Skip to content

When It Comes To Michael Jackson’s Innocence, Andrew Breitbart and Matt Drudge are Poles Apart!

June 18, 2011

In the days and weeks after Michael Jackson died on that fateful Thursday in 2009, I spent a lot of time searching the internet, looking to see what people were saying about the late King of Pop.  I read dozens of blogs and articles at that time, and I noticed a disturbing trend: it seemed like the more conservative a person claimed to be, the more likely they were to trash MJ! And by no means am I saying that all conservatives hate MJ, especially given the fact that it was the liberal mainstream media that trashed MJ the most (with NBC being the worst party by far. Look at the flowchart from the Veritas Project to see the number of MJ’s enemies they hired during the trial.)

I wanted to write this post so that I could kill two birds with one stone; I had been planning on refuting the junk that conservative commentator Andrew Breitbart wrote about MJ after his death, as well as transcribe his mentor Matt Drudge’s radio shows from the trial, where he thoroughly and objectively defended MJ against the persecution he was put through.  Breitbart worked on The Drudge Report website for five years, beginning in 1995, before branching off and starting his own websites.  When I realized that Drudge was a mentor to Breitbart earlier in his career, I was dumbfounded because their opinions of MJ couldn’t be further apart!  Obviously, Breitbart wasn’t paying attention when Drudge was teaching him the importance judging someone based on the facts, and not on opinions, biases, or misconceptions!

Brietbart’s First Hit-Piece on Michael Jackson

First, let’s start with the book “Hollywood, Interrupted”, which Breitbart wrote in 2004 (along with co-author Mark Ebner). The book is essentially a hit-piece against Hollywood that highlights numerous celebrity scandals and crimes, and blames Hollywood as one of the main culprits behind America’s moral decline.  From the inside jacket of the book:

Hollywood, Interrupted explores how the pathological behavior of celebrities has destroyed comedy, snuffed relationships and demeaned family values.  Each chapter delivers a meticulously researched, interview-infused, attitude-heavy dispatch which analyzes and deconstructs the myths created by celebrities and their way-too-protective handlers.

We’ll see how “meticulously researched” this book really is later on in this post.  Here’s an excerpt from the introduction, which sets the tone for the book:

Hollywood, Interrupted is not a carefree romp through Tinseltown’s glory days , nor is it a simple laundry list of celebrity flameouts; American Media Inc. (the National Enquirer, Star, and Globe) has that dime store paperback market cornered, and, for the photos alone, we heartily recommend FREAK! – Inside The Twisted World of Michael Jackson by Nick Bishop.

This book was composed as a cautionary tale for the rest of the planet, at once examining the utterly debauched causes and conditions of excessively bad behavior in Movie City that, unfortunately, adversely affects mass culture.

As of this writing, accused participatory kiddy pornographer/soul singer R. Kelly, suspected spouse killer Robert Blake, and an allegedly murderous rock producer named Phil Spector walk the streets.  The despicable Spector dances directly into a fawning Esquire profile penned by a writer so smitten, so blinded by his nostalgic romance with this psycho’s Wall of Sound accomplishment of yesteryear that he refused more than passing acknowledgment to the dead girl (actress Lana Clarkson) in question.  Accused boy-lover Michael Jackson still operates his merry-go-round in Neverland, an around it goes.

Fortunately, Bonnie Lamrock (owner of the MJ-Upbeat website) wrote a review of FREAK! when it was released, and if you haven’t read it then you’re certainly not missing much!  And for those of you who didn’t know, American Media Inc. is the publisher of some of the biggest tabloids in the USA: the National Enquirer, Star, National Examiner, Sun, and Globe.  Does it surprise anyone that the tabloids are all under the same corporate umbrella?  After all, much of the mainstream media is also owned by a select few companies! This post from MJ-777, which is aptly titled “It’s A Small World After All”, perfectly highlights this fact.

And did you notice that each of the celebrities he mentioned were, at that time, merely ACCUSED of their respective crimes? He seemed pretty upset that they were all still allowed to “walk the streets”, despite not having their day in court. I always  thought one of the traits of a true conservative is respect for the Constitution and due process, but Breitbart acts like it shouldn’t apply to celebrities!

Breitbart dedicated about 15 pages to Michael Jackson’s relationship with Marc Schaffel, based on his conversations with Paul Barresi, a Hollywood private investigator with ties to MJ, John Travolta, Anthony Pellicano, and Eddie Murphy.  Here is a little background on Barresi, courtesy of Deborah Ffrench’s marvelous article “The Making Of A Myth”:

Billed at the time as „explosive new revelations,‟ the media successfully re-catalysed the Jackson story by offering huge amounts of money for stories from a line-up of flexible „witnesses.‟ Indeed, media outlets competed for these stories, driving up the price and the „graphic‟ quotient in the process. The first of these „witnesses‟, would be Stella and Phillipe Lemarque, former chefs at Neverland.

Using Hollywood investigator and well known tabloid broker, Paul Barresi (known to occasionally use firearms during negotiations,) the Lemarques attempted to sell their account of Jackson „abusing‟ the child actor Macaulay Culkin to anyone waving a checkbook. Their story was eventually sold first to The Mirror for an unspecified amount, headlining with „Jacko’s New Home Alone Slur,‟ then to The Globe for $15,000 who ran with Peter Pan or Pervert: We caught Jackson Abusing Child Star.‟

Lemarque, who alleged that Jackson‟s technique was to „get‟ children so overstimulated that they barely noticed what Jackson was „doing‟ to them – when subsequently cross-examined in 2005 by Jackson‟s lead lawyer, Thomas Mesereau – would admit that Barresi advised him that saying Jackson‟s hand was „inside‟ Culkin‟s shorts instead of „outside,‟ would significantly raise the asking price they could sell their story for. Indeed, writer Maureen Orth in her 1994 article „Nightmare in Neverland,‟ wrote that Barresi actually showed her two written versions of the Lemarques „story,‟ clearly revealing the relationship between the fee and their content.

And more……..

The fees asked for by „witnesses‟ and paid by the media would come to thousands, so great was the demand and commercial value of „fresh‟ news in the Jackson story. As Paul Barresi would tell Frontline in 1993, “ someone just has to have a story, a half-truth, and you mix with it with a little venom, then you have a tabloid story.

And finally…..

Paul Barresi, tabloid broker and investigator – after listening to a series of illicitly taped conversations recorded by reporter Jim Mitteager (now deceased) and left to Barresi when Mitteager died – discovered that an Enquirer reporter, Lydia Encinas, had helped to transcribe Francia‟s interview statements with the police in 1993. Back then, the Enquirer, were actively offering substantial incentives to anyone with a „molestation‟ story to sell on Jackson – all sanctioned by the Enquirer’s then editor, David Perel.

(For more information on Barresi, you can watch the 1994 documentary “Tabloid Truth: The Michael Jackson Scandal” on the MJ Truth Now website.)

Initially, I considered scanning the entire 15 pages, but for the sake of brevity I’ll just summarize what was stated in the book, and thus put it in simpler words and make it easier for everyone to understand. In a nutshell, Breitbart makes a pitiful attempt at portraying MJ as a child molester by highlighting his relationship with Schaffel, based on the inside information given to him from Barresi, who (as we can see from the excerpts above) is a man of upstanding moral character and integrity. In the summer of 2001,one of Barresi’s friends tipped him off that Schaffel was working for MJ (before MJ knew of his background), and what was Barresi’s first instinct? To call the National Enquirer! But they were not interested because he didn’t have enough information at the time.  Barresi didn’t think much of it afterwards, until a few months later that same friend called again, and after some research they discovered that Schaffel was producing “What More Can I Give?” charity song that was meant to benefit the victims of the 9/11 terrorist attacks.  Baressi decided to call MJ’s public relations firm Rubenstein & Associates (without revealing the identity of Schaffel), who then contacted Barry Siegel, MJ’s personal accountant and business manager, and Siegel contacted Barresi, who offered to help MJ and his team dig up the dirt on Schaffel for a fee of $1,500 dollars.  Siegel agreed.

(Now, you may be saying to yourself “Wow! That was awfully nice of Baressi to offer to sell the info on Schaffel’s background to MJ for only $1,500 when he could have earned 100x that much from the tabloids”, but the fact is that he had ALREADY tried to sell the story to the tabloids, who ultimately rejected him due to not having enough information, so let’s not try to give him credit for being honest!)

After some further research, Barresi was able to contact David Aldorf, a former associate of Schaffel who owned a videotape of Schaffel directing pornography with two young boys! (Although he did not reveal how “young” the boys were; they could have been 18.)  Aldolf had an axe to grind with Schaffel, who owed him fifty thousand dollars.  He tried to use the tape against Schaffel to get his money, and Schaffel replied to him by saying “Be patient, I’m working on this deal and you are going to get your money. Michael Jackson is a billionaire 10 times over. Twenty-five million is nothing to him.” According to Aldorf, Schaffel was going to try to extort $25 million from MJ by threatening to plant the videotape on him and selling the story to the tabloids, which would cause irreversible damage to MJ’s career, even if proved false!

After receiving the videotape from Aldorf, Barresi decided to do the right thing and not only warn MJ, but to report the tape to the FBI and the Juvenile Crimes Division of the Los Angeles Police Department (but not because he was a moral person, but because he wanted to have leverage to use to get his $1,500 dollars).  But before handing over the tape to law enforcement, he gave a copy to MJ’s lawyer Zia Modabber, who thankfully told him “Down the road, we will be happy, in a very big way that you chose to bring me the information.”   Barresi thought for sure that he would get his $1,500 dollars, but he was sorely mistaken!

In November 2001, after meeting with the cops and the Feds, Barresi had lunch with Eric Mason, one of MJ’s private investigators, whom he was providing additional dirt on Schaffel, including a tape of the aforementioned conversation with Aldorf.  He sarcastically asked Mason “How much is it worth to save a pop star’s ass?”, before informing him that an investigation by the FBI and LAPD would soon commence, as soon as it was decided which agency would handle it.  A few weeks later, Barresi received a voicemail from Mason, who said “Paul,I’ve been unable to speak with Zia in regard to your request for compensation because he is in the midst of severing ties with Schaffel and negotiating the quick exit out of that relationship and he is not going to turn his attention to your needs until he is finished focusing on that, which won’t be until the end of the week. And, when he is finished focusing on that, I’ll then talk to him about our request for compensation”.

If that wasn’t enough, Barresi received another voicemail from Mason a few hours later saying that it has never been their policy to pay for information, and they weren’t going to start now.  Barresi felt that he had been played by MJ’s camp, who he believed held him at bay until after his 30th Anniversary concert had aired, thus avoiding any negative publicity that would have hurt ratings for the concert if they would have rejected Barresi’s offer, and he then sold the story to the tabloids (as he originally wanted to do).  MJ never even knew about Barresi’s attempts to sell him info, and his handlers most assuredly took credit for finding the dirt on Schaffel, thus forcing MJ to sever ties with him.

Barresi didn’t give up on his $1,500 dollars, however. He fled a claim against Modabber in Small Claims Court, and on February 4th, 2002 he arrived in court hoping to get a quick, speedy settlement.  But when he saw Modabber’s defense evidence, which was the typewritten memo written by Modabber’s secretary detailing his offer to sell info on Schaffel, along with his promises to go to law enforcement, Barresi realized that he would look like just another blackmailer of MJ, and so he asked the judge to dismiss the case.

Do you think Barresi was just going to ride off into the sunset?  Hell no!!  He waited for the right time, and a few weeks later he leaked the story to the USA Today newspaper, the legal division at Sony, and to Tommy Mottola himself!  He obviously chose to do it at this time because MJ was in the middle of his public war with Mottola and Sony to promote Invincible. And the final nail in the coffin was when Barresi gave Breitbart a copy of the videotape of Schaffel directing the young men in gay porn.  In turn, Breitbart gave the tape to his cronies at – you guessed it – NBC, who rushed to extend their heavily hyped Dateline episode about MJ’s plastic surgery from one to two hours in order to include the additional info on Schaffel, and thus counter the positive press from MJ’s rebuttal to Bashir’s mockumentary.

Here’s an excerpt from page 185 of “Hollywood, Interrupted” where Breitbart describes the aftermath of out of MJ’s relationship with Schaffel:

Jackson’s flak, (spokesman) Dan Klores, stated to USA Today: “The minute Michael and his advisers found out about Schaffel’s background, they cut the cord immediately. This was months ago. Schaffel has nothing to do with Michael Jackson, doesn’t represent him in any way, shape or form, and has been told this repeatedly by Michael’s attorneys.

Yet the Fox program featured behind-the-scenes footage of the scandalous British program, featuring children enjoying themselves at Neverland –footage that was produced and mediated by none other than pornographer Fred Schaffel. Peter Pan had picked a porn producer to be his private videographer in Neverland. Nice.

“Dateline” aired the footage we delivered of Schaffel shooting porn with young guys in Hungary, but, regarding the pop star’s relationship with the gay pornographer, the NBC show hot shrugged, and accused Jackson of being guilty of only “bad judgment”.  In a phone call to Fox News columnist Roger Friedman, he actually defended Jackson’s right to carry on with the likes of a gay pornographer. So be it, but if exercising better judgment is a moral of this fairy tale, then the collective media responsible for letting Wacko off the hook again out to get their heads examined. Also due for some serious therapy are the parents who would turn a blind eye to the fact that their own children were videotaped at Neverland by a gay pornographer with a Handicam.

