Summary and Analysis of Martin Bashir’s Testimony from the 2005 Trial, Part 2 of 2
Now, let’s look at the case the prosecution made for the admittance of the Bashir documentary as evidence in their MOTION FOR ADMISSION OF MARTIN BASHIR’S DOCUMENTARY “LIVING WITH MICHAEL JACKSON” AS EVIDENCE OF DEFENDANT’S MOTIVE AND INTENT IN CONSPIRING WITH OTHERS TO COMMIT THE CRIMES ALLEGED IN COUNT ONE OF THE INDICTMENT. In a nutshell, the prosecution wanted to show the jurors the documentary – and not the British version, but the American version, which had additional commentary from Bashir and Barbara Walters – in order to show MJ’s motive to engage in a conspiracy to hold the Arvizos hostage at Neverland. Here is an excerpt from page 33:
C. Statements Admitted For Non-Hearsay Purpose
Evidence of defendant’s motive to engage in a conspiracy is surely relevant in this case. The broadcast of “Living with Michael Jackson” and the critical running commentary of Bashir and Barbara Walters provoked distress and the felt need to mitigate the damage done to Jackson’s reputation and to limit further adverse commentary.
Motive may be proved by competent evidence when motive is relevant to the jury’s consideration of the defendant’s guilt or innocence.
Many of the statements by Jackson and all of the statements of others, in “Living with Michael Jackson” and in the commentary on 20/20 concerning the documentary would be hearsay if offered for the truth of the matters stated. (Evld. Code, § 1220, subd. (a).)
With the exceptions noted above for admissions, nothing that was said by anyone in “Living with Michael Jackson” or in commenting upon it in the “20/20″ rebroadcasts will be offered for the truth of the matter asserted.
If a given statement is otherwise relevant and it is not offered for the truth of the matter asserted, it is not “hearsay” and is admissible. An out-of-court statement is properly admitted if a non-hearsay purpose for admitting the statement is identified, and the non-hearsay purpose is relevant to an issue in dispute. [Citations.]” (People v. Turner (1994) 8 CaL4th 137, 189.)
Here is an excerpt from the PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR ADMISSION OF CERTAIN STATEMENTS BY DEFENDANT ON “LIVING WITH MICHAEL JACKSON” AND “60 MINUTES” AS EXCEPTIONS TO THE HEARSAY RULE, page 43:
Evidence Code section 1220 provides, in. pertinent part: “Evidence of a statement is not made inadmissible by the hearsay rule when offered against the declarant in an action in which he is a party ” CaUTC 2.71 instructs the jury that “An admission is a statement made by the defendant which does not by itself acknowledge his guilt of the crimes for which the defendant is on trial, but which statement tends to prove his guilt when considered with the rest of the evidence.”
Defendant’s admissions include his acknowledgement that the Doe brothers shared his room with him for night. The Doe brothers agree this statement is true as to the first night they stayed at Neverland back in 2000. At that time the brothers slept in the bed and Defendant slept on the floor. As to all of the nights in February and March of 2003, where the defendant and the two brothers were all present at Neverland at the same time, they shared the same bed until James Doe witnessed the first act of molestation and then sought residence elsewhere. Thereafter Defendant slept with John Doe only. Defendant’s admission that he shared the room with the boys is admissible in that it establishes that the John and James Doe were in an intimate setting with the defendant when they said they were.
Defendant’s statement that he has slept with many boys is admissible as corroboration of the Doe brother’s allegation that he slept with them. Certainly the admission that he has slept with many boys clearly shows his willingness to sleep with boys, his acknowledgement that that type of conduct as permissible and even appropriate, and as evidence of his intent to continue to share his bed with children.
Did you guys notice the intellectual fallacy that Sneddon used in that excerpt? He intentionally quoted Jackson’s use of the words “sleep” and “share” out of context in order to confuse and prejudice the jury, and that falls under the fallacy of equivocation, which means to “deliberately use words in a different sense than the one the audience will understand”. (We discussed this fallacy in this post.)
