Forget Michael Jackson - How Does Martin Bashir Live With Himself? Omitted footage and damning courtroom revelations expose the reporter's duplicity.

When I first heard that ITV was planning to re-air the controversial 'Living With Michael Jackson', I had to question why. After its release in 2003 Jackson lodged an official complaint with OFCOM, saying he had been misled and misrepresented. When OFCOM failed to respond adequately, the glove came off.

Jackson released his own documentary, a rebuttal to Bashir's film. The show, entitled 'The Michael Jackson Interview: The Footage You Were Never Meant To See', featured behind-the-scenes video of Bashir's interviews, shot by Jackson's own videographers. The footage highlighted Bashir's manipulative editing, showing that Jackson's answers had been cut up and, in some cases, entirely omitted.

So, I wondered, how could ITV ethically air this documentary in the knowledge that its contents had already been discredited? I decided to ask them, but was told simply that in the wake of the star's death, the film would provide viewers with an insight into Jackson's work. Having seen the film before, I took issue with this. Bashir made little effort to explore Jackson's work, focusing instead of deriding Jackson for his private life. But ITV bluntly told me to watch the documentary and contact them afterwards if I still had questions.

As anticipated, last night's broadcast of the re-edited 'Living With Michael Jackson' contained many of the same misrepresentations that appeared in the original. As for providing an insight into Michael Jackson's work - discussion of Jackson's music and performances was limited to four minutes in the original documentary. In last night's re-edit, it had been cut down to less than three minutes.

During Jackson's 2005 trial, where Bashir was called as a prosecution witness, it was revealed that the reporter had misled Jackson about the documentary from the offset. Bashir told Jackson that the interviews were part of a documentary about his charity work, particularly his work fighting AIDS in Africa.

One of the key segments of Bashir's film revolved around a trip to Berlin Zoo, during which Jackson and his children were set upon by thousands of fans and photographers. As images played out of Jackson and his children being suffocated by a mob of fans and press, Bashir commented, "This was no kind of trip for two young children, and everyone could see it but Jackson himself."

In actuality, Jackson had absolutely no idea of what was to unfold at the zoo. Jackson's rebuttal documentary included footage of the star explaining to Bashir that the crush was the result of a misunderstanding. Bashir omitted Jackson's explanation from his film.

Prior to setting off for the zoo, Jackson had telephoned ahead and agreed with the owners that the zoo would be closed, allowing the star and his children to walk around without fear of being mobbed. When Jackson and his entourage arrived the zoo was had not been closed, but by then it was too late. It was nobody's fault - a simple misunderstanding. However, Bashir implied that Jackson had intentionally subjected his children to the mobbing.

At 4m10s, watch Jackson explaining to Bashir that he thought the zoo would be closed for him. Bashir omitted this footage and claimed that Jackson had disregarded his children's welfare.

Later, Bashir accused Jackson of being dishonest about his plastic surgery. However, footage in Jackson's rebuttal film proved that the pair had discussed at length the toll that Jackson's skin disease, vitiligo, had taken on his appearance. The pair had also discussed an incident in which Jackson's head was set on fire during the shooting of a Pepsi commercial and the star received second and third degree burns to his face and scalp.

"I was severely burned and I had surgery for that," Jackson told Bashir.

Footage released just this week shows Jackson's entire head engulfed in flames. But rather than include Jackson's discussion of his skin disease or the Pepsi incident, Bashir instead chose to insinuate that the star had lied about his changing appearance.

Watch footage of Jackson's head engulfed in flames during the filming of a Pepsi commercial in 1984.

Perhaps the most glaring error was when Bashir claimed that 'the only reason Jackson didn't go to jail in 1993' was that he had settled out of court in his infamous child molestation scandal. This is a complete fiction.

In fact, Jackson never faced jail over the 1993 allegations. The police investigation into Jackson's conduct lasted over a year before the settlement was made, and in that time the star was never even arrested. DA Tom Sneddon took his case to three separate grand juries and all three refused to let him bring charges. When Michael Jackson settled in 1994 he wasn't being prosecuted, he was being sued. The settlement even included a clause stating that the family's decision to settle the civil suit did not affect their ability to testify in a criminal trial.

Additionally, documents have come to light recently proving that Jackson didn't even want to settle the case. The documents state clearly that Jackson's insurance company settled the case against his will.