This is the second time in less than a decade that Barresi had attempted to smear MJ (the first being the aforementioned attempts to sell the Quindoy’s stories to the tabloids).  And perhaps maybe we need to add Breitbart to the flowchart from The Veritas Project, as he surely did his part to smear MJ by giving Dateline NBC that videotape.  Also, here is a post that we did a few months ago about how manipulative and ruthless NBC was to attempt to force MJ into granting them an interview after the Bashir documentary, and in retaliation they aired that Dateline NBC hit piece episode.

Now, we don’t know if Schaffel really intended on framing MJ with homosexual porn; we only have Aldorf’s word to go by, and since he had a grudge against Schaffel due to the money he was owed, he wouldn’t be beyond the realm of possibility that he would lie on Schaffel. And since neither the LAPD nor the FBI ever filed charges against Schaffel, we have to assume that he wasn’t involved in any child pornography.

This was certainly a very ugly episode in MJ’s private life, but what the hell does his BUSINESS relationship with Schaffel have to do with the allegations? Breitbart is using an ad hominem technique here; he’s trying to get his readers to connect Schaffel’s homosexual porn background to MJ’s allegations, hoping that they will conclude that MJ was gay and enjoyed gay porn. There are many people who believe there is a direct relationship between homosexuality and pedophilia, and judging by the comments on the posts he wrote after MJ’s death, Breitbart certainly succeeded in his plan.

Breitbart’s Second Hit-Piece on Michael Jackson

The second piece of information from Breitbart that I will refute is his article titled “A Monster of Our Own Making is Dead”, which was written on June 26th, 2009.

Michael Jackson’s shtick was simply a more sophisticated, well financed variation on the molester with an ice cream truck. When after paying millions to his young accuser, Jordy Chandler, Jackson was later found to have gay porn producer Marc Schaffel, an un-indicted co-conspirator in Jackson’s 2005 child molestation trial, as his PERSONAL VIDEOGRAPHER and close pal on the very private grounds of Neverland Ranch.

When this scandal was exposed (but underplayed by the dysfunctional and enabling mainstream media), Schaffel was shown the door and Jackson’s people issued a press release acknowledging the impropriety of the situation but claimed not to have known of Schaffel’s mystifyingly inappropriate background — especially given the accusations against Jackson and his continued desire to present himself as a kid-at-heart.

Here is the statement by Jackson spokesman Dan Klores in July, 2002:

“The minute Michael and his advisers found out about Schaffel’s background, they cut the cord immediately. This was months ago. (Schaffel) has nothing to do with Michael Jackson, doesn’t represent him in any way, shape or form, and has been told this repeatedly by Michael’s attorneys.”

Well, a year later, Schaffel was back at Neverland and again acting as Jackson’s personal videographer who chronicled the taping of the famous Martin Bashir BBC documentary that later appeared on ABC in the U.S., which centered around two young brothers hanging with Jackson and Schaffel as their ‘chaperones’ at the creepy amusement park cum bachelor pad.

Why did Michael Jackson bring back the gay porno producer to use a video camera to oversee kid trips to Neverland AFTER it was admitted by Jackson’s own people the Jackson/Schaffel alliance was blatantly improper?

And why did the media drop the ball in playing up this massive scandal? Parents had an obligation to know they were sending their kids to a ferris wheel controlled by an accused molester who hung out only with young boys (as Howard Stern has said, “Where are the young girls?”) and his gay pornographer pal.

Mark Ebner and I covered this grotesque scenario extensively in our book, Hollywood, Interrupted.

I’m sorry. When Jackson didn’t fight charges of molestation and then paid a person off to the tune of millions, and later put children in the proximity of a guy whose day job was trying to find young-looking male porn stars in eastern Europe (you don’t want to see Schaffel’s casting call videos — I have!) — Michael Jackson exposed himself as a dangerous man and sick predator whose only mitigating excuse is that he was enabled by sick family and business associates and an even sicker mainstream press.

I feel mildly sorry that Michael Jackson is dead because to a great extent our overly popular culture influenced society contributed to making him the monster he was when he died. May he rest in heat.

As you can see, Breitbart clings to the same clichés that MJ haters have used for years: “He paid off the Chandlers!”, “He was acquitted because he was a celebrity!”, and “Neverland was a pedophile’s paradise!”.  His article was obviously written in a hurry, as evidenced by the lack of adequate research that resonates to anyone who is even remotely familiar with the allegations. For example, he highlighted the fact that Schaffel was an un-indicted co-conspirator (but did not explain to his readers the substance behind the charge), and that Schaffel should have been charged (if MJ was really guilty, as Breitbart is clearly saying, then Schaffel should have been charged with conspiracy).  Secondly, he claimed that Schaffel was the videographer who recorded Bashir’s interviews with MJ, when in fact it was Hamid Moslehi who recorded MJ’s footage of those interviews! 

Breitbart then goes on to quote Howard Stern of all people, who (once again) repeated one of the biggest lies the media has ever perpetuated about MJ: that there were no girls at Neverland! Fortunately, that nonsense is put to rest in this post from the Lacienega Smiled blog (one of the best Michael Jackson blogs on the internet, despite the non-MJ name).  And finally, he claimed that MJ “didn’t fight charges of molestation”, when anyone who has done five minutes of the most rudimentary research knows the following three actions that MJ took, which are absolutely consistent with how an innocent person would act in those same circumstances:

  • 1.) MJ refused to give in to Evan Chandler’s demand for $20 million dollars on August 4th, 1993.  Had MJ paid the money, the allegations would have gone away and a lifetime of pain and misery could have been spared. How do I know that, you ask? Because the Chandlers admitted it themselves!  Here is a quote from Evan’s brother Ray Chandler, from the book that Evan ghost wrote called “All That Glitters”, page 128:

“Had Michael paid the twenty million dollars demanded of him in August, rather than the following January, he might have spent the next ten years as the world’s most famous entertainer, instead of the world’s most infamous child molester.”

  • 2.) MJ’s attorneys Burt Fields and Howard Wietzman filed a motion to have his criminal case precede the civil case, in direct response to the Chandler’s attorney Larry Feldman’s request to have the civil case precede the criminal case (which anyone who wants justice wouldn’t even consider).  They used several cases in which a defendant who was facing both criminal and civil prosecution successfully had the civil case delayed as legal precedent for their argument, including Pacers, Inc. v. Superior CourtIf MJ was guilty, then why was he trying to have his day in criminal court, and why were the Chandlers trying to avoid criminal court? Why didn’t the Chandlers fight tooth and nail to put MJ behind bars, and then sue him? (Similar to what the Goldman family did to OJ Simpson.) For more information on the settlement between the Chandlers and the Francias, please read this post and this post.
  • 3.) Most importantly, MJ cooperated with the strip search, and his non-arrest is all the proof anyone needs that it wasn’t an accurate description. He obviously felt that he had nothing to hide, and he even said that during his televised statement a few days later.  For more information on the strip search, please read this post, and for a detailed overview of the 1993 case, please read  3 part series “HIStory vs. EVANstory”, beginning with part 1.

Breitbart’s Third Hit-Piece on Michael Jackson

The second article that Breitbart wrote about MJ is called “End to Two Grim Fairy Tales”, written on August 31st, 2009.

With the deaths of Sen. Edward M. Kennedy and Michael Jackson, the summer of ‘09 marked the merciful ends to Camelot and Neverland, iconic American fairy tales whose story lines should have come to merciful ends long ago when their charismatic protagonists took dark and irredeemable turns.

Our country was not built to support blood dynasties or to elevate the rich and famous to a higher ethical or constitutional plain. But through the power of celebrity, Mr. Kennedy and Mr. Jackson worked the media to twist truths. They manipulated their constituencies and fans to obscure their misdeeds. They played the faithful to confer this manufactured innocence on the rest of us. And, in the end, they placed themselves above the law.

My condolences go to the Kennedy and Jackson families, who should not be stained by the sins of their kin. But there is no time like the present to ensure that those masterfully produced, over-the-top, all-star televised funerals don’t serve to canonize talented and charismatic men who failed to own up to their public wrongs and who continued to flaunt the behaviors that got them into trouble.

Given that President Obama’s flailing medical care reform movement is in the process of being given new life under the fallen senator’s name, our national health now depends on talking honestly. As Mr. Kennedy’s political defenders would put it, it’s time to speak truth to power.

Forty years have passed since Chappaquiddick. Immediately after the accident, Mr. Kennedy scrambled to organize the best and brightest to save his career, rather than to save the life of 28-year-old Mary Jo Kopechne.

Before the facts were gathered, as her family was being prepped for a cash payoff, the Massachusetts voter – in “shock” and “denial,” the beginning phases of Elizabeth Kubler-Ross’s grief cycle – was asked by the senator in a carefully constructed televised speech to look away from his misdeed in the name of his family’s recent tragedies.

In a time of grief, the young senator framed his future as a referendum on Camelot. And the media didn’t call him on it. The fix was in.

The result was Mr. Kennedy needn’t do more than show up for work to atone for his calculated selfishness. Without apology or contrition, Mr. Kennedy crafted a public career in which he spent taxpayers’ money – certainly not his own – to make up for his unspeakable behavior.

As long as he toed the liberal line, this trust-fund Robin Hood was protected by the liberal masses and the mainstream media. Hollywood did its job by not putting his story on the big screen.

Doing to the reputations of Clarence Thomas and Robert Bork what he did to Miss Kopechne only reinforced his value to the Democrat Media Complex as the memory of his brothers’ more authentic Camelot began to fade.

A blogger at the Huffington Post went so far as to argue the liberal Miss Kopechne herself would have accepted her death on utilitarian grounds. “Who knows – maybe she’d feel it was worth it,” Melissa Lafsky wrote.

No reading of Mr. Jackson’s relationship with young boys seems kosher. Perhaps he didn’t molest Jordie Chandler, but paying him eight figures to go away certainly should have put an end to the Peter Pan routine. Mr. Jackson was a singer and a dancer but his best instrument was playing the media. As long as he kept up the “We Are the World” routine – noblesse oblige to a beat – the media looked the other way.

In the language of the Democrat Media Complex, speaking ill of Mr. Jackson was racist. Speaking ill of Mr. Kennedy was ideological. Both were protected. Their foes were ignored or castigated.

By playing the media’s institutional biases, both Mr. Kennedy and Mr. Jackson rose above the law.

While Mr. Jackson spent most of his time self-medicating and collecting children and expensive stuff, the untouchable Mr. Kennedy continued his destructive habits while giving his Massachusetts constituency and American liberalism a bounty of legislative accomplishments.

The supporters of Mr. Kennedy, and to a lesser degree Mr. Jackson, elevate and promote “social justice” and “economic justice” as the highest human goals. Upon the deaths of Mr. Jackson and Mr. Kennedy, the media continue to erase their ugly backgrounds hoping their eternal celebrity can serve these collective ideals.

But the rubes – those of us skeptical of moral relativism, media manipulation and the cult of celebrity – prefer “justice justice.”

Only when the “elite” among us begin to see things like us – and not in the unrealistic fairy tales crafted by our liberal betters – will Americans begin to live happily ever after.

Gee, where do I start? Let’s start with the asinine assertion of his that MJ “worked the media to twist the truth” and placed himself “above the law”. Is he out of his damn mind? MJ “worked” the media? Which liberal media outlet is he talking about? The tabloids? Such as the ones that offered actor Alfonso Ribeiro’s father $100 thousand dollars to lie and say he was molested by MJ? From “The King of Pop’s Darkest Hour”, page 79:

   Alfonso Ribeiro appeared on Geraldo, to say there was never a time when he felt uncomfortable with Michael Jackson. Ribeiro, at the age of twelve, had starred with Michael and the other Jacksons in a Pepsi commercial in 1984. Ribeiro felt like Michael was one of his buddies and felt the allegations were “preposterous”. He also disclosed that his own father was offered $100,000 by a tabloid to say anything negative about Michael Jackson.

Or what about Ron Newt, who was offered $200,000 to say his sons were molested by MJ? (Read bullet point #1 at the bottom of this post for more information.)

Is he talking about  MSNBC? The Huffington Post? The Daily Kos? Look at how twisted and cruel the liberal media was to him during his lifetime:

  • The Huffington Post posted a slideshow that consisted of nothing but close-ups of MJ’s face during his press conference for “This Is It”, solely for the purpose of making fun of him!
  • Some liberal idiot from The Daily Kos posted a blog called “Good Riddance, Michael Jackson” a few days after his death!  (He merely regurgitated the Linden Report from the Smoking Gun and used it as irrefutable proof of MJ’s guilt, but fortunately we debunked that crap here. What great analytical skills that guy has, huh?)
  • MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann ran this distasteful and worthless skit about the trial, instead of actually reporting on the facts of the case:

Is he talking about the liberal attorneys who trashed him publicly during his trial, like Gloria Allred and Sonny Hostin?  (They were both thoroughly refuted in this post, and this post, respectively.)