Sneddon inferred that the words “sleep” and “share” had a sexual connotation, and he conveniently substituted the word “boys” for “children”. Here is the actual transcript of what MJ told Bashir in the documentary:
Bashir: Did you ever sleep in the bed with them?
Jackson: No. But I have slept in a bed with many children. I slept in the bed with all of them. When Macauley Culkin was little, Kieran Culkln would sleep on this side, Macauley Culkin was on this side, his sisters in there. We all would just jam in the bed. And we’d wake up like dawn and go in the hot air balloon. You know, we have the footage. I have all that footage!
Notice how he said he slept in the bed with many CHILDREN, NOT BOYS! And there was no sexual connotation whatsoever with his statement! If there was, would he be so willing to show Bashir (and the world) the footage that he offered?
Now, on beginning on page 59, Sneddon makes the case for Bashir to be forced to testify about what he knows about MJ’s so-called “relationships with young boys” in his REQUEST FOR ATTENDANCE OF OUT OF STATE WITNESS, MARTIN BASHIR:
Martin Bashir is a reporter who lived and traveled with Michael Jackson for about seven months for the purpose of producing a documentary about his life. The documentary titled “Living with Michael Jackson” aired in England and in the United States in February 2003.
Bashir narrated the documentary and frequently commented on Mr. Jackson’s relationship -with children. He found particularly worrisome Jackson’s practice of sleeping in the same room with children, often in the same bed.
Conversations with the Defendant concerning his sleeping arrangement with children, and particularly with the victim of the current case, are clearly material, relevant and necessary to the prosecution in Santa Barbara County.
It is believed that Mr. Bashir had numerous conversations with Mr. Jackson about his relationship with young boys, and with the victim in particular. The documentary ”Living with Michael Jackson” as presented is less than two hours in length, meaning seven months of interviews and film were substantially edited. Mr. Bashir is a necessary witness to establishing the foundation for the admissibility of the documentary. He will also clarify the extent to which the documentary was edited and whether or not the statements were presented out of context.
Of course those statements were taken out of context! And it’s ironic that Sneddon would ask that, considering that he’s the one who is presenting them out of context to the court and jury!
On pages 65-90, Bashir’s lawyer Theodore Boutrous makes the case for Bashir to not be called to testify. I’ll spare you all of the boring details, especially in light of the fact that Bashir’s request was denied and he testified, but I’ll give you an excerpt of his declaration:
9. In July 2004, I left Granada Television to become a correspondent for ABC News and its 20/20 program. As part of my responsibilities, I will be reporting on the upcoming criminal trial of Michael Jackson and related matters.
10. I believe that if I am called as witness in this case, it will significantly interfere with my ability to gather and disseminate information to the public about this case. I also believe that it would create the false impression that I have been and am an arm of the prosecution, casting doubt not only on my future journalistic activities, but raising questions about my past work as well. For a journalist to pursue his work, he cannot be perceived as an agent of either the prosecution or the defense.
Typical Bashir! Only showing concern for his own worthless career, and no concern whatsoever for Jackson’s career or life! He claims that he doesn’t want to create the “false impression” that he’s an arm of the prosecution, but had no problem airing his second hit piece “MJ’s Secret World” just before the start of the trial! (The link to my rebuttal to that piece of trash is at the end of this post.) If he really cared about MJ, and felt remorse for his actions, he would have jumped through hoops to testify that “he never saw any wrongdoing”, just as he claimed on the day that MJ died!
On page 179, the ruling of the Broadcasting Standards Commission that upheld a complaint of unjust and unfair treatment against Bashir. Here is a copy of their ruling:
Here is what Bashir had to say about it under oath:
1 Q. Do you consider yourself to be a
2 professional journalist because you’re educated in
3 the world of journalism.
4 A. My academic studies were not in journalism.
5 They were in the arts and humanities. So I don’t
6 have a formal qualification, if that’s what you’re
7 asking, sir, but I have the experience that comes
8 with working in the profession.