The true extent of Bashir's duplicity was revealed when he was called to testify in Jackson's 2005 trial. Jackson's attorney, Thomas Mesereau, used email communication and unreleased footage to prove that Bashir's documentary had been severely misleading.

It emerged during cross-examination that in order to win Jackson over, Bashir promised the star that he would arrange a meeting with Kofi Annan to discuss the possibility of an international children's holiday. He also said that he would fly Jackson to Africa with Kofi Annan to help children with AIDS.

Email communication showed that Bashir had written personally to Jackson's assistant and said that he would 'very much like to feature Michael with a large group of children, around fifty, welcoming them and sharing with them his extraordinary home'. Bashir would later use footage of this event, organised at his behest, in his documentary, adding voiceover about how 'disturbing' it was.

Bashir also wrote to Jackson's assistant and asked to film Neverland's beautiful landscape, 'encouraging us all to become as little children again'.

In omitted footage shot by Jackson's videographers, Bashir was shown referring to Neverland as 'extraordinary and breath-taking'. But in voiceover he referred to it as 'sinister' and claimed that it was a 'dangerous' place for children to visit.

Watch footage of Jackson interacting with children at Neverland. Bashir would later call the footage 'disturbing', neglecting to mention that the event was organised at his own request. In the footage Bashir is seen heaping praise on Neverland, before condemning it as 'sinister and dangerous' in post-production.

The footage also showed that on two occasions - once during their first interview and once during their last - Bashir told Jackson that he was 'harshly judged' for having plastic surgery and that he couldn't understand why Jackson was singled out for it - 'lots of people have that sort of thing done'. However, in the film he would say Jackson had gone 'too far' with the surgery and accuse him of lying.

Watch footage omitted by Bashir, in which Jackson discusses the impact that vitiligo had on his appearance. The omitted footage also shows Jackson discussing reconstructive surgery he needed after his head and face were burned while shooting a Pepsi commercial.

During Bashir's final interview with Jackson he referred to the star affectionately as 'Boss' and assured him that the documentary would work in his best interest. He also promised Jackson that he would interview Elizabeth Taylor. Bashir never interviewed Taylor.

Finally, he told Jackson that his relationship with his children was beautiful and made him weep. He would later imply via voiceover that Jackson was a bad father who used his children for his own amusement.

Having reviewed the overwhelming evidence that Bashir deliberately edited and narrated the documentary in order to portray Jackson unsympathetically, I again ask myself how it ever came to be re-screened.

How can it be considered even remotely ethical or responsible for ITV to air a documentary in the knowledge that the contents have been discredited? The simple answer is that it isn't responsible and it isn't ethical.

But ITV doesn't care. ITV doesn't care about slandering a dead man before he's buried. ITV doesn't care about three grieving children, eight grieving siblings and two grieving parents.

Why doesn't ITV care?

When it comes to grounds of misrepresentation and fact-fudging, OFCOM will only consider complaints from the misrepresented party. Jackson is dead, so nobody is around to complain or to sue. ITV knows that it is unethical and irresponsible to screen a discredited documentary with no disclaimer or rebuttal - but ITV also knows that it will never face any repercussions.

ITV will face no comeback, legal or otherwise. But I will file my complaint nonetheless, simply because I will be intrigued to see exactly how they try to defend last night's broadcast.

Hollywood Reporter: 'Halperin bio riddled with mistakes'

Yesterday I wrote about celebrity blogger Ian Halperin, who has been plugging a Michael Jackson biography by publishing bogus stories about the popstar for the best part of 8 months.

Roger Friedman of the Hollywood Reporter - for years the news media's most authoritative source on Michael Jackson - writes today on his blog: "Ian Halperin's book will make salacious reading but it is full of fiction, sources tell me."

The columnist brands claims that Jackson was unfit for his London shows a 'nonsense' and says Halperin's recent story about Jackson sneaking to a motel to sleep with a male construction worker is 'insane'.

Friedman also echoes my warning that Jackson will now become an even greater target for ludicrous stories, stating, 'You can write anything about the dead.'

Indeed, the law states that a dead person cannot be libelled because they no longer have a reputation to defend. Libelling a dead person cannot cause them to be shunned or avoided because they are dead. It cannot harm them in their business or their occupation because they are dead.