I guess in his eyes, the media’s coverage of MJ’s tremendous musical legacy was a sign of his “influence” over them, right? I don’t think I’ve ever heard anything as ridiculous as that in my entire life!  And if MJ “placed himself above the law” by letting kids sleep in his bedroom, then why was he so nonchalant in admitting it to Martin Bashir? If there was inappropriate activity, wouldn’t MJ want to hide it from the world? But I bet the haters are going to say “Well, MJ was so Wacko that only he would broadcast it to the world!” Well, to those haters, I would ask them to look at what the late, great funk singer Rick James had to say about his bed-sharing experiences on November 21st, 2003, after MJ’s wrongful arrest:

PHILLIPS: You’re looking good. Now, you and I were talking yesterday, we were talking a little bit this morning. You’re in support of Michael Jackson. Tell me why.

JAMES: Because I love him. I think he’s fantastic. I love his whole family. I’ve been knowing Michael since he was a kid. I’ve know his whole family. I know his mother. I know his father. I know the brothers. I know the sisters. And I have nothing but complete love, and respect and admiration for the whole family.

PHILLIPS: So, Rick, why do you think authorities are going after Michael Jackson?

JAMES: Because he’s black, he’s rich and he’s famous, and they got nothing else better to do.

PHILLIPS: Has Michael ever talked openly with you about his relationship with children, or his love for children, or even Neverland?

JAMES: Look, Michael loves children, OK? I mean, to be — I mean, I look at it like this. I mean, all this pedophile crap, you know, why didn’t they go after Elvis Presley? He was the biggest pedophile at all. He had Priscilla when she was 14, 15. Why didn’t they go after Jerry Lee Lewis. He the second biggest pedophile of all. He married his first cousin. She was 13 years old. Why don’t they go after Santa Claus? Why don’t they do psychology references on him? They don’t know who he is. He’s 100,000 different cities and kids sit on his lap, telling him what they want for Christmas.

PHILLIPS: I don’t know, Rick, i’ve sat on Santa Claus’ lap, i’ve never had any issues with Santa Claus.

JAMES: But never mind, Santa Claus, what about Elvis? They didn’t do anything to him. He had Priscilla when she was 14, 15 years old. Nobody said a damn thing. Then as soon as you get famous and black, they go after you.

PHILLIPS: Well, let me ask you, let me ask you, you know the documentary that came out, OK, on BBC with Michael Jackson. He talked openly about, hey, I love children, we sleep in the same bed, it’s nothing sexual, I just love them and like to take care of them. Is there anything wrong with that? Do you see anything wrong with that?

JAMES: There ain’t nothing wrong with that. Look, I have a house, 8,000 square feet. I have children come by. I have grandchildren. They come by and they bring their friends. They sleep in my room. I got a great big giant bedroom. They watch TV. They lay on the floor. Sometimes I wake up, kids are laying in my bed because they’re scared or something, whatever. I have candles going. What, what does that make me, a pedophile, because kids follow my bed, fall to sleep, whatever? I love kids. I’m (UNINTELLIGIBLE) pedophile as Larry King. I mean, come on now.

Does anybody here think Rick James is a pedophile because of his statements? Can anyone watch the video below and honestly say to themselves “This guy has a sexual attraction for children!”

And did you notice that, as usual, Breitbart didn’t give any specific examples of how MJ did this? Typical.  Both of his “articles” were completely devoid of any facts of the cases! So much for being a meticulous researcher!

How on earth can he send his “condolences” to the Jackson family, when not only did he insinuate that MJ was a child molester, but he also said that he hoped he would “rest in heat” in his previous article?  Now, I’ll give Breitbart credit where it is due; he acknowledged the fact that MJ could have been innocent with is statement that “perhaps he didn’t molest Jordie Chandler”. That’s the first time I’ve seen him show even a smidgen of doubt towards MJ’s guilt, and to be honest I was very surprised that he wrote that, considering all of the hateful things he said about him in the past. It’s certainly a step in the right direction!

Breitbart’s reference to the claims of racism against MJ’s detractors most likely stem from the backlash that New York Congressman Peter King (R) received after his infamous video that he intentionally posted on July 5th, 2009.  Most of you have already seen that horrible video numerous times, so I won’t repost it here, but I will post a few follow-up interviews he did in the weeks after.

On August 3rd, 2009 he was interviewed by Toure, a so-called music “critic” who made fun of MJ during his lifetime, but did a 180 degree turnaround after he died in order to capitalize on public sympathy for him. King was asked how his slanderous statements would help his then-rumored Senatorial campaign, considering how popular MJ is with New Yorkers. (This is proof that King made those statements to gain publicity for himself among conservatives before he announced probable his Senate run, which he ultimately abandoned due to his fear of not raising enough money due to a controversial figure’s refusal to compete against him.)

King defended his statements on the faulty basis that MJ “lured” and “enticed” young boys to “sleep with him”, without their parent’s consent or knowledge, when that is totally and absolutely false.  MJ’s attorney Thomas Mesereau thoroughly and accurately described the rules and regulations of Neverland to Jay Leno after the trial. In addition, this post and this post tackle the “controversial” subject of MJ sharing his bedroom (which was actually a two-story duplex) with others.  In fact, that second post had an amazing video clip taken from a seminar that took place in June 2010 called “After The Dance: Conversations on Michael Jackson’s Black America” that I will embed here, in order to make sure everyone sees it.

And while we’re on this non-issue, let’s hear it straight from the horse’s mouth about what really happened at those sleepovers! Here is Macaulay Culkin’s interview with Larry King from 2004:

Later on in that interview, King made an inapt analogy by saying that if you asked anyone on the streets what they would think about a grown man enticing boys to sleep in his bed, that 99 out of 100 would call that pedophilia. It’s an inapt analogy  because, as Mesereau and Macauly Culkin stated in their respective videos, no child was ever “enticed” into sleeping in his bed! This is another classic ad hominem technique that King and other haters use to slander MJ; they twist his words and intentions around in order to trick misinformed people into thinking MJ was a child predator!

In the following interview from August 2009, King asserted that it was ridiculous that anyone would think his attacks on MJ were racially motivated:

According to King, if he was a true racist, he wouldn’t have spent the last 5 years pushing for Jack Johnson’s pardon. Johnson was a black boxer who was wrongly convicted under a racist law known as the Mann Act for “transporting white women across state lines for immoral purposes”. (Charles Thomson wrote an excellent piece on the parallels between Johnson and MJ in this article.) What King fails to realize is that even if his attacks were not racially motivated, they were nevertheless tasteless, classless, inappropriate, and unprofessional! He made a youtube video where nobody could directly respond to him, filled with nothing but his worthless opinions, but to this day has yet to make a video PRESENTING THE FACTS!! What a coward!!

And if he thinks that the black community took those comments lightly, he’d better think again!  The day after King released his video, follow conservative Republican Pat Buchanan, who has a very checkered history when it comes to race, gave King some words of wisdom on what area to avoid while campaigning for his (at the time) rumored Senatorial run.

Bedford-Stuyvesant is a predominantly African-American community in the central portion of Brooklyn, New York, and is also the birthplace of the Notorious B.I.G., whom MJ collaborated with on the song “This Time Around”, and posthumously on “Unbreakable”. (Here is a first-hand account of how he acted when he met MJ for the first time in 1995, and here is a video of him presenting Michael and Janet an MTV Music Award in 1995.)

Here is another video of Buchanan, where he once again alluded to the certain sections of New York (i.e. the black sections) that King should avoid when campaigning, along with distinguished professor and cultural commentator Michael Eric Dyson. Dyson has written books about many black musical luminaries, such as Marvin Gaye, Nasir Jones, and Tupac Shakur, and I truly hope that one day he writes one on MJ as well. If he does, I assure you it’ll be worth the wait!

Here is a clip of NFL Hall of Fame wide receiver Jerry Rice expressing his disgust for Peter King’s comments:

And finally, here is a compilation of various debates regarding King’s comments:

Now, based on everything you’ve read so far, you probably assume that Breitbart has absolutely nothing in common with MJ. That’s almost true; one thing that Breitbart has in common with MJ is the fact that they both were ambushed by Martin Bashir while they thought they were being interviewed fairly, but Breitbart actually did a good job of standing up to Bashir. Here is an honest review of Bashir’s “performance”; it’s great to see a non-MJ fan bashing Bashir! And be sure to check out my comment in response to “Yngblkcons” (open the replies button to see it):

A few things that stood out from that interview:

  • In the very beginning, the following excerpt was quoted from the book: “I’m not religious and I’m certainly no theologian…….” If he’s not “religious”, then why did he find it perfectly OK to tell MJ to “rest in heat”? Why try to speak on a subject that he has no familiarity with? Who made him Judge, Jury, and Executioner? (And the same thing applies to the pastors and religion bloggers who attacked MJ’s apparent “lack of faith”; I will refute them in an upcoming article called “Fact Checking Michael Jackson’s Christian Faith”, coming soon!).
  • Breitbart FINALLY confessed that he did NOT watch the entire videotape he obtained of Shirley Sherrod, an African-American woman who he accused of racism after he selectively edited a speech she gave where she talked about her experience with a white farmer. If only Bashir would one day admit to selectively editing “Living With Michael Jackson”!  (For more information on the Shirley Sherrod debacle, read this.)
  • Bashir ambushed Breitbart about a racist blogger named Dr. Kevin Pezzi that he hired for his website, with the intentions of having him smear Shirley Sherrod, and soon after fired him after he wrote such wonderful things as “African-Americans and Native-Americans should be thankful for their past subjugation by whites” and “whites suffer more racism than blacks”, and used offensive racial slurs to describe Asian-Americans .

Hmmmmm……..does that sound familiar to you? Doesn’t that sound like the exact same scenario MJ was in with Marc Schaffel? How the hell can Andrew Breitbart criticize Michael Jackson for hiring Marc Schaffel without knowing about his gay porn background, when he hired Dr. Kevin Pezzi without knowing of his racist background? 

Here is another example of a someone attacking MJ in the name of “conservatism”, only to be totally repudiated! On June 30th, 2009, conservative talk radio show host Rush Limbaugh spoke with a caller who chastised him for defending MJ against the media’s attacks. Here’s the transcript:

CALLER: Yesterday at the end of your show a man called up and he as much as said that he thought Michael Jackson was a child molester,and you tried to defend Michael Jackson. It’s my belief, sir — and with all due respect you are due a lot of respect, but with all due respect —it’s not a conservative position to take, to try to defend Michael Jackson.

RUSH: Well, I wasn’t taking a political position or an ideological position. Nor was I defending Michael Jackson. I’m glad you called on this, Cameron, I appreciate your nice comments, because I got a lot of e-mail about this last night from Web subscribers calling me a “pervert” and a number of other things for “defending this child molester.” Let me take a little time here because it was at the end of the program. I didn’t have a lot of time. We had a caller yesterday who… What was his original point? What was it he wanted to talk about? What was the original purpose? I forget what, but he said to me in… (interruption) Oh, that’s right. He was upset that the media was doing nothing but covering Michael Jackson and ignoring other serious issues. And then he said — and nobody will convince me that Michael Jackson is not a child molester.

And I said, “Wait a second. You’re no different than the media,” and I commented on the media yesterday, the media has been in total, almost total speculation mode since Michael Jackson died. We don’t know what the autopsy results are. We don’t know what the drug situation was. We don’t know any of this. This is a media disgrace. They don’t know anything. This is not defending Michael Jackson, but I’m going to tell you something, folks. This happens to me every day, being lied about, misrepresented, miscast by the media. It has happened every day for 19-1/2 years, ever since they first heard about me. I have a different sensitivity to this. Now, Michael Jackson — and I can relate to this. Michael Jackson was charged with child abuse.

He was tried, and he was found not guilty. I don’t know whether he abused kids or not. I know he paid off a kid once, a family. But I don’t know.All I’m telling you is the State of California did not make its case in that trial! It was a lousy case. The woman, the mother was a lousy witness, and so was her son. Now, somebody sent me an e-mail, “Oh, they found OJ not guilty, too, and I guess you believe him.” They’re two entirely different things. You had jury nullification in the OJ case. This was a different circumstance altogether. My only point here is that we have a media out of control, and if they’re willing to totally speculate and lie and report things they do not know about anybody, you need to be suspicious about what they say about everybody they report on and every event they report on.

As you can see, Rush is sympathetic to MJ because, as the #1 shock jock in America, he has been attacked and lied on by the media for most of his career, so he is someone who has definitely walked a mile in MJ’s shoes! And I respect him for being honest and admitting that he doesn’t know all of the facts (especially regarding the 1993 case, since he referred to it as a “pay off”), yet still defending MJ against media speculation about his health. At that time, there were all sorts of crazy reports, including some saying that he had 100 pills in his stomach and no food!

That caller is wrong because he or she implies that conservatives (who are disproportionately white) should not defend or have any compassion for MJ. He or she certainly needs to listen to Matt Drudge, another conservative commentator who not only defended MJ during the trial, he EXCORIATED Sneddon, Dimond, Grace, the Arvizos, the Neverland employees, and the media! MJ appealed to all demographics, including political views, so how someone votes shouldn’t be a factor. There are lots of conservatives who love MJ, and lots of liberals who hate him. Limbaugh and Drudge simply told the truth about the allegations and the media, and whether they realize it or not THEY WERE DEFENDING MJ! Telling the truth is in and of itself a defense of MJ!