9 Q. Now, as a journalist in England, you are
10 regulated by a certain administrative agency,
12 A. Could you repeat the question.
13 Q. Sure. Is there an organization or an
14 administrative agency that goes by a title somewhat
15 like British Broadcasting Standards Board.
16 A. There is an organization called the
17 Broadcasting Complaints Commission. Would you be
18 referring to that.
19 Q. I think I am. Do you work with that
20 organization in any capacity.
21 A. That organization doesn’t employ
23 Q. Have you been sanctioned by that
25 A. Could you repeat the question.
26 Q. Have you been sanctioned by that
28 A. By the Broadcasting Complaints Commission. 235
1 Q. Yes.
2 A. The answer to that question is, three
3 complaints were made against me. Two of the key
4 complaints were entirely rejected, and they were to
5 do with balance and fairness. One of the three was
6 upheld. This is — sir, just so I can explain so
7 people understand, because they –
8 Q. Certainly.
9 A. — because they may not understand.
10 The Broadcasting Standards Commission is not
11 a legal body, and it has no particular merit in a
12 legal setting.
13 Q. Nevertheless, a complaint against you as a
14 journalist was upheld, true.
15 A. As I said, sir, three complaints were made.
16 The two key complaints were entirely rejected. One
17 complaint was upheld of the three.
18 Q. Let’s talk about the one that was upheld,
19 sir. There was a complaint against you that was
20 upheld by that agency, correct.
21 A. There was, sir, yes.
22 Q. And what did they complain about, Mr.
24 A. The complaint related to — to what — to
25 what — to how I described what I was doing with the
26 story that I was working on.
27 Q. And what were you doing, Mr. Bashir.
28 A. I was doing journalism. 236
1 Q. Could you put a little teeth on that and
2 just tell the jury what we’re talking about.
3 A. In relation to?
4 Q. You don’t know what we’re talking about.
5 A. Do you mean the specific program. Sorry, I
6 don’t know whether — sorry, I apologize. Are you
7 asking me about the complaint, or are you asking me
8 about the story, the reporting that I was doing.
9 Q. Why don’t you tell the jury about both.
10 MR. BOUTROUS: Your Honor, I’m going to
11 object. Mr. Mesereau is now inquiring about
12 unpublished information or unbroadcast information
13 about another matter. Same objection.
14 THE COURT: Well, it’s a compound question.
16 MR. MESEREAU: Okay.
17 Q. Please describe for the jury the subject
18 matter of the complaint you just identified, Mr.
20 A. The story was about a teenaged prodigy, a
21 mathematics genius, who had run away from
22 university, had legally emancipated herself from her
23 family. And the story was to describe what had
24 happened from both sides.
25 Q. You were accused of misrepresentations,
27 A. No, that’s incorrect.
28 Q. You were not accused of misrepresenting 237
1 anything in that complaint.
2 A. I was accused of unfairness, which was
3 entirely rejected. I was accused of breaching an
4 agreement, which was entirely rejected. I was
5 accused of not representing the entirety of what I
6 was doing with that broadcast to one of the
8 Q. Kind of what you’ve been accused of here,
10 MR. BOUTROUS: Objection.
11 MR. SNEDDON: Argumentative, Your Honor.
12 THE COURT: Sustained.
Here is the story of Bashir’s unethical tactics which got him sanctioned:
BBC NEWS | Entertainment | Bashir rapped over prodigy interview
TV journalist Martin Bashir, who made the controversial Living with Michael Jackson documentary, has been reprimanded over an interview he conducted with the father of a child genius.
Farooq Yusof complained to the Broadcasting Standards Commission (BSC) over a programme fronted by Bashir about his daughter Sufiah and her relationship with her family.
Sufiah hit the headlines when, at the age of 15, she ran away from Oxford University where she was studying for a masters degree in maths.
She was found safe and well after two weeks and Bashir was the first journalist to gain an interview with the family, although they had not been reunited at that point.
