of the boy in question had granted an interview with Los Angeles-based David Gardner of London's Daily Mail. During the talk, which was conducted on February 4, 2003, she lavished Jackson with praise.

It was the following day, February 5, when contact was reestablished between Jackson and the family. Prior to the broadcast of the Bashir documentary in the United States, the family was flown down to Miami to meet up with Jackson. They arrived in Florida in the early morning hours of February 6, and returned to California the following day without allegedly watching the Bashir program. Reasons as to why the reconnect and the trip were made have thus far been conflicting.

The family reportedly stayed at Neverland, with occasional periods of absence, between February 7 and March 12, 2003, their purported last day at the ranch. It was at this time that the boy and his family say Jackson molested the teenager, plied him with alcohol, and abducted, falsely imprisoned, and extorted the lot of them.

Bizarre enough? Between this time period, it is a fact that the family continued to laud Jackson and all they say he had done for them to anybody willing to listen. This, of course, was while the media was going hog wild with speculation that Jackson had already molested the kid.

In order to understand this, it must be pointed out that the segment for the Bashir documentary, which included the boy, was filmed at Neverland in November 2002. As per the current allegations, there had been nothing going on between Jackson and the boy at that point in time.

It would be interesting to know how Dr. Lieberman feels about this proclamation of abuse now, considering she helped instigate this drama. According to her "analysis" of the boy's behavior in the special, "something sexual" had already transpired between Jackson and his houseguest. Not so, the boy says.

He's instead alleging that Jackson began molesting him in the middle of the firestorm that had recalled past allegations of abuse, and while knowing that District Attorney Sneddon was once again investigating him. There's also the fact that child protection agencies in both Los Angeles and Santa Barbara were looking into the matter, a criminal attorney was then on hand on Jackson's behalf, and his camp was attempting to spur the negative attention he was receiving in the press.

This is the moment that the accusing family and Santa Barbara prosecutors say Jackson figured he'd start sexually exploiting a child he was told he helped beat cancer three years earlier.

Not ones to address the obvious, the media and its talking heads focused on the extraordinary allegations being made by the boy and his family. From the moment pieces of their confusing tales of sex, booze, and videotape hit the press, it had been fairly obvious to the silenced and oft-dismissed majority that there was more than something wrong with the case, and something even worse behind the motivations of those pursing and perpetuating it.

Excuse after excuse continues to be made for the accusing family. They're poor and disenfranchised. The boy has one kidney. Mother reads the Bible and was abused, so she deserves sympathy. Though she went to a civil attorney, who she can't possibly afford, that isn't evidence that she wants Jackson's money. Even though they're dysfunctional and the mother has allegedly used her children to support her past false claims, that doesn't mean her son is lying about being molested.

Then there's the latest tactic of invoking the 1993 case when all else fails. One expert after another comes along to claim that children never lie about being molested. People who would otherwise be considered "intelligent," would parrot this misconception without giving it a second thought. How quickly, it seems, that one chooses to forget the McMartin case, where it was determined that the children in that matter were lying about their abuse.

Reminder to the media: accusations do not equal truth.

Jackson, up until the start of his media-mediated trial, hasn't been given the benefit of the doubt. In the eyes of those rambling in front of the camera and pulling the strings in the background, Michael Jackson is guilty as charged. There has never been any real questions regarding the family's motives, nor has there been inquiries as to District Attorney Sneddon's pursuance of this "case," beyond those raised by Geraldo Rivera and other voices that have intentionally been suppressed from the public.

Has anybody even asked why it is that the accuser's mother allegedly allowed her sons to go on an unsupervised dining and shopping spree with a KTTV-TV reporter in January 2004, during a time when the family was claiming to be harassed? Is anyone even aware of this trip at all, where video games and the like were reportedly purchased for the two children? What's the motivation here?

Public revelations and victories for Jackson barely receive coverage, if any, while the prosecution's theory, which has sensible observers going around in circles, gets massive exposure. Fair and balanced? Reporter objectivity?

District Attorney Sneddon and his posse have used many ways to explain their case against Jackson, yet no matter the angle, they are still marred by levels of implausibility that they have yet to shake. First, Jackson conspired and instructed his people to kidnap and send the family to Brazil to keep them from informing the press and authorities of their allegations. Then it became Jackson kidnapped and coerced the family into speaking kindly of him, so he could use their words to resuscitate his image and his finances. Or is this one and the same?

It is then, and only then, they say, that Jackson decided to molest his accuser.

The State has yet to provide an explanation as to how it is that the mother was allegedly selling her kind words about Jackson before she and her family, they now claim, were kidnapped and forced into speaking kindly of him in several statements, both recorded and written. Santa Barbara authorities also have yet to explain why it is that Jackson molested the teen during the period he's alleged to have done it, and then goes on to distance himself from the family without making an attempt to monetarily placate them against later accusations.

To quote Rivera, had this been a Jackson Michael, this case wouldn't have seen the light of day.

As for the question relating to whether this "case" and its preceding "storm" was intentionally set and pursued, that answer will undoubtedly be provided as the Jackson trial unfolds. The first week alone has revealed more than anticipated, with Jackson's defense team taking over the game and dismantling on cross-examination two key prosecution witnesses, one of who was the accuser's sister.

This resulted in a blackout on discussions of Jackson's case, typical that is, being that that has been the situation since November 2003 whenever anything comes along and dents the image the press has doggedly pushed out there of Michael Jackson.

In any event, it is only a matter of time before it is fully revealed the role the media and other interested parties have played in seeing these allegations against Michael Jackson come to fruition.