The photo below is an example of what Rush was railing against, particularly because he’s had his own drug issues before, and the media took him to the cleaners!

Now, let’s end the nonsense argument that “conservatives shouldn’t support MJ”!!

Matt Drudge’s Defense of Michael Jackson During The Trial

Conservative commentator Matt Drudge had a weekly radio show that aired from the late 90’s until 2007. During the trial, he dedicated a few segments to the trial, and as an exception to his talk radio peers (and not the norm), he actually told the truth about Sneddon’s malicious prosecution!  I never knew these shows existed until I watched LunaJo67’s (an amazing MJ blogger) extensively well researched, 85-part video series “What Did Happen To Michael Jackson?”.  Here is her YouTube page, and her new website.  She has the audio for four of Drudge’s shows from the following dates:  February 27th, March 6th, April 10th, and April 17th, 2005.

Part 45, Drudge’s commentary is from 1:20 to 6:30

Part 52, Drudge’s commentary is from 7:16 to the end

Part 53, Drudge’s commentary is from the beginning to 6:49, and from 8:10 to the end

Part 54, Drudge’s commentary is from the beginning to 3:29

To hear the complete audio of those 4 radio shows, as well as for my analysis, please read Part 1, Part 2, and Part 3 of the series “Matt Drudge’s Vehement Defense of Michael Jackson”.

In the meantime, let’s look at a few other conservatives who have supported Michael:

  • Monica Crowley, a political analyst for Fox News, who proudly stated her love for MJ in the beginning of this segment from June 2009:

The security manager of Jackson’s Neverland Ranch, Terry Anderson, responded to news of the acquittal by proclaiming, “Justice was served.” Maybe he’s right. A source close to the prosecution’s team told me that once the allegation was made, they expected children to come out of the woodwork with stories of how Jackson had used his superstar status to prey upon them. That never happened.” Meanwhile, the defense successfully demonstrated that the accuser’s mother had lied in a previous suit against J.C. Penney and had a history of welfare fraud—twin facts that allowed the defense to paint Jackson’s accusers as con artists trying to capitalize on Jackson’s notoriety.

“In the end, the prosecution’s gamble that other accusers would come forward proved the death knell. “In a case like this, you are looking for a smoking gun — something you can grab on to. We had trouble finding that,” said Hultman.”

This is justice. Child molestation is a horrible fact of our society. The heinous nature of the crime plays to our instincts for vengeance. It is all too human to want to use the law to tear down anyone accused of such an act—to give order to the tragedy by finding a perpetrator. But because the law dictates the most severe punishments that our society can exact, it must be tempered by order and consistency. When the law becomes an instrument of our vengeful whims, it fails to provide the public with fair warning of what will constitute a crime, and unwisely broadens government discretion in determining when an individual has violated the law.

In effect, what the jurors in the Jackson trial were saying was that we must only punish the guilty, and we must never punish based upon the mere suspicion of wrongdoing. Regardless of what other justifications might exist for sending Jackson to jail-such as the suspicion that he may have molested other children—finding him guilty here on the basis of suspicion and a thirst for vengeance would have been at odds with a fair and consistent rule of law.

  • Greta Van Susteren, host of “Greta At Large” on Fox News. Here is her interview with Mary Fischer, author of the 1994 GQ article “Was Michael Jackson Framed?”, in November 2003. Fischer thoroughly stands by her work, contrary to the hater’s claims that she retracted her article.
  • Here is something interesting that popped out at me while skimming the internet for negative articles about MJ.  A conservative blogger on Brietbart’s Big Hollywood website wrote this piece of garbage about MJ, not only reducing him to a caricature, but attacking his musical talent! Now, we fans have heard just about everything negative that has ever been said about MJ as a man, but rarely has someone had the temerity to deny him of his musical and artistic legacy! Here is part of what he said:

Michael Jackson’s legacy? A handful of albums filled with entirely shallow, unoriginal music – and a dance move called the moonwalk.

Fortunately, there was someone by the name of “Zeeshopper” who left the following comment, and it restored my faith in common sense and human decency:

While I agree that walking on the moon is just one of the best man’s accomplishment, I do NOT agree with you for comparing that to Michael Jackson. Michael Jackson was an artist. He was also the best entertainer ever, wheiter you agree or not. He contributed to the music scene like nobody else. He also contributed to A LOT of charities, …

I’m not a liberal, I hate Oblahblah and I have a lot of convervatism in me. However, I’m SO TIRED of seeing people (mostly from the right) not recognizing Michael Jackson for what he really was (and not for what he wasn’t) and what he really did (and not for what he didn’t do). It’s so funny to see some of you agreeing with a media that is so biased. The media DESTROYED MJ. The media LOVES Oblahblah. Just get some common sense and you’ll see that the media was no different 16 years ago than it is today.

What a breath of fresh air, huh?

Unfortunately, there are still haters who flaunt their political views while trashing MJ, as if bragging about your political views gives you more credibility to attack MJ!!  Case in point: this blogger named “Right Wing Sparkle”. Let’s take a look at her “compassionate conservatism”:

I know that the last thing you want to hear about right now is Michael Jackson, but now that the Michael Jackson funeral circus is over, I think it’s important that we cut through the celebrity cult crap and look at some hard cold reality.

If I hear one more time that Jackson “broke color barriers,” I may scream. The only color barrier Michael Jackson broke was in his own skin going from black to white.

Many kept repeating that Jackson was the first artist on MTV, and how groundbreaking that was. As if MTV would never have played black artist’s videos if not for Michael. Please. MTV sees only one color, and that color is green. They would and will play artists that make them money. Skin color was never an issue. And by the way, was Michael the first black artist on MTV? I seem to remember Prince with his “1999”, Tina Turner, and Donna Summer before Michael.

His death, his funeral, and the entire coverage of it seemed to gloss over the fact that he had been accused of sexually molesting little boys. With the best lawyers money could buy, he was acquitted of these charges. But I find it hard to believe that anyone who followed the trial, the testimonies of the boys who claimed to have been molested by Jackson over the years, and the documentary entitled “Living with Michael Jackson” by British journalist Martin Bashir, could conceivably doubt Jackson’s guilt.

Many believe he is innocent. I get that. But what it clear is that Michael Jackson was a drug addict who couldn’t even sleep at night with out a drug so powerful that is used to put patients asleep for surgery. Do you wonder why he found it so hard to sleep? Guilt is a difficult thing to live with.

He spent hundreds of millions of dollars on himself. He blew through his vast wealth until he was in debt. He butchered his nose through plastic surgery until he hardly had one. In the end he looked like a mime artist, with his white face and painted features.

He was talented, no doubt. But he was a sad broken man in a hundred different ways. He in no way deserved some “House resolution” as proposed by Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee to honor Jackson as “an American legend.”

My heart goes out to his children and to his family, but that shouldn’t keep us from facing the reality that was his life. Pretending that he was some great humanitarian dishonors those who really do live a life of unselfishness and caring for others.

I’m sure to those who loved him, he was a sweet man. But there was a darkness there. Everyone could see that.
I’m sick of this celebrity cult in our society. Nothing defined that more than Jackson’s funeral. Holding him up as some historical figure of greatness was ridiculous and embarrassing.

After all that we were practically forced to watch with wall to wall coverage, I just felt that this, as harsh as it seems to be, needed to be said.

As you can see, it’s the typical MJ hater who is filled with hatred and self-righteousness, and devoid of all the facts!  It’s the usual “he’s a broke, drug addicted, plastic surgery freak who got off because of his lawyers” spiel. She denied his breaking of racial barriers by saying she saw black artists on MTV before MJ, and had the audacity to say that if MJ had not been the first, some other black artist would have been the first. Well, I guess we shouldn’t honor Rosa Parks or Jackie Robinson for their respective courageous acts, because if it wasn’t them, then some other black person would have refused to get up on a public bus, or would have been the first black professional baseball player, right? That has got to be the most ridiculous thing I have ever read about MJ!

She claims the testimonies “prove” he was guilty, yet didn’t provide any excerpts. She wines about the excessive media coverage, when the media merely gave the public what they wanted (as this article proves). She claims that it was MJ’s “guilty conscience” that caused his insomnia and made him beg for propofol from Dr. Murray.  And to top it all off, after spewing all of that hate, she said her “heart goes out to his children and his family”. Well, how can she (and Breitbart, for that matter) write all of this crap, knowing his children and family could stumble unto it by doing a simple Google search, the same way I did?

At the end of the day, she’s irrelevant.  She’s been an MJ hater for a long time, an she’s too close-minded to read anything about MJ besides what was posted by Maureen Orth.  She claimed that she IM’d an unidentified juror from the trial who defended his /her decision to acquit MJ, and it’s eerily similar to Ray Hultman and Paul Rodriguez’s purported IM’s with so-called “journalist” and Diane Dimond worshipper Larry Harriet, which I happily debunked in this post.

In contrast to Right Wing Sparkle, here is conservative political commentator who showed compassion (somewhat) for MJ after he died. I use the word “somewhat” because what he said can be considered insensitive, to a certain extent, and may offend someone.  I’ll let you guys decide in the comments section below. The comment was from Glenn Beck of Fox News, and on the day after MJ died, he said the following:

I don’t even know what to do with the Michael Jackson thing except to say this: I’m glad he’s dead because I believe he’s glad he’s dead. You know, I don’t think this guy was ever happy. Maybe he had moments of happiness. I don’t know but I mean, anybody who does this to their face. You know, it’s weird watching this last night as the you know, as everybody went to wall to wall Michael Jackson coverage. And I’m watching it and, you know, I remember seeing him in the Seventies as a kid and I was like, oh, man. He was so good. And then that moment at the Grammys or the Motown 25 or 35 or 50 or whatever the hell it was where he was doing the moonwalk, and I remember watching it. I remember seeing it for the very first time and he had the glove and the short pants and the white socks. They may have been even been silver or sequin that night and he did the moon and I remember watching it saying, oh, my gosh, look at that. And do you remember the phenomena it was the very next day. I remember the craze of the Thriller album and how this guy I mean, I went to a Michael Jackson Victory concert back in 1980, what, 4 maybe? Where he toured with his brother, brothers. And then I saw him alone later and I remember the Victory concert. I think the ticket was $20, and I was on the floor. And it was an outrage because remember everybody was outraged, the Victory concert, they were $20 seats? That’s crazy! “It better be a good show for 20 bucks!” And then it all went downhill and then he started messing with his face. I mean, he was a good looking guy and then all of a sudden I mean, did you see the pictures of him in London where he made the announcement that he was going to go on tour again, and he was just, he looked like Frankenstein. He had just demolished his face. And how appropriate is it that yesterday as they’re taking him out, as he’s being loaded into the ambulance, there’s a tour bus that has stopped in front and they were taking pictures and they were taking video of him being loaded in, dead. They worked on him for two hours yesterday. I think he’s glad he’s dead. He was clearly not a happy dude.

So what do you guys think of that comment? “I’m glad he’s dead because I believe he’s glad he’s dead.”  I was initially very offended, but then I see where he’s coming from, as far as MJ finally being at peace, but I still believe it was inappropriate to imply that he would be happy to leave his children fatherless.  But overall it was compassionate, especially considering he could have said much worse……………..

Here’s another excerpt:

Don’t say anything and I’m thinking, maybe don’t tell me. And so we get into the break and I said, what do you mean he’s you think he’s dead? And they said, well, we have TMZ which is very accurate. It’s usually not wrong. But we can’t go with just one source. We need more than one source. And so the whole rest of the show was back and forth, back and forth of, don’t say anything but it really looks like he’s dead. And Shep was right outside the studio. You know that blue wall behind me actually moves. It’s a door. And Shep and Geraldo and the whole team was standing behind that door waiting to come on and they pulled me off the air four minutes early to go to the wall to wall coverage. But they were waiting, you know, to announce to the world that he had died. It was a very weird thing because I didn’t feel bad when they said that he was dead. I was kind of my first thought was, I don’t believe it. My second thought was, well, at least he’s being left alone now. At least he’s in peace, you know. At least he’s back with God and God bless him. But then my immediately after was, he was a freak.

Here’s one last example of a conservative showing love to MJ, and once again it comes from Rush Limbaugh!

Recently, he had a biography written about him, and he admits to being a “racial pioneer” in the 80’s by playing MJ’s music to majority white crowds at Kansas City Royals baseball games (where he worked as Director of Promotions before getting his radio show).

To his surprise, he got some negative reaction towards MJ from some of the fans, which is absolutely shocking because this was during MJ’s prime, before the “Wacko Jacko” nonsense. Here’s a quote from the book:

Surprisingly, Limbaugh was a “racial pioneer” while producing the scoreboard at Kansas City Royals ballgames in the late ’70s and early ’80s. He used to play Michael Jackson songs between innings which annoyed some conservatives in the crowd. “They used to say, ‘Where do you think we are, Oakland?’