The Media Guardian website reports that Mr Yusof told a BSC hearing that Bashir had promised to give him information about the whereabouts of his daughter in return for an interview.
The BSC upheld a complaint about the way the interview with Mr Yusof was obtained.
It ruled that Bashir and the Tonight with Trevor McDonald team misled Mr Yusof about the nature of the programme so that he would agree to be interviewed.
But the BSC dismissed two further complaints that he had been denied a promised opportunity to view the programme before transmission and that it was biased in favour of his daughter.
Bashir’s documentary about the life of Michael Jackson, in which he was given permission to follow the star over an eight month period, is also subject to a complaint.
The US singer complained to the BSC saying that he was misrepresented in the documentary after commentary from Bashir said his Neverland ranch was a “dangerous place” for children.
He has submitted his own footage to the commission in an attempt to prove his point.
Jackson said the Granada programme was a “travesty of truth” but the TV company is standing by Bashir.
That complaint is currently “on hold” pending the outcome of legal action started by the singer against Bashir and Granada Television.
Later on during his cross-examination of Bashir, Mesereau got pretty angry, and wanted to have Bashir’s testimony and his documentary stricken from evidence! But unfortunately his request was denied:
21 Q. And how many hours of footage did you obtain
22 during the time you spent with Mr. Jackson.
23 MR. BOUTROUS: Objection, Your Honor.
24 Unpublished information, covered by the shield law
25 and the First Amendment.
26 THE COURT: The objection is overruled.
27 Do you wish to answer.
28 THE WITNESS: No, I don’t. 238
1 THE COURT: Next question.
2 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: You don’t know at all.
3 Can’t even estimate.
4 THE COURT: He doesn’t –
5 THE WITNESS: That’s not what I wish to
7 THE COURT: He chose not to answer.
8 MR. MESEREAU: Your Honor, I would move that
9 the entire testimony be stricken and the
10 prosecution’s evidence be stricken.
11 THE COURT: That’s denied.
12 MR. MESEREAU: I would ask for contempt,
13 Your Honor.
14 THE COURT: The procedure that I’m going to
15 follow I already outlined.
16 MR. MESEREAU: Okay. Okay. For the record,
17 Your Honor, could I have a running objection if he
18 refuses to answer a question, or shall I make my
19 request each time.
20 THE COURT: No, you don’t need to do that.
21 Let me just understand what we’re having a running
22 record about.
23 MR. MESEREAU: Yes.
24 THE COURT: If he — if his attorney objects,
25 and he declines to answer based on his attorney’s
26 advice, I will review that question for contempt
27 proceedings without further necessity on your part
28 to request that. Your motion to strike his entire 239
1 testimony and evidence is denied.
On pages 181-185, a transcript of an online chat that Bashir had with viewers is included, and as you read it you’ll see the pure audacity, temerity, and all out gall that Bashir displayed as he utterly refused to show any remorse or contrition for what he had done to MJ!
Online Chat with Martin Bashir
2/12/03 12:08pm PST
Alastair Coyles, Finvoy: was it your most interesting interview ever?
Martin Bashir replies: What was special was that it wasn’t just an interview – il was an observational documentary and very challenging. I have an innate curiosity about people. Each story we approach in the same way with curiosity and interest and determination to get behind the image. It was a challenging experience and I’m looking forward to a break.
Damian Kuti, Bristol: Do you think Michael Jackson can recover from this interview?
Martin Bashir replies: It wasn’t a traumatic experience. Press coverage has been difficult for him. If concerns are expressed about the way he behaves with children and if it makes him careful in the future then that’s a good thing. I’m sure he’ll bounce back, he’s a talented musician, he continues to make songs and he wants to get into the movie industry, and I don’t think his life has been in any way disfigured by the film. The film did disclose some difficult facts.
Samantha Delancy: Did you get to see Michael’s children without their masks on?