As such, when a celebrity dies the floodgates are opened. When Ray Charles died the media was flooded by stories about how he was a depraved sex maniac who indulged in drug orgies. When James Brown died GQ printed as fact an unsubstantiated allegation by a mentally unhinged woman that she Godfather of Soul had raped her at gunpoint.

Jackson will doubtless become the target of such nonsense in the coming weeks, months and years. Roger Friedman will surely be on hand to combat this and so, perhaps, will I.

Later: Jacques Peretti.

Ian Halperin: King of Plop

As the media frenzy over Michael Jackson's death enters its third week, stories are beginning to run out. The seemingly endless parade of Jackson 'friends' and 'insiders' is thinning and news outlets are stuck in limbo as they await the results of Jackson's autopsy. In the absence of any new or concrete information about Jackson's death, newspapers are becoming desperate for fodder. So desperate, in fact, that British red-top The Sun today publishes two separate 'Jacko' stories attributed to one Ian Halperin.

For those who don't know, Halperin is a celebrity blogger who has spent the last 8 months publicising an upcoming Jackson biography. He has done so by releasing a steady stream of fictitious stories about the popstar to any media outlet desperate or gullible enough to print them. In this era of cost-cutting, almost every media outlet in the Western world has swallowed and regurgitated his outlandish claims without hesitation.

Today's Halperin exclusives include revelations about Jackson's 'secret gay life'. The star, alleges Halperin, would disguise himself as a woman and sneak out to a motel to sleep with a male construction worker.

But here lies the problem: Halperin is a proven liar and a fantasist.

In November 2008 Halperin made headlines the world over when he claimed that Jackson had been struck down by a genetic lung condition known as Alpha 1, leaving him blind in one eye and unable to speak. In his blog entry he fabricated a confirmation from Jermaine Jackson and offered to provide proof of his findings the following week. That proof never materialised.

Halperin is now making much of the fact that he accurately predicted Jackson's untimely demise, carefully neglecting to mention that last month's tragic events were no more than a convenient coincidence. Halperin claimed Jackson would die within 6 months of a genetic lung disease... He died 8 months later of a suspected overdose.

Shortly after his lung disease story went global, Halperin claimed that Jackson had been booked to perform on the yacht of a Russian billionaire. This story also proved untrue.

In April 2009 Halperin appeared on British television claiming that the star hadn't shown up to any of the rehearsals for his London concerts. In actuality the star was rehearsing five days per week at Centre Staging Studios in Burbank, LA.

In the wake of Jackson's death, Halperin penned an article for the Daily Mail claiming that the star was so frail during his last weeks that he could barely stand or talk, let alone sing or dance, and was only scheduled to perform for 13 minutes per night during his London residency. Days later, rehearsal footage showed Jackson running around the stage during a three hour dress rehearsal.

Halperin's credibility was further diminished when, in the wake of the lung disease fallout, he was exposed as having lied about receiving a prestigious award. The blogger's bio claimed that he had been awarded the 1985 Rolling Stone award for investigative journalism. But the magazine itself issued a statement saying that nobody of that name had been handed any such award, rather that the award had been given to an entire newspaper staff, in which Halperin had been a minor player.

In spite of his track record, Halperin's Jackson biography is sure to fly off of the shelves when it is released later this month. But why does the media continue to quote him as an authoritative source on Jackson when every story he has released about the star thus far has proven entirely false?

Halperin's ability to consistently sneak his fabricated Jackson stories past fact checkers and into newspapers the world over is churnalism in action. Too few reporters filling too many pages leaves too little time for fact checking. When a chancer like Halperin comes along and hands them a story on a plate, they thank their lucky stars, lay it on a page and move onto the next task. Everybody's happy - Halperin gets his publicity and the newspaper fills vital space.

The losers, though, are Jackson's family. His fans too and, when he was still around, Jackson himself. Not to mention the general public. Misinformation is rife at the best of times, but with this rush for Jackson material, less and less time is being dedicated to fact checking.

Reporting on Michael Jackson has always been less than ethical. The man is a target for bogus stories. AEG head honcho Randy Phillips said in an interview earlier this year, "I was sitting opposite Michael Jackson in a meeting one morning and suddenly a news alert popped up that he'd been struck down with a flesh eating virus."

Halperin's articles have been repeatedly proven false. His biography is certain to be littered with similar errors. Readers beware - in death Jackson will be an even bigger target for shoddy reporting than he was in life.

More on the Jackson situation as it develops.