In conclusion, I didn’t write this post to be political or controversial, but merely to disprove the ridiculous notion that people of a particular political party should like or dislike MJ, otherwise you’re a “traitor”.  Breitbart implied that the “liberal media” coddled MJ, and real conservatives should hate MJ, and I feel that I have effectively refuted him. MJ appealed to every conceivable demographic, and his fan base is very bi-partisan!  Despite the negative media attacks over the years, the majority of Americans love MJ, and this poll proves it:

CNN Poll: Half of all Americans are Michael Jackson fans

WASHINGTON (CNN) – Roughly half of all Americans say they are fans of Michael Jackson – but there are big gender and generation gaps when it comes to the king of pop, according to a new national poll.

Fifty-one percent of people questioned in a CNN/Opinion Research Corporation survey released Friday morning describe themselves Jackson fans, with 49 percent saying they are not fans.

“Most women say they are fans of Michael Jackson; most men do not. Most young people say they are Jackson fans, but a majority of Americans over 50 don’t,” says CNN Polling Director Keating Holland.

“Older Americans didn’t ‘get’ Michael Jackson. They were probably offended by his defiance of cultural norms. Younger people got him,” says CNN Senior Political Analyst Bill Schneider.

The poll indicates a majority of whites say they aren’t Michael Jackson fans; three-quarters of non-white respondents, which includes African-Americans, Hispanics, and Asians, say they were fans of the singer.

The survey suggests there’s a partisan difference as well.

“Democrats are fans of the deceased singer; Republicans are not – but since women, young people and minorities are more likely to be Democrats, the difference between Democrats and Republicans on Michael Jackson is probably due mostly to the demographic differences between the parties,” adds Holland.

The CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll was conducted June 26-28, in the days immediately after Jackson’s death, with1,026 adult Americans questioned by telephone. The survey’s sampling error is plus or minus 3 percentage points.

–CNN Deputy Political Director Paul Steinhauser contributed to this report

Michael Jackson for President in 2012!!!  We could only imagine……………….

Let me end this post with the person who is considered by many to be the greatest conservative politician of all time, the standard by which all Republicans are measured, giving respect to MJ: Ronald Reagan!

78 Comments leave one →
  1. hana permalink
    June 18, 2011 4:32 am

    Where do idiots like peter king get this idea that Michael Jackson “invited” young boys to sleep with him? I’ve seen that documentary over a thousand times and he clearly stated that whenever children visited his home, they would ask to sleep in his room, and with the parents permission, he would allow them to do so. I hope Martin bashir is happy. Thanks to his salacious documentary, Michael Jackson’s memory will forever be associated with pedophilia.


  2. Suzy permalink
    June 18, 2011 6:32 am

    Thank you, David. Once again a great job!

    I think the bias against him on the part of some conservatives is based on prejudice. Some conservatives are afraid and hateful of anything “different”. Not all of them, of course, I talk about the bigots.

    It’s clearly demonstrated by those Andrew Breitbart articles where he only operates with guilty by association type of arguments. He demands the media should have made a bigger scandal out of Michael’s and Schaffel’s relationship. Why? How does Schaffel’s past make MJ look guilty of anything?

    Here in Europe there is a German Formula One driver, seven-time world champion, Michael Schumacher, whose ex-manager, Willi Weber has been running brothels and was involved in the prostitution business before getting in motorsports and starting to manage young drivers, including Schumacher. He is a shady businessman. There are two court rules pending against him right now for financial frauds for which he could go to jail. But noone in their right mind here thinks that would make Schumacher himself look guilty of something or be associated with Weber’s own shady past. People are able to distinguish between Schumacher’s life and Weber’s life. Schumacher probably knew of Weber’s past when they started to work together, but if he didn’t he certainly found out later as it was in the media, yet he always remained loyal to him until Schumacher’s first retirement (now, after he returned to F1 Weber doesn’t manage him any more). He didn’t care because their business was different: it was motorsports management, not running brothels and pimping prostitutes. What Weber did in his own past is his business, not Schumacher’s.

    I view the MJ-Schaffel situation similarly. Their business was not about making porn movies, so why should Michael be scandalized for something that Schaffel did in his past? Yes, you can say it wasn’t wise of him to associate himself with such shady characters – for his own sake, exactly because of how the media operates: A did this, B is associated with A, so B is somehow associated with what A did too. Does this make Katherine Jackson too involved in the porn industry through Howard Mann?

    So yeah, Michael did a disservice to himself by this association and it was bad judgment, but a scandal? Pleeeease….


  3. June 18, 2011 5:42 pm

    Wonderful post as usual. Other than the public’s belief that MJ was a “weirdo” because of eccentricities I think most of that is driven [#1 being the press] by the belief that he invited and coaxed children into sleeping in his bed. Whenever I’m trying to defend MJ on the allegations, no matter how much evidence I bring up, it always goes back to “Well, then why did he have kids in his bed”. smh.


  4. June 18, 2011 9:21 pm

    David, thank you very much for the wonderful post. I was finally ready to make my own post about Gutierrez’s book, but now – seeing your wonderful work – will stand in a queue for a few days so that everyone reads yours first.

    The idea that anyone should support or reject Michael Jackson for “party loyalty” is absolutely abhorrent to me (never knew that anything like that existed in your part of the world). This is a typical totalitarian approach! The approach which I am too much familiar with – when some party demands that you should believe this and that and leaves you no chance for individual thinking and taking decisions on your own.

    Sorry for the analogy, but this reminds me of a former Soviet regime we had here. Frankly I am incredulous to hear that “conservatives” can say to their party members what musicians and singers they should or shouldn’t love!

    Conservatives are probably doing it because they are defending “conservative values” – but the irony of the situation is that Michael Jackson was one of the most conservative guys I’ve ever known! He placed God, family values and simple and pure things in life on the very top of his priority list! If your “conservatives” don’t know it so much the worse for them – what they are actually promoting among their party members are LIES and in addition to their own ignorance they want other party members to be as ignorant as they are!

    The way you describe it it looks that none of the “conservatives” wants to know the truth about Jackson as their old and habitual lies are much more convenient to them. Really looks to me like our old Central Party Committee who were senile themselves and wanted everyone else to be the same……


  5. June 18, 2011 10:56 pm

    While working on my own post I reread some of the testimonies at the 2005 trial. One of the most impressive ones is that by Debbie Rowe. The impression you get from her testimony is that, first of all, all sorts of shady characters were flocking to Michael and his money as bees to honey and secondly, it was absolutely not in their interests to report to him about their shady past. Vice versa, all of them must have presented themselves in the best possible light in order to then being able to make money off him. Same situation with Marc Schaffel.

    Debbie Rowe says that all those people around Michael were manipulating him, were taking decisions without consulting him and were constantly lying telling her one thing and him another:

    Q. Was it your perception, based upon what you
    21 observed of Schaffel, Dieter and Konitzer, that
    22 those three were working together?
    23 A. Oh, yeah.
    24 Q. You definitely got that impression?
    25 A. Oh, yeah.
    26 Q. Okay. And was it your impression that those
    27 three were working together to find ways to use
    28 Michael Jackson’s name so they could profit? 7996
    1 A. Yes.
    2 Q. And at one point you told the sheriffs that
    3 you thought Michael Jackson was, in some ways, very
    4 removed from what those guys were doing, right?
    5 A. In my past knowledge, he’s removed from the
    6 handlers, the people who are taking care of
    7 business, and they make all the decisions. There’s
    8 a number of times they don’t consult him.
    9 Q. And you thought these three guys, Schaffel,
    10 Dieter and Konitzer, were doing just that, didn’t
    11 you?
    12 A. Very strongly.

    13 And did you ever get the impression
    14 he was not giving Michael Jackson all the
    15 information about what he was up to?
    16 A. He was like everybody else around Mr.
    17 Jackson. Yeah, he wasn’t telling him everything.

    1 Q. You consider Marc Schaffel a liar, don’t
    2 you?
    3 A. Yes.
    4 Q. You consider Dieter a liar, don’t you?
    5 A. Yes.
    6 Q. You consider Konitzer to be a liar, don’t
    7 you?
    8 A. Yes.

    21 A. Schaffel was talking out both sides of his
    22 mouth, telling me one thing, telling Mr. Jackson
    23 something else.
    24 Q. You thought he was using the two of you,
    25 didn’t you?
    26 A. Yes.
    27 Q. Schaffel bragged to you about the large sums
    28 of money he was going to make off of Michael 8004
    1 Jackson, didn’t he?
    2 A. Yes, he did.
    3 Q. He bragged about making millions of dollars
    4 off of Michael Jackson, didn’t he?
    5 A. Yes, he did.
    6 Q. He did that many times, didn’t he?
    7 A. Constantly.

    1 Q. Did you ever tell Schaffel, “I don’t like
    2 what you’re doing to Michael,” or words to that
    3 effect?
    4 A. If I had said that, then I wouldn’t have
    5 been able to find out what he was doing and try to
    6 get word to whoever was handling him, “You guys are
    7 going to get screwed.”
    8 Q. So what you were trying to do was make
    9 Schaffel think he could maintain a friendship with
    10 you, but what you really wanted to do was get
    11 information from him?
    12 A. Yeah. He was out to hurt Michael, in
    13 addition would hurt my children.
    14 Q. And did you feel Dieter was trying to hurt
    15 Michael and also your children?
    16 A. I think they’re opportunistic vultures.
    17 Q. Would that be Dieter, Konitzer and Schaffel?
    18 A. Okay. You can do them alphabetically if
    19 you’d like.
    20 Q. You’re talking about the three of them,
    21 right?
    22 A. All of them.

    This gives us some idea about the reason why Michael was sometimes disoriented in his various decisions, doesn’t it? With assistants like that anything was possible! Ironically, if Michael hadn’t been that wealthy, there would have surely been more honest and decent people around him. But his big money attracted the biggest crooks. And he cannot be held accountable for that.


  6. shelly permalink
    June 18, 2011 11:38 pm

    if she stold the truth about Schaeffel why did she kept in touch with him after MJ’s death? I don’t get that.


  7. lcpledwards permalink
    June 18, 2011 11:41 pm

    Yes, unfortunately those words will haunt MJ’s legacy forever. I think most people honestly wanted to give him the benefit of the doubt, but at that time it was his second accusation, and he didn’t do a very good job of explaining it. For example, Bashir asked him a loaded question by saying “But isn’t that exactly the problem, when you invite children into your bed……..” and instead of IMMEDIATELY correcting Bashir, MJ said “when you say bed, you make it sexual………“, and it all went downhill from there. Because he didn’t correct Bashir, he gave the public the perception that he does invite them or bribe them to sleep in his bed.

    But fortunately I used the quote from Rick James to show that what MJ did was no different than a lot of people. Rick was a lot more eloquent in his explanation, and left no room for doubt or ambiguity. He’s perceived being a very masculine guy, and people won’t question his motives for letting kids sleep in his bed. And, he wasn’t falsely accused before of child abuse, so that helps too. I’m also glad that the speaker at that seminar also put into perspective MJ’s family history, because a lot of people look at MJ through their own prism of experiences, and forget that MJ grew up differently, and bed and bedroom sharing was very common.

    The funny thing is that people always say “why couldn’t MJ be normal”, but then those same people will look at Rick James and call him a thug, ghetto, ignorant, eccentric, uneducated, a drug addict, and a lot of other adjectives, based on his image.


  8. lynande51 permalink
    June 19, 2011 1:22 am

    Most people don’t get that there are two parts of Bashirs interview where he is talking to Michael about sharing his bed with children. There is the part at Neverland with Gavin and then there is a two hour and 10 minute interview in Florida where he is asking Michael about his surgeries, his childrens parentage, the two incidents in Germany, ( the one with Blanket and the one at the zoo) and his sharing his bed with children, including a very long and extensive answer from Michael about the 1993 settlement.Michael haters are very fond of interspersing the answers from one part into the other and coming up with an edited version of their own. When the Hamid Moslehi outake were played in court the prosecution wanted to trim it down because of the “length”. However the defense got to play all but the first few minutes. How long was the excerpt from Florida when it was broadcast? It was about 10 minutes long. What do you think was missing from Bashirs version? In Chris Robisons statement they discussed while they were watching it it looked to them like Bashir’s editors had made Michael look anxious when he was bouncing Blanket on his knees the day after the balcony incident by speeding up his legs. It makes me wonder what else the editors did to make him look bad or sound bad.


  9. shelly permalink
    June 19, 2011 1:41 am


    The settlement and the sharing your bed story, I believe.


  10. lynande51 permalink
    June 19, 2011 2:57 am

    Well you can count on me to be the anal one.I just timed parts of the Bashir interview. The total time devoted to the finished product from the footage in Miami was 12 minutes 59 seconds. The total part where Gavin is on screen is 4 minutes 35 seconds. When he is feeding Blanket his bottle and bouncing him his knees are bouncing together up and down very fast but it doesn’t effect the rest of his body. actually bashir never says sharing his bed. He says sharing his bedroom and he says sleeping with them.


  11. Suzy permalink
    June 19, 2011 4:43 am

    According to Debbie Schaffel also planted tabloid stories so then he could go to Michael and offer him his services to “fix the problem”:

    27 Q. Now, you said Schaffel was giving

    28 information to the tabloids? 8024

    1 A. Yes.

    2 Q. Was he giving information to the tabloids

    3 about Michael Jackson, to your knowledge?