Martin Bashir replies: Yes. On a number of occasions and I got on really well with them. They are lovely children. When we were in Berlin, Prince, his 5 year old son, challenged me to a water gun fight. We raced around this huge suite and had a fantastic water pistol fight and I beat him. They don’t wear their masks at home and in controlled surroundings. One of the things that we did, he was very concerned about his children potentially being kidnapped or attacked and that’s why they were covered up. When he went to Berlin zoo there were 200 photographers. We never showed their faces because he was so concerned about the matter.
Martijn Ubink, the Netherlands: Is there ever going to be a chance to see the parts of the documentary that were cut out because of the confidentiality agreement?
Martin Bashir replies: By way of explanation, I asked him very detailed questions. I read out to him part of the statement from the child and challenged him on the specific facts. It was not possible to broadcast any of that because of an agreement between Jackson and the family. Our legal advice was that we could not broadcast it. Circumstances may change, but at this point in time we will not be broadcasting it. This was almost 2 hours of factual documentary. In our audience ratings, barely no-one left the program. The whole of his life is so fascinating, and people kept watching for that reason.
Julie Atkinson, Brighouse: Why didn’t you push him further when he said he hadn’t changed his face?
Martin Bashir replies: If you watch the film the first time I ask him about it, have you had your cheekbones raised, have you had your nose changed – he denied it all; I went back to it later on. I was asking him to compare his face with what it looked like years ago. If somebody’s not prepared to answer the question, you can keep asking, but he gave us what he believes to be the truth. I believe if I asked him questions about his face for two hours there would be no change. He was going to hold firmly what he wanted to say, but what’s important is that when you compare the two interviews, by the second interview it had gone up to 2.
Leon Warren, Ipswich: Did he ever take strong offence at any of the questions you posed him and did you leave on good terms? There was no goodbye scene between Michael and yourself in the interview.
(Note: Bashir did not answer this question.)
Jennifer Chigwende, London: You had eight months’ worth of footage, how did you pick the parts that you decided to show?
Martin Bashir replies: We wanted to do 3 things. Be true to the narrative of the way things developed in the relationship. We wanted to make sure that the film covered the main issues of his life, musicianship, and appearance. Those were the 3 criteria we would use to decide what would be in. Didn’t believe we would end up with a 3 hour long film. We gave this the biggest possible canvas to convey the most accurate, fair representation of what it was like to live with MJ.
Seth Mason: Do you feel that his statement saying that you betrayed him or his children is true or reasonable in any way?
Martin Bashir replies: Not at all. I agreed that we would make an honest film about his life. It was almost 2 hours of television which is an unprecedented length of time for a single factual documentary and over that period, there were aspects of Michael which were wonderfully charming. At the end of the day, we stand firmly by the film. There was no betrayal at all. A number of articles have drawn on allegations in the past, what happened in 1993 when he was accused but never found guilty of abusing a child. A number of people said to me he came across in a liar way. The film was fair to his musical achievement and gave him every opportunity to explain himself. He was never prevented from explaining what he was doing.
Martin Bashir says: I never saw anything that would qualify as a criminal activity. As we got to know each other, I became concerned about the fact that he did appear to have relationships with children, and they were not related to him in any way, and as with the case with Gavin, he said he had been helped to be healed from cancer. Without prompting, he simply said I slept in his bed. By the end of making the program it was a deep concern. An individual who is 44 years old, sleeping in the bed of children who have no biological relationship with him. One childcare expert raised this issue. She said “If this was happening in an area where poverty might be high, and if an individual of no musical status was sleeping in the bed of 12 year old boys what would the authorities have done?” I did not set out to ensnare him with a child I was curious about the relationship and they volunteered this aspect of their relationship. I became more disturbed by that. I think that is reasonable. I am not – I repeat – not accusing anyone of being a child molester.
Pete Goodman, Cardiff: Do you think Michael Jackson’s outward childishness enables him to relate better to children than to adults?