    4 A. He was leaking information.

    5 Q. To your knowledge, was he trying to profit

    6 from the tabloids with information about Michael

    7 Jackson?

    8 A. I don’t think monetarily. I think maybe

    9 through manipulation, you know, “Maybe I can stop

    10 this,” or “I can talk to so and so and fix it.”


  12. lynande51 permalink
    June 19, 2011 5:28 am

    If you go through Rudy Provencio’s testimony he talks about his association with Schaffle. He says how they didn’t really do anything with the charity single once Schaffle was fired but they were still going to work and Schaffle was always there still trying to work things out with that and still thought there was a Neverland Entertainment company. You have to read it to get what was going on with Dieter, Ron and Schaffle. In it he says how a few days before the Bashir thing aired they got a transcript of the program and they including Schaffle were telling Michael his career would be ruined and pushing for this rebuttal video not Michael thinking his career was ruined. It actually tells a much better side of the story for Michael than it does the prosecution. His testimony says that Michael didn’t want to do a press conference in Miami and he he was not the one that asked the Arvizo’s to be in the rebuttal or go to Miami. Whe you read that and Chris Tuckers testimony you get a better picture of how these guys were manipulating Michael and actually did make matters worse with the Arvizo’s when they got them involved with Michael again because Michael hadn’t seen them since the filming.


  13. Susanne permalink
    June 19, 2011 9:17 am

    Great post again, David. I will never understand why people are so ignorant and not able to think themselves about Michael’s history. Everybody knows he was raised in a large family in a small house with two bedrooms. It’s so obvious that they had to share rooms and beds and were used to that. I myself come from a big family with 5 kids and there were times we slept in beds together. He was used to that and it was normal, I think he even needed people around him, because when you are used to a big family with a lot of action going on you cannot be alone. But no one considers that when they talk about Michael sleeping with others in one room. Due to media brainwash and manipulation for decades now people are no longer able to think their own thoughts. This is even a dangerous thing for democracy.
    By the way, I am looking forward to your post about Michael’s faith.


  14. June 19, 2011 11:59 am

    Breitbart and Victor Guitirrez are but two sides of the same coin.VG goes for the publics appetites diectly ,while Breitbart et co goes round about, both still catering to similar appetites of the public.- I can not resist comparing this to the witch hunts that were common in the parts of Europe I come from, and that are all but forgotten.The belief was that witches flew off on their brooms coveting sexual encounters with devils. For this they were burnt alive.Well burnings are
    no longer fashionable,but the burning pathos in the writings has not declined.
    It is odd to see Martin Bashir lecture Breitbart on sins he himself so lightlY comitted some years ago.


  15. June 19, 2011 12:21 pm

    Sex, region and politics have always been entwined in one way or another.
    I have left a couple of comments that have disappeared and wonder why.


  16. June 19, 2011 1:19 pm

    They are not poles apart, rather a different side of the same coin, catering to the salacious appetites of the public.


  17. Julie permalink
    June 19, 2011 3:00 pm

    I think Debbie Rowe very much wanted to continue to be in Michael’s life after the divorce (much like LMP did). She gave him the children he desparately wanted and admitted that she had to pretty much push him into it. If you think about it — had he had the children with LMP like he initially wanted to and she walked out on him, which she did, who would most likely get custody of the children? It would be LMP and Michael would be left to visitation, etc. LMP said herself she didn’t want to be in a custody battle with him for one of the reasons she held off having his child(ren). If DR is popping up and saying she’d do it and he could have them all to himself (which is how it worked out), she still I’m sure wanted to be part of his world. When that didn’t happen, she did whatever she could to keep herself in that circle (i.e., taking him back to court to get custody rights restored). I know there’s another side to that supposedly Randy, when handling MJ’s affairs, cut off her annual payment and she went to court for that reason too. If you read her testimony, she kept saying she wanted to continue a relationship with MJ. Maybe MJ thought it would be too difficult for the children or maybe he truly just wanted her to be a surrogate, who knows? But, she was no better than Marc Shaffel in that she was working things too in order to get herself back in good graces with MJ. Why on earth would the prosecution call her as a witness? Because she told them she would say certain things and because she wanted to “help” Michael, but she was playing both sides to see what they knew. If you will recall one of the person’s speaking out after MJ’s death was Marc Shaffel and he was saying what a great father MJ was and what a great person DR was. Once I read who he was I was just as astonished that he would be allowed to be on camera speaking about MJ. But then again, when it comes to the media they seemingly don’t care who they had on camera speaking about him. I think MS was working it and working DR and she him in order to stay part of the mix. It is totally weird all of the places DR and MS was spotted together after MJ’s death.


  18. lcpledwards permalink
    June 19, 2011 5:46 pm

    @ Susanne
    Thanks for the comment! You hit it nail on the head; the public loves to see someone in a high position of power and influence go down in flames strictly for entertainment purposes!

    The reason I’m writing a post on MJ’s Christian faith is because, to a lot of people, there’s no way he could have been a Christian, because he was too “weird” and “eccentric”, and Christians are supposed to be “normal”. I’ve read religious websites where people have written that if MJ had God in his life, he wouldn’t have bleached his skin, butchered his face, or built Neverland (as if he was supposed to live in a motel his whole life!). I’ve seen MJ’s music attacked as being “demonic”, and his lyrics cherry picked to promote an agenda that MJ wasn’t Christian (for example, the lyrics to “Another Part Of Me” were used to say that MJ practices astrology, when the references to space travel in the song were because of Captain Eo!). There was and still is a lot of anti-MJ sentiment in the religious community, but ironically most of the disdain for him is because they perceive him as being just another “greedy, liberal, tree-hugging, drug abusing, plastic surgery addicted, Hollywood celebrity”. Of course they bring up the allegations, but even without the allegations there would still be a lot of animosity towards him, mostly due to the media caricature that he was reduced to. The difference between them and the typical MJ hater is that they incorporate religion into their MJ attacks! In fact, I will include a link to a sermon where a pastor was praying to God that men in America should be more manly, and not be a “freak of nature” like MJ, and the congregation said “Amen!” Absolutely disgusting!

    I will have a lot of examples of this in my post, and of course a lot of rebuttals too!

    I’m working with Debbie Kunesh on this post, and she’s the owner of the Reflections On The Dance website. Here is her page on MJ’s faith, and I’ll be referencing extensively in my upcoming post:


  19. Suzy permalink
    June 19, 2011 6:41 pm

    “In fact, I will include a link to a sermon where a pastor was praying to God that men in America should be more manly, and not be a “freak of nature” like MJ, and the congregation said “Amen!” “

    How Christian.

    Though it’s interesting, because I remember that Louis Farrakhan said something similar about Michael in the 80s: that he’s a bad role model for black youth because he’s not “manly” enough and of course because “he bleaches his skin”. Funny that 20 years later Farrakhan became one of Michael’s biggest defenders after he got to know him personally.

    After Michael’s death I also bumped into a video on YT in that a Christian pastor was preaching against Michael, how his life was a bad example bla-bla-bla.

    I’m not bothered by it myself if Michael was a Christian or not, but I hate it when people, who didn’t even know him, are being judgmental of him. I thought the Bible said not to judge. Michael was a good man, like many of those Christians who judge him never will be. Maybe that’s their real problem with him.


  20. June 19, 2011 6:43 pm


    Precisely. I have to say I cracked up when I read the Rick James interview, he’s just funny that way, but what he said is very true. I’ve let kids sleep in my bed before. It’s like when Janet was being accused of being gay, and she defended herself by saying if friends come over they’re going to jump in the bed together and watch a movie, but people tried to make something out of that. Maybe Geraldo’s right and the Jackson name does seem to have a disease in the media to blow things out of proportion.

    And every time I think of MJ in Lw/MJ I always remember all of the people, like Macaulay, who’ve said he doesn’t know how to explain himself properly because of a lack of proper social skills. I think in that case it was more he was being stubborn and rebellious like LMP said, which was going about making his point in the wrong way. People just aren’t prepared to accept a non-societal view, no matter how truthful it may be.


  21. June 19, 2011 8:25 pm

    “It’s so obvious that they had to share rooms and beds and were used to that. It was normal, I think he even needed people around him, because when you are used to a big family with a lot of action going on you cannot be alone. But no one considers that when they talk about Michael sleeping with others in one room”.

    Susanne, exactly! It is indeed obvious that all the boys in the Jacksons’ family slept together in one bedroom and most probably two or even three of them together in one bed due to the tiny space they had. Michael was used to it from his childhood and it was absolutely natural for him to think that this was the case in the majority of homes or that it was at least accepted by others. That is why he was so genuinely incredulous that people didn’t understand what he was talking about. This is a clear case of social misunderstanding – what was natural to him was totally alien to the rich or middle-class people and was misunderstood and misinterpreted by them in a very grave way.

    Even when Michael became super-rich he still adhered to his old way of life – he needed people around him, otherwise he could have gone insane because of his loneliness. Those living in spacious homes from early childhood cannot understand it in principle – their case is the opposite one – they could also go insane but if they had to live in a overcrowded home. So to be able to start understanding Michael all they need is give it a thought and try to imagine themselves in his shoes – which they simply don’t want to.

    It takes two sides to reach an understanding and if one is totally unresponsive even an eloquent Michael would not have been able to explain.


  22. June 19, 2011 8:35 pm

    “Bashir asked him a loaded question by saying “But isn’t that exactly the problem, when you invite children into your bed……..” and instead of IMMEDIATELY correcting Bashir, MJ said “when you say bed, you make it sexual…”

    David, that’s the problem with all loaded questions. People either don’t notice that a question is loaded or do notice it but don’t want to find fault with every sentence the interviewer is saying as otherwise the conversation will turn into a squabble. So most people allow it to go as it is, thinking that in their answer they will be able to correct the situation. But this is another mistake as experienced and nasty interviewers like Bashir never give a chance to the other side to insert a correction – they will interrupt, ask more of their loaded questions, twist the answers, take the conversation into a different direction, pick at some words, etc. I think the only way to handle these kind of interviewers is to never have anything to do with them.


  23. June 19, 2011 8:47 pm

    @Susanne Exactly. People lost their mind because of the media brainwashing

    @David great post


  24. lynande51 permalink
    June 20, 2011 2:49 am

    You know whenever someone goes out of their way to say that race has nothing to do with it and repeats it again and again you can count on the fact that it does. Why bring it up and defend yourself if it was not the motivator? I have often wondered if Bashir is not a racist. Diddy said it after his disastrous interview with him and we know from experience just how tricky he is when he questions someone. Another thing I have learned from my friends that work in radio is that a newscaster or interviewer is taught to put an emphasis on certain words and certain syllables in a word. Its Mass Com 101. A really good example of someone who did not know how to do this very well so they over did it was David Li when he was on E during the trial (he sounded like Howard Cosell at the Kentucky Derby).They are all taught the same methods.
    When you watch the last part of the interview with Michael that Bashir did from Florida you will hear the word bedroom, if you listen closely, but the emphasis is on the first syllable so people heard bed not bedroom. Michael was answering the question he heard and people were not hearing the question in its entirety because of the emphasis (it’s a distracter). It would be a good idea to see exactly how many times he does that in other interviews to trap people into giving an answer to one question when the audience actually hears a different one. Actually that could be applied to all of the people that interview someone about Michael and see how many times they get tripped up by that method. Oh by the way there is no way of knowing if Bashir did that during the interview or when it was being edited.


  25. Susanne permalink
    June 20, 2011 8:27 am

    @David: That’s exactly why I’m looking forward to your post about MJ’s faith – the disgusting attacks of so-called “Christians”. What I know from Michael is that he took the Bible much more literally than many other Christians, and at the same time saw the whole picture and didn’t get lost in statutes and rules.
    He was always attacked with what he loved most. He loved children, and they used children to attack him. He loved religion, and they use religion to attack him. Everything he did with love was turned against him.
    But he incorporated the main message Christians should spread: LOVE and forgiveness. That they don’t see that shows they apparently have other messages at first place: judging others, prejudice and incitement.
    It’s great you work with Debbie Kunesh on that.


  26. June 20, 2011 9:30 am

    “What I know from Michael is that he took the Bible much more literally than many other Christians, and at the same time saw the whole picture and didn’t get lost in statutes and rules. He incorporated the main message Christians should spread: LOVE and forgiveness. That they don’t see that shows they apparently have other messages at first place: judging others, prejudice and incitement”.

    Susanne, I am also very much looking forward to David’s post about Michael’s faith which was very true and very genuine.

    What you are speaking about is the same old story about Pharisees who, due to their conflict with Jesus, are now considered the embodiment of hypocrisy – people who place rules over real faith and the letter of law over the spirit of it. Jesus called many of those “devout people” vessels filled with corruption and dirt as their evil deeds fully contradicted their declared beliefs.

    Now the same old story is repeating itself – only this time the conflict is between the “devout” hypocritical Christians and a really God-abiding man whose whole life was dedicated to fulfilling the will of the Heavens.


  27. Suzy permalink
    June 20, 2011 10:53 am

    “I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.”