Martin Bashir replies: You say he’s childish, but he’s incredibly astute. He reads contracts with clarity, he’s very professional about business transactions- He does have an affinity with kids. There has been this 16 second clip mentioned where I’m talking about his children. He is brilliant with, his children. They have water fights together. He is a marvelous father to his own children, but there is a concern about the way he relates to children who are not his own. I said earlier that he was sharing his bed with Gavin and I have to correct myself, he was sharing his bedroom.
Kelly Wallace: I sensed your fear about Michael Jackson’s obsession but why didn’t you stop the project and go to the authorities?
Martin Bashir replies: Obsession with what?
Barbara Bennett: Does he have any contact with his brothers and sisters or any member of his family?
Martin Bashir replies: He forgave his father for the violence in his childhood. I think he still speaks to some of his family – he certainly speaks to Janet Jackson and has a high regard for Jermaine and Tito. I never had the opportunity to meet any members of his family at the house. He would say that he still has a great deal of affection for his family.
Tessy, Nigeria: He mentioned women around his house, taking care of the children? Who are they?
Martin Bashir replies: The most hardworking child carers I have ever met, and they are brilliant with the children. When we drove down to his home, I was in the car with both the nannies and the children get on very well with the nannies. Michael Jackson has some contact with his mother. I never had the opportunity to speak to her, but I know she is involved with the children. There is a large number of people though from zoo-keepers, cleaners, through to cooks, and there is a large number of women, and he is referring to them when he says the children has contact with women.
Rhys Ingram, Bristol: Did Jackson’s entourage seem uncomfortable or unhappy with his behavior? Was there ever a time where you felt so uncomfortable with the situation that you felt you had to leave?
(Note: Bashir did not answer this question.)
Rachel Johnson: What did you think of him when he went into his favorite shop and spent $6 million?
Martin Bashir replies: He was simply interested in purchasing what took his fancy. The Thriller album is still the biggest album of all time. That is still returning huge royalty checks. It was a remarkable shopping trip – it was a revelation to me, as I would be bothered about paying for all those things but to him it wasn’t a concern.
As you can see, Bashir had no remorse for his betrayal of Jackson. In fact, he had the nerve to say that it was fair to MJ, and that the negative press coverage would make him more careful with other people’s children! Did you notice that he ignored the questions of whether or not he left on good terms with MJ, and if there was a goodbye scene between the two? The answer to those questions is HELL NO! MJ tried desperately to reach Bashir and get a chance to review the film before it aired, but Bashir avoided MJ as if he was a debt collector!
Also, did you notice how Bashir lied and said that Gavin wasn’t prompted to talk about where he slept, but in the video below you clearly hear Bashir lead him in that direction!
In this radio interview from April 2010, you’ll hear Aphrodite Jones disclose the fact that it was Bashir’s idea for Gavin to hold hands with MJ, and place his head on MJ’s shoulder! (You’ll hear this at 19:00 and 23:30 mark.) That fact contradicts Bashir’s claim that he “did not set out to ensnare MJ”!
But I’ll give Bashir credit; he used the equivocation fallacy earlier in the chat when he said that MJ was “sharing his bed”, and he later corrected himself by saying that MJ shared his BEDROOM, which puts everything into proper context.
Bashir didn’t answer Kelly Wallace’s question about why he didn’t go straight to authorities with his fears of MJ’s obsessions with children. He sarcastically replied to her question with “obsession with what?”, but in the video above, at 3:25, you’ll clearly hear him say that he wanted to confront MJ about his obsession with children!
After reading through this post, you can see that the depths of Bashir’s treachery is like a bottomless pit! And he still holds a lot of animosity towards Mesereau! Here is the cheapshot that he took at Mesereau on November 7th, 2011, the same day that Murray was convicted! While discussing the attorneys who defended Murray, Bashir said the following:
Bashir: Jamie, if I could start with you, Ed Chertoff, defense attorney or Conrad Murray, repeatedly said “This is not a reality show. This is reality. And you must not find his doctor guilt of actions perpetrated by Michael Jackson.” How effective was Ed Chertoff?
Jamie Floyd: I think he was extremely effective, not a celebrity attorney of the sort that we might have expected to see in this case.
Bashir: Like a Mark Geragos or Thomas Mesereau!
So Bashir just implied that Mesereau is an ambulance chaser! That couldn’t be further from the truth! Let’s look at what attorney and media hack Dan Abrams had to say about Mesereau’s community service at the 2005 Harvard Law seminar:
First, before I talk about the Jackson case, and before I talk about media coverage of trials, etc., in terms of the Jackson case, I don’t think that Tom Mesereau is giving enough credit to Tom Mesereau. He’s talking about the evidence, and something about trial tactics, etc. But Tom Mesereau is, and I’m going to attack him for something in a moment for some of the things he just said, he is one of the few lawyers in the country who puts his money where his mouth is. He is a guy who doesn’t just talk about pro bono work, he doesn’t just talk about the community, this is someone whose face should not be known for the Michael Jackson case, but should be known for all of the work that he does pro bono, and in the communities, and for underprivileged defendants, etc. That’s why Tom Mesereau should be the famous attorney that he is, and he deserves every bit of the attention and the compliments that he gets, and that’s not the case, I would not be saying that with many lawyers who would be sitting here. I don’t feel any obligation to compliment Tom.
And here’s another post on Mesereau’s community service and activism!
That pretty much summarizes Bashir’s testimony, and now you have a gist of what he said, as well has his feelings about his work after it aired, and in the years since. For more information on how Bashir was able to con MJ into filming the documentary, read this post, and for a rebuttal to his 2005 hit-piece “Michael Jackson’s Secret World”, read this post.
Now, here’s the bombshell information on Bashir that recently came to my attention, thanks to my good friend LunaJo67! Make sure you’re sitting down, breath slowly, and calmly soak in what you’re about to read:
MARTIN BASHIR RELEASED AN ALBUM ON SONY!
Yes, that’s right! Bashir released a reggae album in December 2010 titled “Bass Lion”. Here is an article that describes Bashir’s musical “talents”:
Mi2N.com – MarilynMusic Works On MSNBC Anchor Martin Bashir’s Upcoming Album
Few people realize that in addition to being a respected journalist and media personality, Martin Bashir also plays bass reggae. The ‘Dateline’ contributor and MSNBC afternoon anchor, has been working on his upcoming 14 song reggae album called “Bass Lion.” Produced Gary Haase and mixed by Marilyn Music’s Casey Conrad, the album is slated for Fall 2010 independent release. Mixed in August at Headman’s Studios, “Bass Lion” offers a combination of traditional and contemporary Jamaican music, with all 14 tracks having been recorded in Jamaica. Selected songs from the album will be used in his upcoming daily hourly investigative reporting show on MSNBC.
Bashir plays the bass, and (to my knowledge) does not sing or have any vocals on the album. I listened to a 90 second preview of each song on iTunes (none of his songs are on Youtube), and I didn’t hear his voice at all, and I wasn’t terribly impressed with the quality of the songs (but of course I’m biased!).
Another interesting piece of information that I discovered through my research is that Bashir produced the 2005 album “String Theory”, which was recorded by Gary Haase, the producer of Bashir’s album! What goes around comes around!
Bashir’s album was released on the IODA (Independent Online Distribution Alliance) label, a subsidiary of Sony Music! Sony partnered with them in July 2009 in order to “leverage combined worldwide online retail distribution networks. Who would have thought that Bashir would ever release an album on Sony? Well, we know he wasn’t the first enemy of MJ to try to do that! (Cough, cough, Evan Chandler, cough, cough…)
Perhaps we should add this tangled web of cronyism to the flowchart on the Veritas Project?
Update! January 29th, 2012
Here is Bashir disrespecting MJ’s fans by saying that we view him as “messianic”, meaning that we see him as a messiah that should not have been questioned about his lifestyle! This is how Bashir spins his documentary to the general public: “I didn’t do anything wrong, but I get criticized by those rabid MJ fans who view him as a God!”