    “I consider western Christianity in its practical working a negation of Christ’s Christianity.”

    (Both quotes come from Ghandi)


  28. stacy2 permalink
    June 20, 2011 1:24 pm

    Bashir treated MJ like crap through out that whole interview with his veiled sarcasm, sly comments, and constant insinuations that he was a child molester. Michael just let him push him around and even started crying at the end. I was really dissapointed at how he let Bashir talk to him like that. If only he had been as strong as Andrew Breitbart and Diddy.


  29. June 20, 2011 1:53 pm

    “I consider western Christianity in its practical working a negation of Christ’s Christianity.” (Ghandi)

    Unfortunately it concerns not only western Christianity but eastern too. In both, though, there are exceptions to the rule as all depends on the people themselves.


  30. June 20, 2011 2:39 pm

    It was really ugly of congressman King to clamp down on Michael only a few days after his death.And what about firemen-was it not Michael who arranged a concert for the victims and heroes of 9/11- among them the firemen from stn 32 downtown Manhattan(if my recollection is right).
    With all the rumours and allegations,law suits,etc, going around it is surprising that Michael had any time for normal life ,let alone for his art.
    To sidestep a bit;Michael had a difficult time leaving his family(the Jacksons)even when he could well afford it and had already bought a new residence.He asked
    Katherine to move with him which she refused.So the move was postponed a few years.In his childhood the family lived in that tiny house and all the boys slept in one room.That may have given him some comfort he lacked once he moved out.In
    some way he tried to recreate a family,therefrom his tendency to adopt families.


  31. nan permalink
    June 20, 2011 2:40 pm

    there is this guy named Majestic Magnificent, and i remember seeing him somewhere saying that he met the Jacksons and ended up living with them, at havenhurst, for like a decade…..Where I come from ,people would be scratching their heads over somebody just moving on in like that….But it seems to me that they were just extremely hospitable , because if you were raised without a lot of money , people would just kind of crash at other peoples houses….not everybody can afford to have a family stay at a hotel.., especially back in Gary, Indiana days..Michael let plenty of people crash at his house, half the time he wasnt even there..Letting all these inner city children visit and all the people from all over the world who were experiencing hardships,he was just generous to a fault…..I think it was absolutely ridiculous that they would have been talking, at trial, about all the ice cream and candy children could eat at Neverland., as if that is a acrime….so stupid….that trial was like a hate crime to me …


  32. Susanne permalink
    June 20, 2011 2:42 pm

    Helena, you’re absolutely right. It’s about the self-righteousness of the pharisees that Jesus fought against all the time. You can read it all over the 4 evangelists, and Jesus used harsh words to damn them.


  33. ares permalink
    June 20, 2011 10:58 pm

    Loved this article David. Regarding the part some of you are talking about Bashir asking MJ question and twisting his words and all this things take a look at this video about CNN asking a WWE champion if he had ever used steroids and how then they twisted his words. By the way, the guy making this videos is amazing, lol.


  34. lcpledwards permalink
    June 21, 2011 4:12 am

    @ Susanne
    Thanks for the compliments! My article on MJ’s faith will be similar to this one on Breitbart; some Christians felt that a “real” Christian wouldn’t like or “worship” MJ (as if mourning him and celebrating his legacy is worship!), and feel that if MJ had sung Gospel music exclusively, than his life would have been perfect, and he wouldn’t have bleached his skin, butchered his face, blah blah blah. So I will rebut them with Gospel artists who have had scandal and turmoil in their lives, and I will also give NUMEROUS examples of Chrisitans who were compassionate to MJ at his death. For example, I will include a Gospel artist and his wife, where the husband cheated on his wife, and then his wife sought revenge by cheating on her husband with ANOTHER Gospel artist! I’ll have plenty of other examples too! I’ll also dispel all of the usual myths about MJ, such as he made a pact with the devil for his success, he practiced the Occult and astrology, and a bunch of other BS.

    The thing that will stick out to you the most is the LACK OF ANY COMPASSION WHATSOEVER for a man who just died! I don’t want to give anything away, so I’ll stop right here. It should be ready in 2 or 3 months, because I have lots of other MJ projects I’m working on, and you can’t rush something like this! 🙂

    I won’t give too much away, but I’ll give you this sneak preview of a REAL Christian pastor who offered his sincerest sympathies to MJ BEFORE he died! Notice the criticism he gave to the people who ridicule MJ!


  35. Susanne permalink
    June 21, 2011 6:59 pm

    @David: Thanks for this preview, I appreciate it. Pastor Dickow seems to be a true Christian.


  36. lynande51 permalink
    June 22, 2011 1:15 am

    Like Peter King and countless others all Andrew Beibart did was attempt to link his name to Michael Jackson after his death. They had no knowledge of the man nor did they conduct any research into anything before attaching their name to his. They use Michael like a free spokesperson for their political propaganda because it is his name that captures the attention.


  37. June 23, 2011 4:59 am

    Wow, great post David!! You covered so much I really do not think I have much to add except I had NO idea that Rush Limbaugh actually said decent and even sympathetic things about Michael! I guess I can give him a bit of respect now. I think it was great he brought up jury nullification in regard to the OJ Simpson trial. I hate when people use him as an excuse to say Michael was guilty. Recently Jane Velez Mitchell keeps comparing Michael’s trial to Casey Anthony’s trial, saying Michael wore the pajamas for sympathy and that led to the not guilty verdicts (as is perhaps the case with Casey being “sick” at times). Yes, ladies and gents, who knew that pajamas, not facts, could get one off with 13 charges. I ask myself why doesn’t JVM compare Casey Anthony to OJ Simpson? Both are murder trials where a family member was killed (or former family member). Oh no, go for Michael, why don’t we. Again, great post.


  38. June 23, 2011 5:04 am

    Oh, and one last thing, the article photo you posted of the Sun–I hope everyone realizes that NONE of those medications, all 8 of them named, were not present in the house or his body when he passed. I mean come on, they could not at least get ONE out of EIGHT??


  39. nan permalink
    June 23, 2011 6:16 am

    jane velez mitchell must be a really lousy reporter because the jurors said they didnt even know mj was wearing pajamas as they were not brought into court until after mj was seated and they couldnt see his pants under the table……she must know that , she just likes to perpetuate that garbage so she wont look so stupid in old youtube videos saying he was going to be found guilty.. …….poor mj just cant catch a break from some people..


  40. hana permalink
    June 23, 2011 1:46 pm

    “I didn’t think anybody was going to pay any attention to my book. Thank god for Martin Bashir. I’m not going to let this ruin me just like how it ruined Michael Jackson’s life, how that guy made a whirlwind out of his life, selectively editing reality and manipulating media in order to get his way”
    —Andrew Breitbart on his interview with Bashir


  41. lcpledwards permalink
    June 25, 2011 10:20 am

    @ Hana
    Can you please give us the link to that quote by Breitbart?

    Guys, just for future reference, whenever you leave a quote by someone (or quote from an article or blog), can you please give the link so we can keep it for our records? Thanks!


  42. June 28, 2011 1:42 am

    Great post, David. I’m always amazed at people who claim the media was somehow soft on MJ and that he was adept at manipulating them. He was disastrous at dealing with media criticism, though to be fair to him he had to spend a lot of time defending himself against ridiculous questions and inferences, often, as in the Bashir programme, when he was caught off guard.

    Btw MJ, in his civil case with Schaffel in 2006, said he did not initially know Schaffel was in the porn business and was shocked when he found out.


  43. June 28, 2011 6:53 am


    Last night I ran across a link in one of my favorite research sites MJEOL, it lead me to this:

    Mike Huckabee Remembers Michael Jackson!

    I remember well the letter I sent to Peter King, the one he probably never knew of or read, but should have.


  44. lcpledwards permalink
    June 28, 2011 8:41 am

    @ Dialdancer
    Thanks for that link! I already had it saved, and I considered using Huckabee’s comments in this article, because he’s a conservative who defended MJ, but instead I decided to save it for my upcoming post “Fact Checking Michael Jackson’s Christian Faith“, because he’s also a pastor. It’s a damn shame when you’re surprised when a religious leader says something kind and compassionate about MJ, and when you see my post, you’re gonna be shocked at some of the things said about MJ on religious websites! Desiree would be proud!

    I was so stunned at Huckabee’s comments that I transcribed them, in the event that the video is ever taken down. I was gonna save that video for my post, but you spoiled my surprise! LOL!


  45. Okunuga permalink
    June 28, 2011 10:29 pm

    There is something i still don’t understand about the jackson family,why the need to constantly use michael’s name or his kids to make money when they could easily be living off janet as well at least she too is well off.


  46. June 29, 2011 1:34 am

    “Mike Huckabee Remembers Michael Jackson!

    Mike Huckabee is absolutely right – by doing what they did to Michael people only dishonor and dehumanize themselves. This is a remarkable comment from Huckabee!


  47. June 29, 2011 2:25 am

    “MJ, in his civil case with Schaffel in 2006, said he did not initially know Schaffel was in the porn business and was shocked when he found out.”

    Sheanchai, thank you very much for the video:

    It goes perfectly well with another video found on Youtube which tells us that Michael stopped cooperating with Marc Schaffel exactly because his past deeds ran counter to Michael’s views.

    SO THESE WERE MICHAEL’S REAL VIEWS ON THE MATTER OF PORN.(The correct year for the deposition is 2006):


  48. hana permalink
    June 29, 2011 3:26 am


    the quote is from an interview Breitbart did with a radio host where he accused Bashir of lying about reading his book and challenged him to take a lie detector test. The video was posted on youtube but has been deleted. This is the website where i got it from:


  49. LunaJo67 permalink
    July 3, 2011 3:57 pm

    That was such a great piece of writing, adressing all the most known haters and showing one by one how their stories are based on bias, racism or plain ignorance. Respect! It made me quite emotional thinking how people like Dimond, Bashir and lots of others live their lives, making money by destroying other peoples lives. Maccauly Culkin said “it comes with the territory”, but still: we learn our children not to be a bully at school, yet we see adults trashing eachother on adaily bases. And why? And for what? Money, power and egotism!


  50. Okunuga permalink
    July 3, 2011 10:21 pm

    This is something i do not understand about all the Haters,Bigots and the ignorants fools concerning michael jackson,do they just want him to go to prison without defending himself because they felt that he’s guilty of the crimes he was charged with.Instead of blaming Tom Sneddom for Malicious Prosicution.


  51. lcpledwards permalink
    July 23, 2011 11:52 pm

    Guys, here’s another example of a “compassionate conservative” who preaches “family values” and “personal responsibility”, yet makes fun of MJ’s parenting skills! In her new book “Of Thee I Zing”, instead of praising MJ for being a great father to his kids, she mocks him for naming his third child “Blanket”!! Here’s a quote from the chapter of her book titled “Stupid Kid Names”:

    Stupid Kid Names
    Children should not be named after a piece of furniture, a planet, a fruit, or an herb. Today’s little ones are saddled with some of the most ridiculous names ever—it’s as if the parents are trying to force the kids to hate them early.

    There are consequences for the name you confer on your child. According to a 2009 study in Social Science Quarterly, a child’s first name can predispose him to a life of crime and incarceration. The top ten most dangerous names for boys are: Alec, Ernest, Garland, Ivan, Kareem, Luke, Malcolm, Preston, Tyrell, and Walter. The odder the name, the more ridicule the boy is likely to encounter in life. Reporter Erin Burnett explained it this way on the Today show: “Basically, if you’re teased mercilessly your entire childhood for your name, you become an angry, bitter person, and you lash out in a way that could be negative.” Certainly there are exceptions to the rule (but Alec Baldwin isn’t one of them).

    Celebrities have escalated the baby name stupidity, tempting the public to ruin their children’s lives as well. The Naked Chef, Jamie Oliver, and his wife Jools (another winner of a name), are raising what sounds like a victory garden at home. Their daughters are named—and I am not joking—Daisy Boo, Poppy Honey Rosie, and Petal Blossom Rainbow. But these celebri-tot names can’t be topped:

    • Apple and Moses (Gwyneth Paltrow). I think she’s going for an Old Testament theme here.
    • Sparrow Madden (Nicole Richie). Does Sparrow tweet?
    • Bronx Mowgli (Pete Wentz and Ashlee Simpson). Hope he’s a Yankee fan.
    • Pilot Inspektor (Jason Lee). A future FAA official?
    • Denim and Deizel (Toni Braxton). I guess Wash and Wear were already taken.
    Jermajesty (Jermaine Jackson). The sibling will be called Jerhighness.
    Blanket (Michael Jackson). Why not Glove?
    • Bamboo (Outkast’s Big Boi). Is he trying to ensure his son’s also an outcast?
    • Kyd (David Duchovny and Tea Leoni). You’re kydding me.
    • Mars, Puma, and Seven (Erykah Badu). A candy bar, a sneaker, and a lucky number. Why not go for three more? Mounds, Adidas, and Eight?

    One day, these children are going to grow up and they will either legally change their names or just march into their parents’ bedroom one night and beat them to a pulp. The research suggests the latter.

    We all know about Jermaine’s child support issues, but MJ should have been left out of it. In fact, ALL of those celebrities should have been left out, because it’s none of Laura Ingraham’s damn business what someone else decides to name their kids! What matters is how they are RAISED!!! And what Laura fails to mention is that Blanket is only a NICKNAME! His real name is Prince Michael Jackson the 2nd!

    And she should be the last person to criticize someone else, considering she ridiculed the Meghan McCain, the daughter of Senator John McCain, as being “plus sized” a few years ago:

    Fortunately, Meghan McCain was quick to respond and denounce Ingraham for who she really is, another shock jock trying to get ratings!

    The reason I mention Ingraham’s attack on McCain is because she had made fun of MJ’s plastic surgery, yet that’s the very same reason that people get plastic surgery in the first place; they’re self-conscous about their looks after getting ridiculed by ignorant people like Ingraham. Here is a disgusting joke that she made a few days after MJ’s funeral, where she said that the fumes from his decomposing body could be used as fuel for all of the liberal politicians who attended his memorial service!! How low can you go?!! That was absolutely classless!

    I’ve never seen another celebrity who was criticized for being an active father in his children’s lives! Many men, especially in the black community, have forsaken their father duties, and as a result black families are more dysfunctional, kids are more likely to drop out, get pregnant, or go jail, etc. The black community is constantly told to “pick ourselves up by our bootstraps” and “take personal responsibility for our actions” , and MJ did those things, yet STILL gets called “weird” and “bizarre”!! MJ gets laughed at for allegedly “buying” his children like they were farm animals, but what about all of the men who pay money to AVOID being parents (if you know what I mean?)!!

    This article is a perfect example of what I mean: this so-called sports writer says that the commissioner of the NFL is like a father to most black NFL players, who grew up without discipline.

    Here’s another example: this marriage pledge that some political candidates recently signed recently removed language that was perceived as implying that blacks were better during slavery than we are now because during slavery there were more 2 parent homes!

    The Family Leader’s “Marriage Vow” originally included language in its preamble that implied that black children had better family conditions during slavery than today.

    Slavery had a disastrous impact on African-American families, yet sadly a child born into slavery in 1860 was more likely to be raised by his mother and father in a two-parent household than was an African-American baby born after the election of the USA’s first African-American president,” the statement read, according to Fox News.

    In a statement released to Fox and other news outlets, Bob Vander Plaats, president and CEO of The Family Leader, said reaction to the language prompted its removal.

    “After careful deliberation and wise insight and input from valued colleagues we deeply respect, we agree that the statement referencing children born into slavery can be misconstrued, and such misconstruction can detract from the core message of the Marriage Vow: that ALL of us must work to strengthen and support families and marriages between one woman and one man,” he said.

    Regardless of what anyone thinks about MJ, he was a proud black father, and should be commended for his parenting skills. Prince, Paris, and Blanket are good kids BECAUSE of MJ, not in spite of MJ!


  52. Suzy permalink
    July 24, 2011 12:08 am

    @ David

    If this woman is a Christian maybe somebody should point out the meaning of Biblical names for her. All those names had meanings in their time, it’s just that we forgot the meanings by now!

    Would she make fun of the name “Breath”, “Many”, “Man”, “Carried”, “Answer”, “Switftness”, “Beloved” (I could go on and on)? Probably. But those are exactly the meanings of the names: Abel, Abra(ha)m, Adam, Amos, Anah, Boaz, David. People gave such names to their kids all the time. It’s ignorant to laugh at such name-giving habits, just because we don’t know the meanings by now.

    And top ten most dangerous names? WTF? This lady surely has too much time on her hands.


  53. Teva permalink
    July 24, 2011 6:15 am

    However some of the names are LOL funny:

    Trip – BristoL Palin’s son
    Track – Sarah Palin’s son
    Trig – Sarah Palin’s son

    Two Morrow – can’t remember the name of her dad.


  54. lcpledwards permalink
    July 24, 2011 6:43 am

    @ Teva
    Now that you mention it, it’s ironic that Laura Ingraham didn’t mention any of Sarah Palin’s kids, but then again they’re both conservative Republicans, so that explains it. I personally don’t think that any child should be ridiculed for their name, but I’m more offended at the way MJ has been attacked for his parenting skills, because if there were more fathers who followed his example, the world would be a better place.

    And just to show how bipartisan I am, let me also include liberal airhead Joy Behar as another example of a hypocrite who has mocked MJ’s kids for years. She is one of the most offensive on-air personalities who routinely puts her foot in her mouth, and I’m baffled why none of the Jacksons who have appeared on The View have publicly challenged her on her statements (instead of literally kissing up to her, as Latoya did a few months ago.)


  55. Teva permalink
    July 24, 2011 6:51 am

    “And just to show how bipartisan I am, let me also include liberal airhead Joy Behar as another example of a hypocrite who has mocked MJ’s kids for years. She is one of the most offensive on-air personalities who routinely puts her foot in her mouth, and I’m baffled why none of the Jacksons who have appeared on The View have publicly challenged her on her statements (instead of literally kissing up to her, as Latoya did a few months ago.)” – IPCLEDWARDS

    LOL again instead of a few months ago you mean last night. That’s right! She was on Joy Bahar’s show last night pushing her book. The Jacksons cannot go hard on the media because they are in the entertainment business they need the media to pay attention to them and give them a platform.


  56. Teva permalink
    July 24, 2011 6:53 am

    Sort of not biting the hand that feeds you.


  57. Teva permalink
    July 24, 2011 7:04 am


    I get why they are upset, partly because they were excluded from the will, and they do not control the estate the way the Presleys’ & Cash’s have total control of Elvis’s and Johnny’s. After all it is an estate worth millions. You know I just can’t envisioned any of the Jackson’s running the estate. Whenever I do I think of them hiring Brian Oxman as the estate lawyer, and making deals with Howard Mann etc. It freaks me out.

    To their credit they have created a pseudo estate that runs alongside the official estate. Katherine has her dealings with Howard Mann selling MJ merchandise and coffee book, belts, etc. Joe has his .. err.. business affairs with Michael Jackson perfumes and investors in Happy Land, resorts in the fashion of Neverland. I really don’t know.


  58. lynande51 permalink
    July 24, 2011 9:09 am

    Unfortunately it was pre-destined that the family would at some point have to exploit Michaels’ legacy or his children simply because he did not provide for them in his will. No one should be surprised by their actions to cash in on whatever Michael did leave them which was ready access to his kids. It was his choice but it will be them that answers for it.
    As for Paris, yes she is trying to do all the things that other kids do at her age, the trouble is that they all try to be too grown up at that age and that is where the problem starts. You can look at any other 13 year old on Facebook or Twitter and the content will all be the same. It is inappropriate but no different than any other 13 year old girls Facebook. All parents and caretakers of young girls and boys need to be made aware of the vast prevelence of on line predators. The ugly comments made to her was just the tip of the iceberg. I recommend a trip to the FBI website on online predators for a crash course on what the social networks make possible for the online predator. It will scare you silly.
    They can also trace a person with Twitter and a GPS in order to literally follow them which is probably what the paps did that found themselves in handcuffs a couple of weeks ago’ The thing is they are adults and should be able to know not to follow a personal vehicle with red lights flashing like you are the police. They should have been charged but were not which also tells me that the powers that be do not give a hoot about the welfare of these kids. I wonder do they give a hoot about anybody’s kids? What has to happen to one of them before they say enough you can’t do that to people.
    The kids have a guardian ad litem as well so let’s hope that she is at least looking after their best interest. I know it is hard for them and us to understand but it is something that Michael understood and that is that his children would never have a “normal” life. He even said so in his 1997 interview with Barbara Walters. There are things that they will never be able to do just because they are his children. I think he just wanted them to have a happy life to the best that he could provide it, That meant that they would have to understand the extremes that he lived with because they will have to live with those same extremes.
    That is one of the biggest reasons that I laugh at people that insinuate tht the children were not his biologicaly. Do they honestly think that he was not aware that if those kids were not his someone would come along and try to take them from him because he was who he was and what that tabloids had turned him into. Forget legality, because in family law DNA trumps legal custody. If anyone else truly believed that they were the parent DNA would have been done a long time ago. As a matter of fact it was.


  59. July 24, 2011 3:36 pm

    Thank you for this very through researched piece, very good!


  60. lcpledwards permalink
    July 26, 2011 5:36 am

    I mentioned author and social commentator Michael Eric Dyson in this post, and I was sent a link to his (and Dr. Cornel West) appearance on the Tavis Smiley show from July 2009. They both gave an excellent assessment on MJ’s career, life, and social impact. The episode is around 21 minutes (commercials were excluded).



  61. August 8, 2011 2:34 am

    Once just by chance I saw a secretly taped brief piece of Bashir-MJ.
    It was not the rebuttal and was taped from the side.It is no longer to be found(and was strangely under a piece by Rosrio in Spanish).
    Anyway it was shocking,-Bashir first lamenting on how sad and lonely Michael is (!?)and then immediately lounging on Michael in the most hostile manner.Having seen that I need no other proof of Bashirs baseness and evil.


  62. shelly permalink
    September 9, 2011 6:51 pm

    Schaffel really stopped working for MJ in 2002, according to Sschaffel’s lawyer

    “Byrne says Schaffel and Jackson are no longer working together. “It was only for this project,” he says. But he agrees that the two had been friends for years. Byrne wouldn’t go into details about that friendship. But in 2001, the pair were sufficiently close that in the notes to Invincible, Jackson made a point of singling out Schaffel: “Marc Schaffel…thank you for all of your help…I love you…Michael,” reads the CD’s liner notes on page 18.”


  63. shelly permalink
    September 9, 2011 7:01 pm

    “Schaffel is not working for Jackson and “doesn’t want to get into the battle between Michael and Sony,” says Thomas Byrne, Schaffel’s lawyer, noting that Schaffel assigned rights to Music Fighters to avoid further inflaming a controversy over his porn career.”


  64. shelly permalink
    September 9, 2011 7:20 pm

    Michael cross complaint agains schaffel

    Click to access defense.PDF


  65. shelly permalink
    September 9, 2011 7:54 pm

    It’s a complaint against Whitman

    Click to access 122206_jackson.pdf


  66. shelly permalink
    September 9, 2011 7:59 pm

    Another interesting document

    Click to access mj_lease.pdf


  67. sanemjfan permalink
    March 1, 2012 11:03 pm

    Andrew Breitbart died today of natural causes. I hope that he is treated better in death than the way he treated MJ after his death!


  68. nan permalink
    March 2, 2012 6:08 am

    sanemjfan permalink
    March 1, 2012 11:03 pm

    Andrew Breitbart died today of natural causes. I hope that he is treated better in death than the way he treated MJ after his death!

    Well I know who Matt Drudge is but I didnt know much about this guy..
    Tmz has this as his obit story..

    His claim to fame is getting a picture of someone named weiner penis picture..

    Thats some karma..


  69. nan permalink
    March 2, 2012 7:19 am

    Yikes..another unflattering article about this man after his own death..…..


  70. November 14, 2015 4:57 pm

    Of course, Helena, much of what has been said about Rush Limbaugh are not lies. If you’re talking about the fact that he’s a high school dropout, recovering OxyContin addict (who railed against drug abusers all the while), had 3 divorces while he talks about “family values”, accused Michael J. Fox of faking Parkinson’s, calls any feminist or woman on birth control a slut, then no, those aren’t lies. Still, it’s really something that he, of all people, would have a moment of sanity concerning Michael’s innocence.

    Sadly, much like liberals and conservatives equally believe JFK assassination conspiracy theories, they are equally believing the lies and slurs against Michael’s character. It makes me ashamed, to be quite honest. It just goes to show people will often join a lynch mob.

    P.S. Uri Geller and Deepak Chopra are pseudoscience woo-pushers (pushing things that don’t actually work or exist), and Uri Geller can’t even bend spoons properly. Just ask the former magician and skeptic James Randi. Or of course, see these:

    Of course, the fact that Michael became part of their circle is hardly the worst thing to happen because of his naivety and trust, and they’re likely nice people.

    P.P.S. You won’t like the same site’s page on Michael, particularly what it says about Michael’s BRIT Awards performance of Earth Song. It’s not the worst site, and doesn’t claim the lies and slanders are true, but still.



  1. Sharing His Bed With Children « Michael…the Man
  2. "Even when you died, oh the press still hounded you" | MJJ-777
  3. Transcript of Matt Drudge’s vehement defense of Michael Jackson in 2005 « Vindicating Michael
  4. Transcript of Matt Drudge’s vehement defense of Michael Jackson in 2005, part 3 of 3 « Vindicating Michael
  5. Fact Checking Michael Jackson’s Christian Faith, Part 1 of 5: Michael was NOT a Devil Worshipper! « Vindicating Michael
  6. You Don’t Have To Be a “Crazy, Rabid Fan” To Know That Michael Jackson Was INNOCENT!! « Vindicating Michael
  7. Fact Checking Michael Jackson’s Christian Faith Part 1 of 7: Michael was NOT a Devil Worshipper « Fan Blog for MJ
  8. March 2nd, 2005 Anne Kite (Direct & Cross Examination) and Albert Lafferty (Direct Examination), Part 1 of 2 « Vindicating Michael

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: