Charles Thomson

Jermaine Jackson Interview

2011-10-19T01:56:00.016+01:00

On Saturday 10th September, Jermaine Jackson unwittingly provoked a media storm. He was on the promotional trail for his new book when a news story misquoting a section of the prologue was duplicated hundreds of times around the world, sparking a huge backlash against the memoir.

The story wrongly claimed that had Michael Jackson been convicted of child molestation in 2005, his family had an escape plan in place to whisk him to Bahrain, where he couldn't be extradited. The story was controversial and nonsensical. It was also untrue.

Wherever the story originated, the journalist responsible was apparently too lazy even to read Jermaine's eight-and-a-half page prologue in full before they wrote it up. Then, several hundred more journalists replicated that story without making any attempt to fact-check it. The furore was such that Michael Jackson's 2005 lawyer Thomas Mesereau publicly spoke out against the claims.

For Jermaine Jackson, watching his book misquoted on a global scale and seeing himself criticised over a story he never wrote was a disaster. He was marketing his book as an honest firsthand account of his brother's life, but it had scarcely hit shelves before it was made to look like a work of fiction.

It was amidst this controversy that Jermaine Jackson flew to London to promote the book - a trip I didn't find out about until he was already on his way here.

Arranging an interview slot involved three days of negotiation between Jermaine, his publicist and representatives of his publishing house on both sides of the Atlantic. In the meantime, though, I got a brief private introduction 'backstage' at his London book signing on Tuesday 13th September.

During our meeting, Jermaine thanked me for my work on his brother's trial and we spoke about his trip to the UK so far. He also reminisced about the Victory album when my friend Angela (above, left) handed him a copy to sign.

It was Jermaine who suggested that 'we should at least get a picture' before we parted ways, admiring my camera and then asking for a second shot because he felt the first was taken too close-up. (I, sporting a few annoying patches of shaving rash, agreed.)

On the Wednesday evening, waiting to hear confirmation of my interview slot, I tripped over in my local park and landed with my hand in a patch of broken glass. On route to A&E, I learned that I would interview Jermaine Jackson the following day at the BBC studios.

On the afternoon of Thursday 15th, Jermaine's car picked me up in Wood Lane and delivered us all to the BBC studios. Now on his fourth consecutive day of back-to-back interviews in London, he'd just finished recording Loose Women and was at the BBC studios to be interviewed by Richard Bacon.

We were taken to an empty radio studio where Jermaine and I spoke for over half an hour about the backlash against his book, his family's struggle against biased reporting, how they coped with his brother's child molestation trial, and how racism affected the family both during the Jackson 5 days and in later life.

We discussed how he felt about the decision to put his brother's children onstage at the upcoming tribute concert in Cardiff (which happened on Oct 8th), his annoyance at the Los Angeles justice system's obsession with holidays, and the shocking content in chapter 22 of his book, which recounts his sources' recollections of the 'This Is It' rehearsals.

And we discussed a whole lot more, too.

Before I left, we snapped another picture - this time at my request. I'd shifted my shaving rash but was now sporting a hospital dressing on my right hand. Here we are in the empty radio studio:

Shortly after our BBC studios interview, Jermaine was generous enough to answer several more questions via email correspondence. I have woven those quotes into my article alongside the quotes from our in-person encounter, because it is too jarring and wastes too many words to keep differentiating between the two. My interview with Jermaine will be serialised on the Huffington Post. Part one is now online (link below). Keep checking the blog and my twitter page for updates on future installations.

--Click here to read Part One of my
Exclusive Interview with Jermaine Jackson--

VIDEO: Thomas Mesereau Interview

2011-10-17T23:50:00.008+01:00

On Friday evening I was contacted by a fan-site called Positively Michael who had organised a podcast with Thomas Mesereau, the lawyer who secured Michael Jackson's acquittal in his 2005 child molestation trial. The following day, Mr Mesereau was scheduled to spend an hour answering questions from specially invited contributors, and I was the only journalist to receive an invitation.

I've been covering the Michael Jackson story for four years now. My first published article on the subject of Michael Jackson's trial was in 2008, when I interviewed Aphrodite Jones about her book 'Michael Jackson Conspiracy'.

Aphrodite was one of the handful of journalists allowed inside the courtroom for every day of Michael Jackson's 2005 trial. After his acquittal, she decided to write a book about how she'd witnessed firsthand the media's intentional misrepresentation of the evidence and testimony in the case. But despite having seven previous New York Times bestselling books under her belt, no publisher would touch the manuscript. They weren't interested in any pro-Jackson material.

When Aphrodite self-published the book, I decided to interview her. Our interview was published in a small, short-lived magazine called 'Deadline' and Aphrodite described it as the best article she'd ever seen written about her work.

In May of the following year, the media's misrepresentation of the Michael Jackson trial formed a key part of the introduction to my self-published music magazine 'JIVE' and since Michael Jackson's death, my work on his trial has been published by Sawf News and the Huffington Post. So when I was presented with the opportunity to interview Thomas Mesereau on-air, however briefly, I couldn't say no.

During our conversation, Mr Mesereau spoke about the media's skewed coverage of the trial, why particular pundits are still bitter about the verdict, the peculiar closeness between the prosecutors and their witnesses, and why he felt Michael Jackson would be abused by prison guards and die in jail if he was convicted.

Here is the audio of our ten-minute exchange:

Click here to download the entire podcast, free of charge, from iTunes.

VIDEO: James Brown Press Conference 2006

2011-10-10T16:50:00.018+01:00

Having successfully ripped my Sky News appearance from a DVD and uploaded it to the YouTube, I was inspired to pluck another clip from my archive and stick that online for your enjoyment too.

Back in October 2006 I had just begun my journalism degree. I had been a James Brown fan throughout my teens and had seen him live three times. When I found out he was coming to the UK for a BBC concert, I decided to use my new 'student journalist' credentials to apply for an interview.

Most press officers would have simply ignored my email but Adam Dewhurst, who was looking after James Brown during his London trip, was kind enough to reply. He told me that Mr Brown wasn't doing any interviews while he was in the capital but that he was giving a press conference at Camden's Roundhouse a few hours before his concert there. If I wanted to go, he said, he'd put me on the list.

And so it came to be that on October 27th 2006 I found myself sitting in a small room upstairs at the Roundhouse - one of only two non-BBC journalists to be invited - waiting for an audience with my hero: the Godfather of Soul.

Mr Brown was late. I didn't much care. It gave my nerves time to settle. I was green; I'd never been to a press conference before; talk about a baptism of fire.

The other journalists seemed unphased - some actually seemed to view the press conference as an unwanted distraction from their other work. I couldn't understand it. How many people can say they've had the opportunity to pick the brain of the most influential musician of the last century? But their nonchalance subsided as soon as somebody whispered, "He's coming! He's coming!" There was a stunned silence.

Author Jonathan Lethem once wrote of James Brown:

"It is not merely that attention quickens in any room this human being inhabits. The phenomenon is more akin to a kind of grade-school physics experiment: Lines of force are suddenly visible in the air, rearranged, oriented. The band, the hangers-on, the very oxygen, every trace particle is charged in its relation to the gravitational field of James Brown...

"I'm also struck by the almost extraterrestrial quality of otherness incarnated in this human being... He's in his midseventies, yet, encountering him now in person, it occurs to me that James Brown is kept under wraps for so long at the outset of his own show, and is viewed primarily at a distance, or mediated through recordings or films, in order to buffer the unprepared spectator from the awesome strangeness and intensity of his person. He simply has more energy, is vibrating at a different rate, than anyone I've ever met, young or old. With every preparation I've made, he's still terrifying."

The description is an accurate one. A room full of cynical journalists, bemoaning James Brown's lateness and its impact on their deadlines, fell into a deferential hush as soon as he came into view down the corridor.

Mr Brown was in pain throughout his trip to the UK. In an article titled 'Jawedfather of Soul; James Brown ignores dental op agony at Scots gig', Glasgow's Daily Record reported that Brown had undergone dental implant surgery just days before flying to the UK and was "in so much pain he had to avoid talking and rinse his mouth with salt water just hours before going on stage."

Brown's cheeks looked sunken - the teeth he had in didn't fit properly. They were holding the fort until his final set were finished and inserted. It was when Brown attended a dental appointment two months later to have the final set put in that he was told he was too ill for surgery and sent to hospital with pneumonia, where he died shortly afterwards.

His voice was hushed, his speech difficult to decipher. It's not obvious in the below clip how quiet his voice was because he was speaking directly into a BBC microphone, but at 1m18s you'll notice a significant change in audio quality. This was because reporters were complaining that they couldn't hear Mr Brown's answers to their questions, so a door was closed.

The press conference was roughly fifteen minutes long, in which time Mr Brown discussed what to expect from his concert that night, the need to get children interested in playing instruments again and the negative impact that violent hip-hop imagery has on young people and on society in general.

Being as green as I was, I was too timid to shout my way through the other reporters and ask a question, so Mr Dewhurst kindly offered me the floor. I took the opportunity to ask Mr Brown about the album I knew he'd been working on, then known to fans as 'World Against The Grain' (it later turned out to be 'World Funk Against The Grain'). I got an answer I didn't expect.

During his lengthy response, Mr Brown spoke about the new track 'Gutbucket', in which he blasted hip-hop artists for their violent and misogynistic lyrics. This led to a discussion about the degradation of the music industry. Finally, though, he made some troubling comments. "Somebody's gonna have to die before we get that out," he muttered about the album. "I won't say much more than that."

He concluded, "We would love to get that out, but we need help." As he said the word 'help', his voice cracked - perhaps through emotion, perhaps because he was battling intense oral pain. Either way, to hear the notoriously proud James Brown publicly stating that he needed help was bizarre; as somewhat of a James Brown archivist, it is the only occasion I'm aware of on which Brown has ever publicly exhibited anything approaching weakness.

The comments prompted an uncomfortable silence and Mr Brown's personal manager, Charles Bobbit, leaned apologetically into the assorted microphones and said, "You should get that some time next year."

"I remember that press conference," Mr Bobbit would later tell me. "It was as if he had a premonition. I guess it came true, huh?"

Mr Brown's comments that night divide those who surrounded him. Some believe that those in charge of Brown's estate never intended the album to be released while he was alive and that his death was suspicious.

According to family sources, when Mr Brown's son-in-law told the National Enquirer he believed Brown had been murdered, he was shot dead days later and $500 was found in his pockets, ruling out robbery as a motive. Another family member told me last year that when they started asking questions, they were told, "that I could go missing and that there are a lot of swamps in Georgia."

Others, though, say the album simply wasn't finished and that Brown had a tendency to exaggerate, perhaps amplified on this occasion by pain medication he may have been taking to counter the agony caused by his dental surgery.

This month, former trustee of Brown's estate, David Cannon, is due to stand trial on numerous counts of mismanaging the James Brown estate both before and after Brown's death. Perhaps some answers will be provided by those proceedings.

The press conference was shot in full but never aired. The only footage broadcast on TV was the two-minute skit I have included below. My question was included but Mr Brown's answer, unsurprisingly, was not.

I didn't take many notes - I wasn't sure about the etiquette of breaking eye contact with James Brown as he spoke to me, so I maintained eye contact for the duration of his answer and scribbled down what I could when he finished. Those notes have long since been lost.

A few years ago I tried to obtain the unedited footage of the press conference but was told by the BBC that this skit was all they could find.

Although Mr Brown seemed troubled, I remain grateful to Mr Dewhurst for inviting me to that press conference. As it turned out, I would never have had another chance to speak to Mr Brown. He died less than two months later, on Christmas Day 2006.

My encounter with James Brown prompted my research into his final album, which produced my Guardian Award-winning article, 'James Brown: The Lost Album'. James Brown book-ended my career as a student journalist. In my first month of studies, I attended that press conference. Just over three years later, shortly after I graduated, I was handed my Guardian Award.

Though this footage is brief, and my own on-screen appearance amounts to about two seconds, this is a video I will treasure forever - and I'm glad to finally be able to share it with you all.

VIDEO: Sky News

2011-10-10T16:42:00.003+01:00

Here is a clip of my appearance on Sky News on the morning of Saturday 8th October, which I wrote about in my last blog entry.

Sky News

2011-10-10T15:59:00.007+01:00

On June 25th 2009, in the hours after Michael Jackson passed away, I was contacted by several rolling news channels who wanted to interview a 'Jackson expert' live on-air. By the morning of June 26th, I had appeared via telephone on BBC News 24, BBC World Service and Sky News.

Since then I hadn't heard much from any of them - perhaps because in the weeks after Jackson's death I declined a few appearances - but this Friday I received a surprise phone call from Sky News, looking for somebody to appear on-air the following morning and chat about Saturday's 'Forever Michael' tribute concert in Cardiff.

It was a brief appearance but fairly successful for a first ever live TV studio interview, by which I mean it was uneventful; I didn't faint, freeze up or barf into the host's lap. Although I did get home later one and notice this:

Did you spot that?

I'll zoom in.

Yes, Sky News became the latest in a long line of media organisations to misspell my name. But never mind. As live TV goes, it's a minor complaint.

I was blindsided by a few questions on Paul McCartney's wedding, about which I knew nothing except what I'd briefly read on the front page of the Mirror in the Sky News green room ten minutes previously. Fortunately, the McCartney questions weren't too probing. I think I got away with it.

I will post video of my appearance shortly.

Strange Fruit Still Falling In The Southern States; The Unjust Execution of Troy Davis

2011-09-28T01:56:00.010+01:00

I spent much of Wednesday 21st September deliberating over whether or not to write something about the Troy Davis case. I, like many thousands of people around the world, was horrified by the prospect of his execution in the face of such overwhelming doubt over his guilt - but I was also aware that the case was already being covered all over the world.

For those who don't know, Troy Davis was convicted in 1991 of the 1989 murder of off-duty police officer Mark MacPhail. Jurors sentenced Davis to death based solely on eyewitness testimony, of which much has since been recanted with nine people signing affidavits stating that another man committed the murder. Despite this, Davis was executed in the state of Georgia on the evening of Wednesday 21st September 2011.

As Wednesday progressed, two main factors convinced me to write about the injustice which ultimately befell Troy Davis at just past 11PM (ET) last Wednesday.

First, I observed the right-wing media's biased reporting on the case. Some news stations completely ignored the wealth of evidence which undermined Troy Davis's conviction, instead echoing the MacPhail family's misguided cries for Davis's blood. Others told blatant lies, such as claiming that the recanted witness testimony was largely mythical (in fact all of the recantations are accounted for in this PDF on Amnesty's website).

Unsurprisingly, it was Anne Coulter who offered the most shocking commentary, relishing Troy's imminent death on her twitter feed ('One Troy Davis flame broiled please') and wrongly claiming on her website that there is no evidence to suggest an innocent person has been executed in the US for 60 years.

Then, shortly after Coulter published her disturbing diatribe, I received a four-word tweet from my friend Deborah Ffrench. It read, 'Strange Fruit Still Growing'. The tweet referenced one of the greatest and most haunting poems ever written; Strange Fruit by Abel Meeropol. Later turned into a song by Billie Holliday, the song recounts the lynching of black citizens in America in the 1930s.

Southern trees bear a strange fruit,
Blood on the leaves and blood on the root.
Black body swinging in the Southern breeze,
Strange fruit hanging from the poplar trees...

The title for my Troy Davis article came to me in a flash and I got to work. Over the next two days I set about creating what I hoped would come as close as possible to being the 'definitive' Troy Davis article. Tracking down the signed recantation affidavits which several journalists and media outlets had dismissed as fictitious, I included extensive quotes from witnesses who claimed they'd been bullied and threatened by police officers who forced them to falsely identify Davis as the shooter of Mark MacPhail in Davis's 1991 trial.

I had to shorten my article for the Huffington Post which, in recent months, is asking contributors to cap their contributions at roughly 1000 words, but I have uploaded the unedited version of my article on my personal website. So perhaps read the article on my website but leave your comment at the Huffington Post.

I am unashamedly opposed to capital punishment. The notion that it works as a deterrent is swiftly debunked by America's crime statistics and the idea that we can teach our children that murder is wrong by murdering murderers is clearly deranged. Moreover, the justice system gets it wrong far too often. If you put someone in a cell, you can take them back out again; the same can't be said after you've put them in the ground.

The Innocence Project estimates that between 2.3% and 5% of prisoners in America are innocent, meaning that, potentially, upwards of 150 American prisoners are currently awaiting execution for crimes that they didn't commit. How many more Troy Davis's must there be before America sees the light?

Click here
to visit my Huffington Post blog
about the Troy Davis case.

Click here
to read the uncut version,
featuring extensive quotes from witnesses
who claim police framed Davis for the murder.

2011: An Undersea Odyssey

2011-09-17T13:14:00.002+01:00

Further to my vacation snaps in the last entry, this year Emily Jayne of TABA took a little video of two of our undersea adventures.

Catching Up

2011-09-17T12:02:00.003+01:00

Apologies for the lack of updates recently. There has been a lot going on.

Gigs...

George Clinton + the P-Funk All Stars live at the HMV Forum.
(NB. All pictures in this blog can be enlarged by clicking on them)

Bootsy Collins live at the Indigo2.

...vacation...

...politics...

...weddings...

...and more. But there will be updates to this blog very shortly, so keep your eyes peeled.

RE:Discovered - The Marvelettes, 'Strange I Know'

2011-07-03T23:58:00.005+01:00

Just a quick note to let you know that the new edition of Wax Poetics is on stands right now and includes a one page article in the RE:Discovered section by yours truly, all about the too-often forgotten Marvelettes hit 'Strange I Know'. Copies can also be ordered from the official Wax Poetics website.

More influential than the Beatles; Meet George Clinton

2011-05-29T23:57:00.024+01:00

George Clinton onstage at the Indigo2, 2007
Picture: James Newman

"Do a search for the greatest rock bands of all time and you won't see mention of Parliament-Funkadelic. I know that rock critics like to fight over whether the Rolling Stones or the Beatles deserve the number one spot but in my eyes neither of them can hold a candle to what P-Funk brought to the music. As far as I'm concerned, P-Funk rocked harder than all of them combined... It's funny that the greatest rock group is always assumed to be white."

André Torres - Editor-in-Chief, Wax Poetics

News of George Clinton's hospitalisation shocked music lovers around the world this week but perhaps none more so than me, for the hospitalisation came just days after I enjoyed a 75-minute interview with George, during which he seemed to be perfectly fine.

Alarm bells sounded among funk fans after Bootsy Collins reported the news on his facebook page and asked his followers to pray for George Clinton's recovery. Fortunately the hospitalisation wasn't too serious - a staph infection was discovered in George's leg as he underwent a routine check-up. He's already checked out and is now busy preparing to embark on yet another international concert tour.

The level of media interest was surprising given that George Clinton is one of the most unsung music pioneers still walking among us. Fusing the hard funk of James Brown with the psychedelic edge of Sly and the Family Stone and the blistering rock of Jimi Hendrix, George and his group Parliament-Funkadelic cultivated a groundbreaking sound.

According to Rolling Stone their output, which "[mixed] funk polyrhythms, psychedelic guitar, jazzy horns [and] vocal-group harmonies" was "some of pop's most adventurous music of the Seventies." Their unique sound ultimately laid the foundations for much of the hip-hop that now dominates the musical landscape.

Despite achieving three platinum albums, Parliament-Funkadelic never quite reached chart blockbuster status. Nonetheless, their danceable beats and affirmative lyrics resonated with a huge audience and today they're considered one of the most influential groups of the last century.

Flourishing in the early 1970s, P-Funk's music was often laced with political commentary but delivered it in a far less divisive way than 1960s protest songs like James Brown's 'Say It Loud, I'm Black And I'm Proud'. Instead the tunes often focused on music as a uniting factor. P-Funk sang of 'One Nation Under A Groove'. Music could make barriers melt away into insignificance; 'Free Your Mind And Your Ass Will Follow' read their 1970 album cover.

Even the compositions were about unity. When Bootsy Collins migrated to P-Funk from James Brown's revue he brought with him the concept of 'the one': the one-and-three beat Brown popularised during the 1960s and early 1970s. "When everybody's playing it in unison instead of harmony, it's as one," George said in 2010. "That's strong... It's in unison so it's like it'll be around forever. It's in your genes... Then we're all together as one... The entity of one as a life form - as life. One DNA. I'm for you, you for me. We for trees and we for the planet."

In a stroke of genius, Clinton devised a distinct, space-age image with which the band's music became synonymous. Dressed in otherworldly costumes and starring in comic strips on their album artwork, the group presented themselves as a band of black superheroes - an empowering and cutting edge move so far ahead of its time, in fact, that we're now halfway into 2011 and there's still never been a major movie about a black superhero (bar Hancock, in which the black superhero was an inept drunkard).

By fusing searing social commentary with radio-friendly grooves and comic book imagery, Clinton and his band were able to rail against social ills in a non-threatening way. Clinton's ideology crept past the same DJs who dropped James Brown from their playlists when he released 'Say It Loud'. 'Cosmic Slop' became a club smash, filling dancefloors all over America, despite telling the story of a woman who becomes a prostitute to feed her children.

Combining their pioneering funk-rock fusion and their distinctive visual presentation, P-Funk enjoyed enormous success as a touring act, selling out stadiums throughout the 1970s with an elaborate concert experience in which Clinton would descend in a million-dollar spaceship to bestow the gift of funk upon his audience. That spaceship - the mothership - has now been acquired by the Smithsonian.

Often dismissed as clownish figures at the height of their fame, in more recent years George Clinton and P-Funk have been acknowledged as some of the most respected and influential musicians of all time. From Prince to the Red Hot Chilli Peppers (who recruited George in 1985 to produce and write for their album 'Freaky Styley') a lot of the biggest acts to have emerged since the early 1980s have cited P-Funk as one of their greatest influences. In 1997 the group was inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame and in 2009 George was handed the BMI Icon Award.

P-Funk's influence on several generations of hip-hop musicians is self-evident in the number of times their music has been sampled, which runs into the thousands. In fact, P-Funk are thought to be the second most sampled act of all time, beaten only by James Brown. Academic Vladimir Gutkovich has described them as "the key predecessor of hip-hop music."

Indeed, there is a very strong argument to be made that George and P-Funk have had more impact on the contemporary musical landscape than even the Beatles. Wax Poetics editor André Torres wrote in 2006:

"While most critics want to put the holy trinity [Beatles, Stones, Zeppelin] on a pedestal, with the world domination of hip-hop culture and the large role that P-Funk has played in the sound of hip-hop, I dare say that P-Funk's impact can be felt much more strongly thirty years later than that of those three bands. When I asked Dr Dre, the quintessential post-modern producer who has changed the course of pop music three times in two decades, who he listened to growing up and was his biggest influence, he said P-Funk. Not the Beatles."

Presently, though, George is troubled. While his pioneering music continues to form the basis for so much contemporary output, he's getting the props but he's not getting the cash. Like many black musicians of his era, he was hoodwinked by the very music industry figures who were supposed to be looking out for his best interests.

George's financial problems began in the 1980s and have continued on-and-off ever since. In 2005 a court ruled that a man called Armen Boladian had forged George's signature on numerous documents in order to falsely assert ownership of some of George's masters. The masters in question were returned to George but Boladian still controls much of the P-Funk catalogue and George contests his ownership of those masters too.

George's investigations into the corporate skullduggery around him and his music have turned up what could be one of the biggest known conspiracies in the history of the music business. His losses over the last 25 years or so could total as much as $100million. Just one sample can be worth hundreds of thousands of dollars and George is one of the most sampled artists in music history. For more than two decades artists have been paying for the rights to sample his work and that money has been landing straight into other people's bank accounts. But the injustice doesn't even end there.

His albums hop labels when he's not looking. At an album signing a few years ago a fan handed him a CD he'd released on Sony and he noticed that instead of saying 'Sony' on the artwork, it said 'Westbound'. He'd never sanctioned nor profited from this apparent re-release. Somebody else was getting paid for it. There's more, too.

Type George's name into iTunes and you'll notice that a lot of his tracks show up as having been written by 'George S. Clinton'. That's not George Clinton. Every time you buy one of those tracks, somebody else gets paid for it.

During a recent trip to the US Copyright Office, arranged by Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee, George discovered documents showing that his songs had been repeatedly re-registered without his knowledge or permission, with original songwriters missing and new songwriters added.

Deceased P-Funk members' catalogues had been re-registered as though they were still alive, years after they passed away. At one point somebody went to NYC to re-register George's entire catalogue in one hit. George has even obtained a signed declaration from a man who says he was paid thousands of dollars to pretend he'd written some of George's material.

George's legal disputes are ongoing with no resolution in sight. The scale of the battle facing George is almost beyond comprehension. It could take years to unpick - meanwhile, other people continue to profit from his record sales and samples.

Outside of this troubling issue, though, George remains upbeat. At 69-years-old, he is appalled by the mere mention of retirement. He plays roughly 200 gigs every year and is horrified by the idea of stopping. He loves gigging and the proceeds allow him to pursue his often overlooked humanitarian efforts. Just last year he was involved in fundraising efforts for Haiti and donated 25% of all future P-Funk royalties to the Barrack Obama Green Charter High School in his home town of Plainfield, New Jersey.

During our interview we also covered more emotional topics. In the last year and a half he has lost his son and his mother, as well as P-Funk bandmates Garry Shider and Phelps 'Catfish' Collins. He told me how getting onstage 200 nights a year and spreading his positive message helps him to cope with the loss. He also spoke candidly about the aging process, his periods of drug abuse and checking into rehab with Sly Stone, with whom he's recently been in the studio working on new music.

There was more positive chat, too, including discussion of a planned Motown album and a flash drive in the shape of George's hand, the finger of which will plug into your home computer giving access to almost every track the group has ever recorded, including demos and live recordings.

Despite this week's health scare, George is still very much alive and kicking. He works constantly in the studio down the street from his home and is about to embark on a grueling concert tour around America and Europe. These aren't rigid, untaxing oldies gigs either. P-Funk gigs are perhaps the best value for money around. George and the band routinely play for three hours or more and the shows often consist of long improvisations. No two gigs are the same.

In the background George is relentlessly pursuing years of unpaid royalties for himself and his P-Funk collaborators as well as restored ownership of his masters. He also intends to start a legal fund for artists facing similar copyright problems and has agreed to give lessons at the Barrack Obama Green Charter High School, teaching music students how to avoid getting ripped off in the same way. So fear not, funkateers - it's going to take a lot more than a staph infection to slow him down.

For news on the publication of my interview with George Clinton, keep an eye on my blog. For details of George's upcoming gigs, click here.

(Click to enlarge)
Charles Thomson and George Clinton at the Indigo2, 2007
Picture: James Newman

The Best Laid Plans

2011-05-29T23:52:00.003+01:00

Regular blog readers will recall that back in January I interviewed funk legend Pee Wee Ellis and said that it would be published in the coming months. It's now almost June and the interview is nowhere to be seen so I thought I'd let you know what's going on.

My interview with Pee Wee was carried out at a time when I was contributing regularly to a publication with whom I had an ongoing relationship. In the current financial climate that publication was unable to retain my services after March, nor pay me for any work which they'd already given the go ahead. As such, this interview is currently in limbo.

More news as and when I have it. I look forward to sharing this interview with you as soon as I possibly can.

Radio Silence

2011-05-26T02:30:00.021+01:00

It's been more than eight weeks since I last blogged and this is only my fourth entry since January. The reason is that I've thrown myself into my work of late - albeit a different type of work to what many of you are familiar with.

For the last five months I've been spending, on average, between three and five days per week at my local courthouse. During this time I've witnessed pretty much every stage of the legal process - arraignments, trials, sentences, appeals and more. The trials I've sat through have encompassed everything from rape to child molestation, domestic violence to perverting the course of justice, indecent exposure to actual bodily harm.

The idea came to me during dinner with a friend who is ensconced in his exams to become a barrister. As part of his course he'd spent a period of time shadowing a judge at the local courthouse and was telling me about the interesting cases he'd witnessed.

It occurred to me that the courthouse was potentially an untapped source of local and national news stories; who knew what was going on inside that building? I certainly wasn't reading anything about any of the cases my friend had observed in either the local or the national press. I decided that if nobody else was going to write about them, I'd give it a shot.

Often fascinating and occasionally disturbing, the past five months have been revelatory, to say the least. I've embarked on an exploration not only of the court system and its workings but also the courts' relationship with the media and, sadly, the media's failings which it comes to reporting on our justice system.

I've seen prosecutors force defendants to stand trial on the flimsiest of evidence and not be held to account for their arrogance. I've seen judges let off paedophiles with minor sentences when their offences could easily have merited several years behind bars.

I've seen one person convicted of a crime which I saw no evidence that they'd committed. I also witnessed 'churnalism' in action when a news agency journalist showed up for twenty minutes of a three week trial and then had their story circulated internationally.

The first trial I sat through was a fascinating introduction. A local man stood accused of domestic violence resulting in actual bodily harm to his then pregnant girlfriend. Giving evidence for the prosecution, the claimant sobbed repeatedly as she claimed that the defendant had attacked her and attempted to kill her unborn baby. But as she underwent cross-examination it became clear that her claims just didn't stack up.

Photographs of her injuries didn't tally with her description of the alleged assault. She claimed to have had her head smashed repeatedly against a wall and a door, as well as receiving numerous blows to the head and face from the defendant's fists. She even said that the defendant had bitten her hard on the cheek - but police photographs showed only two or three small marks on her face; no large bruises, no cuts and no bite marks.

Her version of events changed repeatedly between her police interview, a deposition she gave in order to prevent the defendant from visiting his child and then her courtroom testimony during his trial. On the stand she seemed to strategically omit certain claims she'd earlier made to police, which she knew were unsupported by any evidence.

These included a claim that the defendant had torn her nipple during the alleged assault and her shirt had been 'covered in blood'. The nipple injury was neither noted nor photographed by police and the bloodied shirt was nowhere to be found, even though she'd gone to the police within hours of the attack having supposedly taken place.

Her allegations were further undermined when a police officer took the stand and testified that the defendant had been helpful in his police interview and his story, unlike the claimant's, had remained consistent. He had not only waved his right to remain silent but also his right to a lawyer, telling police he'd done nothing wrong so he didn't need one. He even volunteered his mobile phone to officers for analysis and police found that the confused text messages he'd sent the claimant tallied with his claim that he didn't know why she'd disappeared with all her stuff that morning.

Significantly, the police officer noted upon the defendant's arrest, less than 24 hours after the alleged incident, that he had no cuts, bruises or markings to his fists or any other part of his body.

Two defence witnesses testified that the claimant had a history of self-harming and could have self-inflicted the handful of injuries she actually exhibited when she contacted police. Both testified that the claimant had told them she'd previously spent time in the Priory Clinic receiving treatment for drugs, alcohol and self-harm issues.

Attempts to obtain the claimant's Priory records were derailed when the clinic informed police that they'd recently switched to a new computer filing system and couldn't look far back enough to check whether she'd been a patient before the alleged attack. It emerged, though, that she had been treated for self-harm issues at the Priory after the alleged incident.

Further doubt was shed on the claimant's version of events when a defence witness testified that she'd seen the claimant on the morning after the alleged attack but before she went to police. The witness testified that the claimant's hair had been tied back that morning and she hadn't displayed any visible injuries.

The defendant's belief, he said on the stand, was that his girlfriend had decided that she didn't want to be in a relationship with him anymore but knew that the child would ensure his continued presence in her life. Her solution, he posited, was to fabricate the assault because it allowed her to obtain a court order preventing him from seeing his child and therefore from seeing her. In the months since she'd left, his child had been born and he had no idea what it was called or even what sex it was or whether it was healthy.

A jury of six men and six women took roughly one hour to acquit the defendant on the third day of his trial - but he was less concerned with the verdict than he was with the health of his 80-year-old grandmother, who was in hospital after crashing her car that morning on her way to court to support him; a journey she'd never have embarked on if the borderline deranged prosecution hadn't gone forward in the first place.

I was relieved to see the defendant acquitted because the doubt in that case was beyond reasonable. At the very least, the claimant appeared to have fabricated aspects of the alleged assault but some evidence, such as the defendant's lack of injuries, strongly suggested that the incident was simply the product of her imagination.

It could easily have gone the other way, though. Some crimes - particularly crimes against women and children - are emotive. You have only to mention them and the jury is already horrified. All it takes is a good prosecutor (or a bad defender) or even for the jury to simply look the defendant up and down and decide that he looks like the type - and things can go awry.

During my first few weeks at the courthouse I realised that I was, generally, the only journalist in the building. If I hadn't been sitting in that courtroom and the verdict had gone the other way, nobody would have known that a miscarriage of justice had occurred. Moreover, there are five courtrooms at my local courthouse so for every trial I watched, up to four more were potentially going ahead with nobody present to keep an eye on proceedings.

My next trial showed me that even when journalists do show up to watch a trial, they're not necessarily fulfilling their role properly. The defendant was Emma Smiter, a former Police Community Support Officer who stood accused of leaking sensitive information, including the name of a sex assault victim, to a journalist and then perverting the course of justice.

Smiter's first trial for misconduct in a public office had begun in 2010 but was disbanded after documents she produced as part of her defence - namely two blogs which she claimed were the source of her information, as opposed to police computers - were found to have been faked.

A subsequent investigation found that the blogs had been created just days before her trial began but were backdated to the time of the leaks, and that they'd been created on a computer in Smiter's home under a user profile called 'Emma'. She was charged with perverting the course of justice and her trial was rescheduled for late February 2011. She was convicted on March 16th and sentenced in April to twelve months in jail, of which she will serve six.

I sat in the courtroom for almost the entirety of that trial, missing only the first day or two because I was watching another case down the corridor. For the overwhelming majority of the trial, I was the only journalist in the courtroom.

I was the only journalist to sit through Smiter's testimony from beginning to end. I was the only journalist to witness the key testimony of her father, a senior police officer. I was the only journalist to sit through the closing speeches and the judge's summing up. But despite having sat through more of the trial than any other journalist and despite the national interest in the trial, I couldn't sell a story on it. Why? Because I was scooped by a news agency who scarcely attended any of the proceedings.

The news agency was present for perhaps three days out of the three week trial, covering the opening of the prosecution case and the opening of the defence case but none of the evidence. By the time the verdict was handed down on March 16th the news agency hadn't been on the scene for roughly a week. However, when the case was called for verdict, a journalist from the organisation - who hadn't attended a single other day of the trial - appeared in the courtroom just for the twenty-minute verdict reading. On the way out of the courtroom, she stopped me and asked, "Sorry - do you know what the charges are in this case?"

Despite the fact that this journalist had witnessed a grand total of twenty minutes of Emma Smiter's three week trial and didn't even know what charges Smiter had been convicted on, her copy was syndicated internationally. Meanwhile I, having witnessed the trial almost from beginning to end, couldn't sell a story. Here's why.

Newspapers pay subscription to news agencies or 'wires', whose copy arrives in the newsroom electronically and is technically already bought and paid for, whether they choose to use it or not. In an era of falling circulations, downsizing and dwindling freelance budgets some newspapers, when confronted with a choice between detailed freelance copy or superficial wire copy, will choose the wire copy for budgetary reasons. Why buy a freelancer's version of the story when you've already paid for the wire copy?

The wire copy didn't do the trial justice. The case was fascinating and the news agency didn't have even 10% of the information I had. I even had an exclusive post-trial briefing with the head of Hertfordshire Constabulary's Anti-Corruption Department. None of it got published.

In his book Flat Earth News, Nick Davies discusses in detail how freelance reporters have suffered as a direct consequence of the increasing corporate ownership of newspapers. The knock-on effect has been that the quality of journalism has suffered, particularly the coverage of Britain's court network.

Just twenty years ago, most courthouses in the country would have had a reporter in them most days filing copy with news agencies and newspapers. Now entire regions are covered by just one or two freelancers dividing their time between dozens of courthouses.

This is alarming. It is absolutely vital that our courts operate openly and transparently. That's why members of the public can walk in off of the street and sit in on almost any trial in any courthouse in the country. Scrutiny is supposed to keep prosecutors and judges in check but with nobody documenting what's going on inside our courthouses, innocent people could be convicted on a daily basis and we'd never know anything about it.

In the past few months I've seen prosecutors pursue cases which were flimsy to the point of being farcical. Prosecutors shouldn't be allowed to just pursue anybody they like by virtue of their status. Every person is innocent until proven guilty but I've seen prosecutors put people on trial with literally no compelling evidence of their guilt - and in one of those trials, they won (more on that shortly).

I've seen judges get away with some pretty bizarre behavior too. On two occasions I've had stories published in national newspapers about judges letting off child sex offenders with ridiculously light sentences.

A teacher who downloaded child porn onto a school laptop and then ferried it between school and home got off without even an hour's community service, despite a previous judge recommending custody. Another man with almost 5million child porn images, who described collecting the pictures as his 'hobby', was eligible for more than five years in prison but was sentenced to just thirty months, of which he will serve only fifteen. That story made front page of the local paper.

Click to enlarge

By far the most disturbing experience thus far, though, has been the case of Terence Ruddigan. Mr Ruddigan was 21 years old when a jury at my local courthouse convicted him of seriously assaulting a doorman at a local bar. I believe Mr Ruddigan's conviction was a miscarriage of justice. I sat through his trial from beginning to end and didn't see the prosecutor offer up one piece of evidence or one reliable witness proving Mr Ruddigan's guilt.

Police failed to conduct vital forensic analysis which could have cleared Ruddigan, but the necessary tests were never carried out and no explanation was offered as to why. On grounds of 'hearsay', prosecutors were allowed to cover up evidence in a police officer's statement that a witness had told police Ruddigan wasn't responsible for the altercation, but police failed to take the witness's details or follow up that lead. The jurors never got to hear about that.

The only witnesses who fingered Ruddigan as the attacker all gave completely contradictory versions of events. The only 'eyewitness' whose testimony stood up to scrutiny was the victim, who never saw his attacker.

One witness claimed to have had a conversation with Mr Ruddigan while he was locked in the back of a police car with the window rolled up - a nonsensical claim which Ruddigan legitimately blasted as untrue. Another witness said he had absolutely no recollection of ever attending the identity parade and picking out Ruddigan as the culprit - a bizarre claim that nobody in the court had ever heard from any witness in any previous trial.

The identification evidence itself was tainted. The ID parade was held a full three months after the attack happened and events in the interim seriously called into question its validity. Just days after the assault - before Ruddigan had even been charged with a crime - police attached his mugshot to a 'Behave Or Be Banned' poster and circulated it to all local bars - including the scene of the crime. At that bar, staff were required to observe the poster before work every day and memorise the faces so they knew who to pay attention to during opening hours.

In other words, before attending the ID parade the eyewitnesses spent several minutes every day for three months staring at Mr Ruddigan's face and memorising it as that of a troublemaker. When they eventually attended the ID parade - which was based on pictures rather than a line-up - the mugshot they saw was the same mugshot that appeared on the poster.

Ruddigan took a further blow when it turned out that his previous solicitors had omitted vital information from his defence case statement, which made it appear that he was making up his defence on the spot. It was later shown via legal documents that Ruddigan's testimony had indeed been consistent and the fault was that of his solicitors, but by that time he'd already taken a beating from the prosecutor during cross-examination.

Outside court Ruddigan also told me that his previous solicitor had obtained and showed him CCTV of another person fleeing the bar after the attack, but he had no idea where it was now that he'd hired new counsel.

A predominantly middle-aged/elderly jury took several hours to convict 21-year-old Ruddigan of smashing a glass into the head of the doorman. The conviction was, in my opinion, unjust. Ruddigan was convicted in the absence of any CCTV or physical evidence connecting him to the crime and therefore solely on the highly questionable testimony of several bar staff members whose evidence was at best contradictory and at worst outlandish.

Miss Recorder Hudson, who presided over Ruddigan's trial, seemed aware that the prosecution was a flimsy one. The usual sentence for similar assaults tends to be around eighteen months in prison but when it came to sentencing Terence Ruddigan on April 5th 2011, Hudson commended his 'dignified' manner and gave him a suspended sentence and a community service order.

Nonetheless, this conviction will remain on Mr Ruddigan's police record for life. Moreover, for the next eight years he will be forced to disclose this conviction to prospective employers, which could severely impede his job prospects. But at least Terence Ruddigan was lucky enough to be sentenced by his trial judge. Another judge, not knowing the details of the case, might easily have sent him to jail.

How many Terence Ruddigans passed through my local courthouse before I started attending? How many pass through right under my nose every week while I'm sitting down the corridor in another courtroom? How many pass through our unwatched court system every week because corporate ownership and shrinking circulations are chaining newspaper reporters to their desks and forcing hardworking freelancers out of the industry? How many every year?

It's a genuinely troubling question and one which will hang in the air until corporate newspaper owners see fit to begin reinvesting in good journalism and unshackling reporters from their desks so they can venture out into the world and start fulfilling their most vital function - scrutiny. In a world where prosecutors are publicly embarrassed for pursuing pathetic prosecutions, we'll see a lot less of them.

Saying Goodbye To Gladys

2011-04-02T23:50:00.008+01:00

The Rise and Fall of the Marvelettes In Their Own Words

Former Marvelettes Georgia Dobbins, Juanita Cowart Motley and Katherine Anderson Schaffner pose with a picture of Gladys Horton, who passed away on January 26th 2011. (Photographer: Larry Buford)

The Marvelettes broke down racial barriers and bankrolled Motown with their early hits but in later years watched helplessly as they were almost completely erased from the label's history. In the days after group founder and lead singer Gladys Horton was laid to rest, Charles Thomson spoke to her family, friends and fellow Marvelettes.

Everybody has heard a Marvelettes song - Please Mr. Postman is one of the most ubiquitous pop songs of all time - but very few people have heard the group's story. Often disregarded as a one-hit wonder, the Marvelettes are arguably one of the most important pop acts of all time, perhaps changing the course of popular music forever.

The Marvelettes joined Motown in 1961 when the label was relatively unknown, having scored only one million-seller (the Miracles' Shop Around) and never had a number one hit. The group's first single, Please Mr. Postman, captured the public's imagination, stayed in the charts for three months and hit number one on both the pop and R&B charts. Throughout 1962 the girls remained Motown's most consistent hitmakers, rescuing the label from financial uncertainty. In other words, without the Marvelettes there may never have been a Motown as we know it today.

However, in later years the group had their royalties cut off and were excluded from the label's anniversary celebrations. The Miracles were increasingly credited with scoring Motown's first number one record instead of the Marvelettes. Then the girls were legally barred from performing under the name they made famous.

On January 26th 2011, group founder and lead singer Gladys Horton died after fighting for more than 20 years to regain control of the Marvelettes name. In the days and weeks after her death I interviewed original Marvelettes Katherine Anderson Schaffner and Juanita Cowart Motley, as well as Motown legend Martha Reeves and Gladys's son Vaughn Thornton. 'Saying Goodbye To Gladys' is the Marvelettes story, as told by the people who lived it.

--Click here to read my exclusive article, 'Saying Goodbye To Gladys'--

Usher: The Heir, Apparently

2011-02-14T14:20:00.006Z

On Thursday 3rd February I attended the second of Usher's sold out gigs at the O2 Arena, part of his OMG Tour. My review of the night has been published by SawfNews.com, including some of my own photos from the gig.

--Click here to read my review of Usher's OMG Tour, with exclusive pictures--

For my blog readers, here are a few extra shots:

Martha Reeves; Soul Survivor

2011-02-05T18:10:00.010Z

Motown legend Martha Reeves is still playing sold out concerts to adoring fans almost 50 years after her first hit - but she hasn't had an easy ride. Speaking frankly about being dropped by Motown in 1972 and her subsequent battle with painkiller dependency, she tells Charles Thomson why she's 'stronger than dirt'.

--Click here to read my exclusive interview with Martha Reeves--

An Evening with Alfred 'Pee Wee' Ellis

2011-01-22T16:34:00.014Z

Exactly one week ago, as I sit here this evening and type this blog entry, I was sitting in the bar at the Grafton Hotel, London, with one of the most important figures in pop music history. He's not necessarily a household name - although that depends on your household - but behind the scenes he helped to change the direction of contemporary music and is listed as a co-writer on what musicologists acknowledge as some of the music important songs ever recorded.

Alfred 'Pee Wee' Ellis will turn 70 in three months time. Born in Florida in 1941, he was a professional sax player by the time he reached middle school and at age 16 trained under jazz legend Sonny Rollins. In a career now entering it's seventh decade (he began working in the 1950s and has a new album due in 2011) he has released a succession of solo albums and has arranged for everybody from George Benson to Van Morrison - but he's best known for his work with the Godfather of Soul, James Brown.

Ellis joined Brown's band in 1965 thinking he'd earn enough money with the superstar to allow him to play jazz in his time off. Little did he know that his creative partnership with Brown would spark a music revolution, becoming one of the most significant milestones in the evolution of pop music and providing a soundtrack for the emancipation of black America.

Pee Wee Ellis performing with James Brown. (Source Unknown)

Perhaps the most celebrated of Ellis's collaborations with Brown is Cold Sweat, considered by many to be the first example of pure funk music. Relaxing after a gig one night in May 1967, Ellis - who had become Brown's arranger a year earlier - was called to the boss's dressing room. Brown had a groove in his head, a staccato bass lick, and wanted Ellis to see what he could do with it.

On the tour bus the next day, Ellis built a song around Brown's bass lick, the horn section inspired by Miles Davis's So What but stripped of melodic flourishes in accordance with Brown's directive that his band should 'play every instrument like it's a drum'. Ellis took the band to the studio, taught them their parts and awaited Brown's arrival.

When he appeared Brown tinkered with the arrangement. "He changed the guitar part, which made it real funky," Ellis once said, "and had the drummer do something different. He was a genius at it. Between the two of us, we put it together in one afternoon. He put the lyrics on it. The band set up in a semi-circle in the studio with one microphone. It was recorded live in the studio. One take. It was like a performance. We didn't do overdubbing."

In the ensuing years Ellis co-wrote some of Brown's most sampled grooves including Mother Popcorn, Licking Stick-Licking Stick and the groundbreaking Say It Loud (I'm Black and I'm Proud), which was inducted into the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame as one of the 500 songs that shaped rock & roll music, and listed by Rolling Stone magazine as one of the 500 greatest songs of all time.

Picture: Pee Wee Ellis Myspace

After leaving Brown in 1969 Ellis joined Kudu, a CTI Records imprint, where he worked as an arranger for artists including George Benson and Esther Phillips. In 1972 he and his band recorded an album - Pass The Butter - on Motown's Natural Resources label, under the name Gotham. His first solo album, Home In The Country, was released in the mid-1970s and his solo career, which has spanned jazz, funk and gospel, continues to this day with a new album due in March 2011.

I met up with Pee Wee ahead of a gig at Ronnie Scott's, the legendary Soho jazz club. Sipping tall orange juices and surrounded by the swirling jazz soundtrack in the bar, we spoke for an hour and a half about his lengthy career. Although reticent at first, Pee Wee was soon laughing and joking about the glory days in Brown's band as we recalled excerpts from Fred Wesley's hilarious memoir, Hit Me Fred: Confessions of a Sideman.

During our interview we also spoke about Pee Wee's life and career both before and after his stint in the James Brown band; how he wound up studying under Sonny Rollins, the culture shock of being given so much creative freedom at Kudu, why he decided to flee New York when the city went up in smoke during riots over racism and police brutality, and how he fell in love with a fan at London's Jazz Café and left America to live in the British countryside.

Pee Wee was both a witness to and an important part of arguably the most important musical shift of the 20th century, rivalled only by the invention of rock & roll. It was a pleasure and a privilege to spend an evening chatting and laughing with Pee Wee after enjoying his music for so many years and a unique experience to have him transport me back to the era, sharing his first hand recollections of life on the road and in the studio with James Brown. A book from Pee Wee is long overdue but he tells me he's quietly writing his life story with a view to publishing it at some point. In the meantime, I look forward to sharing with you the recollections that Pee Wee shared with me.

My exclusive interview with Pee Wee Ellis will be published in the coming months.

Jackson Music Video Extra: 'Tabloid lies disturbed me'

2011-01-21T03:35:00.004Z

In November 2003, Ken Yesh was one of a few fortunate auditionees selected to appear in what would become Michael Jackson's last ever music video, 'One More Chance'. The video, designed to launch Jackson's colossal, multi-platform comeback, shot for one day in Las Vegas before Jackson's Neverland Ranch was raided, the video was abandoned and the comeback fell at the first hurdle.

In October 2010, while researching for an in-depth article about the making of Jackson's little-known final music video, I managed to track down and interview Ken Yesh as well as several other extras who took part in the production. During my interview with Ken we discussed the aftermath of the Neverland Raid, which ultimately didn't fit into my final article. However, Ken told me one piece of information which I thought was so important that I needed to put it into the public domain somehow.

Ken told me that in the weeks after the videoshoot he picked up a newspaper and was 'disturbed' to find a completely inaccurate report about the video shoot, quoting 'sources' claiming that Jackson had been swarmed by young boys on the set when in fact Yesh had been present all day and had not seen anybody under the age of 18.

In this exclusive excerpt from my interview with Ken Yesh, he talks about his shock at reading the false report.

Readers can subscribe to my YouTube channel in order to receive updates when I upload new clips.

AUDIO: Live in conversation with Deborah Ffrench

2011-01-20T02:18:00.010Z

Back in December I appeared on Blog Talk Radio to take part in a three hour broadcast, during which I was interviewed by the host, Rev Catherine Gross, then took calls from members of the public.

Earlier this week I began uploading edited highlights of my appearance on the show to my YouTube channel. Today I have added four clips from the segment during which listeners were invited to call in and ask me questions.

One of those listeners was Deborah Ffrench, a writer well known in the Michael Jackson community for her magnificant article 'Michael Jackson: The Making of a Myth', which explored the 1993 allegations against Jackson in great detail and highlighted the bias and sensationalism which dominated the media's coverage of the scandal.

Deborah is also well known in the fan community because for some time, Jackson's detractors have insisted that she and I are in fact the same person - even conducting syntax comparisons on our writing styles in order to 'prove' that we are one and the same.

So it is with great pleasure that I present the following four clips of Deborah and I in conversation, on live radio, on Friday 3rd December 2010. I keenly await the conspiracy theorists' explanations, which I'm sure will be every inch as humorous and imaginative as their previous efforts.

Click here to listen to Part One.

Click here to listen to Part Two.

Click here to listen to Part Three.

Click here to listen to Part Four.

Dieter Wiesner: 'I caught Martin Bashir sneaking through Michael Jackson's luggage.'

2011-01-18T20:23:00.003Z

Back in October I interviewed Dieter Wiesner, who served as Michael Jackson's manager between 1997 and 2003. At the time, I was writing an article about the making of Michael Jackson's last ever music video 'One More Chance' and had arranged an interview with Dieter because he was not only on the video set during filming but also integral to the planning of Jackson's wider comeback - which was scuppered mid-way through the video shoot by Tom Sneddon's raid on Neverland Ranch.

During my interview with Dieter he discussed topics that I'd never heard him discuss before, such as the moving story of how he had to break the news of Sneddon's raid to Jackson in his Las Vegas hotel room. But the most shocking claim was one about British TV journalist Martin Bashir, whose famous show 'Living With Michael Jackson' is considered by many to have renewed Tom Sneddon's interest in the popstar and instigated the allegations which would result in the 2005 trial that almost killed Jackson.

While discussing Martin Bashir, Dieter Wiesner claimed that during a 2002 visit to Berlin he observed Martin Bashir sneaking into Jackson's hotel suite and rummaging through his luggage. He also claimed that Bashir was running around, chasing Jackson's children with a camera while the popstar was elsewhere, despite agreeing not to film the children for the documentary.

Here is an audio excerpt from my interview with Dieter Wiesner in which he makes the shocking allegations:

I first revealed Dieter's claims in a live three-hour interview on Blog Talk Radio. I am now in the process of uploading edited highlights of that interview to my YouTube channel, to which fans can subscribe if they want to receive updates when further clips go online.

The first three segments of this interview are now online. In these clips I discuss little known information about Martin Bashir's documentary which came to light during Jackson's 2005 trial.

Click here to listen to Part One.

Click here to listen to Part Two.

Click here to listen to Part Three.

The Phantom TMZ By-Line

2011-01-18T18:22:00.009Z

I received several emails today asking me why Google News was touting me as the author of an article on TMZ. At first, I thought there must be some sort of mix-up on the fans' part; Why on earth would Google be listing me as the author of an article on TMZ? I've never written for TMZ. But I made my way over to Google News and, lo' and behold, there was my name, listed underneath a TMZ story about Michael Jackson sound-alike Jason Malachi.

Fans suggested that this was some sort of petty retaliation on TMZ's part after I wrote a lengthy rebuttal last week to one of their articles. On Thursday 13th January, TMZ ran a story titled 'MJ Pushed Dr. To Improperly Give Son Anesthesia', accusing Michael Jackson of subjecting his youngest son to 'risky' medical treatment. I was contacted by Sawf News, with whom I have a rolling contract, who asked me to write some sort of commentary on the story.

After obtaining legal documents relating to the case, consulting official medical guidelines and putting TMZ's coverage under the microscope, I found that it was riddled with half-truths, misleading language and pure sensationalism. My resulting article, 'Making a Mountain out of a Molar: How TMZ turned a dental appointment into a global news story', generated huge traffic for Sawf News and became the website's most commented article.

My rebuttal was published on Friday 14th January and the TMZ article with my by-line attached appeared on Google News just two days later, causing fans to speculate that this was somebody at TMZ's idea of a joke, or an attempt to turn my supporters against me by giving the appearance that I had joined TMZ's ranks less than 48 hours after scrutinizing their reporting.

As it turns out, this phantom by-line is linked to my Sawf News article, but not in the way that the fans thought. I consulted an internet expert this evening who told me that my being listed as the author of TMZ's article is a result of a weakness in Google's news aggregation system.

After I wrote my rebuttal, lots of fans took to posting it in its entirity in the comments section underneath all of TMZ's latest entries on Michael Jackson. When TMZ's article about Jason Malachi went online, they did the same thing.

According to the internet bod I consulted, when the Google news aggregation system hosts an article, it scans for a by-line. In the case of this article, there was no official by-line. However, further down the page somebody had posted my Sawf News article in the comments section, including the words 'by Charles Thomson'. The news aggregator will have scanned for a by-line, picked up mine from the comments section and consequently listed me on Google as the author of TMZ's article.

Mystery solved!

To my knowledge, there is nothing I can do about this. In my previous dealings with Google I have found them to have what I consider to be the worst user support system I have ever encountered.

I have attempted to contact Google on various occasions throughout the last year to deal with people using their email service to impersonate me and their blog service to publish damaging lies about me. Upon telephoning Google I was consistently met with an audio recording telling me that 'Google does not authorize customer services at this time', whatever that means.

Their online assistance service was no more helpful, consisting of a text-based Q&A system which sends users around in circles and an advice forum full of knowledgeable but unpaid users who, however technically able, are not capable of dealing with slander and/or impersonation. I suspect they'll be equally incapable of removing inaccurate by-lines from Google News.

So this is just a quick blog to let you know that I am not the author of TMZ's article and explain why Google seems to think that I am.

An Update on the Impersonation Saga

2011-01-07T16:14:00.003Z

I received an email today from Yola, the webhosting company responsible for the anti-Michael Jackson website whose owner has been impersonating me in correspondence with fans.

In light of its owner's illegal behaviour, Yola has suspended the offending website.

However, the owner's phoney gmail address, designed to look very similar to my own email address, will continue to exist because it is nothing to do with Yola. So if you try to contact me, please make sure you use the right address. Similarly, if you receive any correspondence claiming to be from me, please double check the email address.

Anti-Jackson Propagandist Posing as Charles Thomson

2011-01-07T03:39:00.012Z

This isn't really how I intended to bring in the new year, but once again I am forced to use my blog to counter the pathetic actions of internet trolls.

Not for the first time, I have become the victim of impersonation.

Regular blog readers will remember that back in July I used my blog to explain that an imbecile was writing libelous comments in my name underneath Michael Jackson related articles on TMZ.

This time around the impersonation is slightly more serious. The owner of a vile and inaccurate anti-Michael Jackson website is posing as me when fans email to complain about the website's content.

The owner of the website replies to emails using my name and sends the messages from an email address closely modeled on my own.

In the above screengrab, a reader is seen asking the website owner whether he is Charles Thomson from the Huffington Post. The owner refused to answer this question which, combined with the confusing email address, could easily lead people to believe that the owner is in fact me - quite clearly the owner's intention all along.

So let me state loud and clear for the record - I do not have anything to do with this website. The only website or domain name I have ever owned is my current website.

The above email address does not belong to me. I do not use, and have never used, a gmail account.

The fraudster behind this website is impersonating me and has been reported to Yola, the webhosting company responsible for this domain name.

VIDEO - James Brown's Widow: 'Conrad Murray was NOT my husband's doctor'

2011-01-02T20:51:00.009Z

In this clip from our exclusive interview, Tomi Rae Brown - widow of soul singer James Brown - emphatically denies press reports that her husband was a patient of Dr Conrad Murray and recommended his services to Michael Jackson.

She also discusses her husband's relationship with Michael Jackson and the disturbing similarities between the circumstances of their deaths.

To read my interview with Tomi Rae Brown, click here.

To receive updates when I upload new clips, subscribe to my YouTube channel.

Have A Soulful Christmas

2010-12-25T12:26:00.012Z

Seasons greetings!

Just a brief update to let you know that my exclusive interview with James Brown's widow, Tomi Rae Brown, was published today on the fourth anniversary of her husband's death.

In October, Tomi Rae granted me the most in-depth interview she has ever given to any reporter. During our 75 minute chat we discussed her marriage the Godfather of Soul and the nightmarish four years she's spent battling a smear campaign orchestrated by some of her late husband's associates.

In a teaser published earlier this week, Tomi Rae slammed claims that James Brown had used controversial doctor Conrad Murray and then recommended him to Michael Jackson. The full interview, published today, includes the shocking revelation that trustees ordered James Brown's legs to be cut off in order to obtain DNA for a paternity test.

Click here to read my exclusive interview with Tomi Rae Brown.

Christmas Day always brings back memories of James Brown for me. As an 18 year old journalism student, my first celebrity encounter was James Brown. Having been on my journalism course for just a matter of weeks, in October 2006 I managed to talk my way into a press conference with my hero, the Godfather of Soul. Mr Brown not only took a question from me, but also put me on his personal guest list for the show. They say journalism can afford you the opportunity to meet your heroes - I met mine in training and it was an experience I'll never forget.

Less than two months later, I walked downstairs on Christmas Day and almost immediately saw Mr Brown's picture on television. Beneath it flashed the dates, '1933-2006'. I stood frozen for a moment before blurting out, 'James Brown has died.' I was in total shock; just weeks previously I'd watched him perform a two hour concert in London. A dark cloud hung over that Christmas.

Nowadays, Christmas has become a time to celebrate James Brown. Although there'll always be a hint of sadness at losing my hero on Christmas Day, it's an ideal time to put his CDs in the stereo or his DVDs in the player and bask in his incredible talent.

With that in mind, here are three pictures I took from my front row spot at James Brown's gig at The Forum, London, on 26th June 2005. Of the four James Brown gigs I attended before he passed away, this was easily the best. In fact, it was probably the greatest concert I've ever been to. Having recently staved off prostate cancer, Brown had lost a lot of surplus weight and seemed to be in very high spirits. His energy was unbelievable.

This is how I like to remember James Brown at this time of year. Have a soulful Christmas!

Martha Reeves Interview - A Teaser

2010-12-22T01:03:00.003Z

Last week I conducted an exclusive 90 minute interview with Motown legend Martha Reeves. The article won't be published until January 2011 but in the meantime, here's an exclusive clip.

In this clip Martha describes the thrill that comes from being a part of the Motown dynasty and also recalls the recording of one of Motown's greatest hits, Dancing In The Street. She even puts on her best Marvin Gaye impression and sings a few bars of his original rendition, which was scrapped and replaced with her version. The rest is history.

Apologies for the background noise - I interviewed Martha in the restaurant at her hotel. However, you can still hear her loud and clear.

To receive alerts when I upload new videos, subcribe to my YouTube channel.

My Day With Martha

2010-12-17T03:45:00.011Z

It's not often that you get the chance to spend time in the presence of true pop music royalty but yesterday (Thursday 16th December) was one of those days; I had the good fortune to spend several hours with Motown legend Martha Reeves.

Often referred to as the Queen of Motown, Martha's gospel roots helped set her apart from the label's other female leads. She's known around the world for hits including Jimmy Mack, (Love Is Like A) Heat Wave and Nowhere To Run, but she's perhaps best known for Dancing In The Street, one of Motown's most famous tracks (and that's really saying something).

A few weeks ago I learned that Martha was embarking on a short UK tour including several nights at London's Jazz Cafe. A keen Motown fan, I immediately requested an interview.

Initially I was told that Martha would only be available by telephone - that was fine by me. How many people even get the chance to speak to music royalty on the phone? But on Wednesday morning I got an email to say that Martha had decided to meet me in person instead. I'm not sure what made Martha decide to meet me after all - I forgot to ask her - but I'm glad she did. It was a last minute affair, arranged with less than 24 hours' notice, but the experience was one I will never forget.

Generous with her time and her answers, Martha spoke to me over lunch for roughly one and a half hours. Our discussion encompassed subjects including - but not limited to - the increasing sexualisation of female musicians, why a computer will never create better music than a live band, her former drug dependency and subsequent Christian rebirth, the corruption she witnessed while serving on Detroit City Council and her plans to return to her gospel roots.

Upon learning that I didn't have a ticket to her sold out show at the Jazz Cafe, Martha insisted that I meet her back at her hotel later on so we could travel together to the gig and she could bring me in for free. Arriving early on with Martha and her entourage allowed me to secure the best spot on the lower level - front row and centre.

Photograph: Charles Thomson

From there I watched Martha, backed by her Vandellas and a tight band (led by Al McKenzie, Martha's musical director of 30+ years), deliver an energetic 90 minute set comprising some of her biggest hits, a few lesser known classics like Third Finger, Left Hand, and an array of tributes to artists including Marvin Gaye (What's Going On), Billie Holliday (God Bless The Child) and James Brown (I Got The Feelin').

Halfway through her set, Martha surprised me by name-checking me from the stage. "I want to dedicate this next song to Charles. He's a young, up-and-coming writer - he's right here in the front," she said, gesturing towards me, "and he's never seen our show before. He's all of twenty-something years old, I think." Then she launched into a rendition of A Love Like Yours (Don't Come Knocking Everyday). It was a strange moment, feeling everybody's eyes on me, but one I will never forget. It's not every day that a music icon dedicates a performance to you.

Martha captivated the audience - a much younger crowd than I had anticipated. Her voice has aged and she sings in a higher register than she used to, but her performance was brimming with energy. New material such as Home To You suited her voice perfectly. The show built to a crescendo when Martha fused her hit Dancing In The Street with tracks from other Motown artists like the Four Tops and Stevie Wonder. The audience went wild.

A great ending to a great day - made possible by a great woman.

NB. My exclusive, in-depth interview with Martha Reeves will be published in January 2011.

The Cold Snap - Part Four

2010-12-15T03:46:00.004Z

Lastly, some snaps my friend Annemarie got of me. First four in and around 'Mud Hill' woods, last one at Gloucester Park.

The Cold Snap - Part Three

2010-12-15T03:40:00.004Z

Some shots from the woods at what's commonly referred to as 'Mud Hill'. Last shot courtesy of my friend Annemarie.

The Cold Snap - Part Two

2010-12-15T03:22:00.004Z

More shots from Gloucester Park. Last snap courtesy of my friend Annemarie.

The Cold Snap - Part One

2010-12-15T02:15:00.013Z

It's been a while since I last blogged. The last few months have been rather busy. Throughout October I was dispatched by Sawf News to cover the London Film Festival (read some of my coverage here). I spent much of November ensconced in deep research and then writing for an article about Michael Jackson's 'One More Chance' music video - recently released for the first time on DVD - and the ludicrous raid on the star's home which caused shooting on the video to be abandoned.

Just as soon as that article was published, I was invited to give a three hour radio interview in the US about my work and about the media's coverage of Michael Jackson. Highlights from that interview will hit my YouTube page shortly (subscribe to receive YouTube updates when I upload new videos).

With all that out of the way I am now working on more features to be released later this month and into January - including an excusive, in-depth interview with James Brown's widow, Tomi-Rae Brown - as well as a couple of blog projects.

But in the meantime I thought I'd post some of my photographs from the much-hyped 'Cold Snap' that hit Britain roughly a fortnight ago, paralyzing the country's transport systems and seeing some areas so badly affected that children were snowed in overnight at their schools.

After staying out of the snow during the relentless blizzards that lasted from Monday 29th November until Thursday 2nd December, I ventured out on the Friday (3rd Dec) with my friend Annemarie to get some snaps of my local park and woodland.

First up, these are some pictures I took of Gloucester Park. Rather sadly, our local council is currently forcing through planning applications to destroy large areas of this park in order to build houses, flats, carparks and a hotel where currently there are fields, ponds, a skate park, a boules green and a mini-golf area.

The sell-off is being devised to pay for a monstrosity that they insist on referring to as 'our new sports village', which they've already started building on another large segment of the park where once there was an expansive lawn.

Stupifyingly, the council authorised builders to begin work on the £38million project without first securing the money to cover it. With construction of a brand new olympic swimming pool nearing completion, the council has yet to raise all of the necessary sum.

Consequently - and to the dismay of thousands of residents - the council is now forcing the sale of numerous children's playing fields, as well as portions of Gloucester Park, to fatcat land developers in a last ditch attempt to raise the cash.

By this time next year, should we get another bout of Arctic weather, it may already be impossible to ever replicate some of these shots.

OFCOM ignored 115 complaints; ITV ignores hundreds more

2010-11-17T20:09:00.008Z

Data released today shows that OFCOM ignored a total of 115 complaints about Tuesday 9th November's episode of 'This Morning'.

Figures show that the episode was last week's third most complained about television programme, beaten only by two episodes of controversial talent show 'X Factor'.

On Thursday 11th November, just two days after 'This Morning' aired a series of nasty comments by Kelvin MacKenzie about Michael Jackson and his children, OFCOM announced that it had already obtained the footage and conducted an investigation into the incident. The body refused to uphold complaints about the show on the fictitious premise that the segment had not breached the OFCOM code.

Bizarrely, ITV seemed to reach the opposite conclusion. On the same day that OFCOM claimed there had been nothing wrong with the segment, ITV removed the clip from its online catch-up service.

Not content with contradicting OFCOM, ITV have spent much of the last few days contradicting themselves. Despite believing that MacKenzie's comments were offensive enough to warrant removing them from the catch-up service, ITV is now bombarding Jackson's fans with generic and inaccurate emails denying that there was anything wrong with the segment.

The email, apparently written by ITV's head of legal compliance Mark Sunderland, completely re-writes the events of Tuesday 9th November and is successfully rebutted, point by point, in this eloquent and frequently hilarious response by Deborah Ffrench.

In the email Sunderland dismisses those offended by MacKenzie's comments as 'fans', but makes no mention of Jackson's friends and family. This is despite Jackson's nephew Taj publicly voicing his dismay over the comments and US Ambassador Paul W Jones, a personal friend of Michael Jackson, sending a letter of complaint to the broadcaster.

Sunderland also wrongly claims that 'This Morning' host Phillip Schofield made clear that MacKenzie's comments did not represent the views of ITV. The footage tells a different story but, of course, ITV destroyed that evidence on Thursday.

Exposing the Lies of Conspiracy Bloggers

2010-11-14T18:17:00.028Z

As I mentioned in a blog entry earlier today, on Friday evening I was invited onto Blog Talk Radio to be interviewed about my reporting on Kelvin MacKenzie's recent diatribe against Michael Jackson's children on British TV.

During the half-hour interview a number of other subjects were covered, including the release of the new Michael Jackson album and the campaign waged against me this summer by conspiracy bloggers. The latter discussion appears to have provoked the ire of one such conspiracy blogger, whose latest entry is a frenzied rant about my appearance on the broadcast.

During the last five months or so I have become accustomed to seeing harebrained blog entries written about me and have mostly managed to abstain from responding to them, but this one caught my attention because the blogger in question - Bonnie Cox - told some pretty sizable porkies, including a couple about the content of her own blogs.

During my interview on Blog Talk Radio I discussed two of the accusations that Bonnie had made about me in the past few months; namely that I was involved in a plot with John Branca and that somebody had hired me to attack AEG.

Bizarrely, Cox took to her blog this weekend to deny ever making either of those accusations, apparently forgetting that the original accusations were still on her blog for anybody and everybody to read.

Here's Cox in her latest blog entry, denying that she ever accused me of being involved in a plot with John Branca:

And yet here she is the previous month, blatantly accusing me of being involved in a 'buddy-buddy three-some' with John Branca and Randy Taraborrelli, 'getting along on MJ's wallet, name, blood, sweat and tears':

Back-pedal, or amnesia? You be the judge.

Similarly, here's Bonnie in her latest entry claiming that she didn't accuse me of being hired to attack AEG:

No Bonnie, it wasn't Muzik, it was you. Look:

Jog any memories?

During my discussion with the hosts about conspiracy bloggers and their methods, I mentioned how these bloggers totally dismiss any evidence which contradicts their pre-determined conclusions. I used the example of bloggers who constantly claim that I didn't write positively about Michael Jackson until after he died, even though a fifteen second visit to my website will show that I've been writing pro-Jackson articles for several years.

Did Bonnie take this opportunity to 'fess up to her deception? No. She logged straight into her blog and repeated the exact claim that I'd just debunked:

Her comment is a lie. Simple as that. The first time I was ever paid for a story about Michael Jackson was in March 2009 when I was contacted by a member of MJ's camp and specifically asked to leak information on his trip to London, in order to create hype around his impending concert announcement. Prior to that my only work on Michael Jackson was largely very sympathetic and was written pro bono, such as my 2008 interview with Aphrodite Jones about her book 'Michael Jackson Conspiracy'.

Any claim that I was paid for anything Jackson-related before March 2009 is a lie and any claim that I didn't support Jackson before he died is also a lie.

In her new blog entry, Bonnie once more utilises the exact tactic that I described in my radio interview, telling her readers a half-truth and filling in the gaps with pure fantasy. She mentions my 2007 article about the album 'Thriller 25' and claims that it is proof of a pre-existing relationship between myself and Sony:

Firstly, Bonnie is a liar. I did not interview Sony's 'marketing head honcho'. I interviewed a member of Sony's catalogue release department marketing team. On top of this outright lie, she omits important information with the specific intention of misrepresenting my interaction with Sony.

What Bonnie doesn't tell you is that I was dispatched to Sony HQ in December 2007 by a fansite. Like many journalism students, I used to write for free for fansites in order to bolster my portfolio of published work and gain vital interviewing/writing experience.

In other words - as a 19 year old journalism student I interviewed a member of Sony's catalogue release marketing team for a Michael Jackson fansite. This, according to Bonnie, proves that I am a dastardly co-conspirator in an evil Sony plot to murder Michael Jackson.

The other thing Bonnie doesn't tell you is that my review of 'Thriller 25' was negative, not positive, which totally negates any implication that I was somehow acting as an agent of the record company who put it out. I described one of the remixes on the set as sounding like 'a hobo bludgeoning a dwarf with a sack full of windchimes'. In fact, the review was so negative that Sony complained about me in writing and issued me with a lifelong ban from their catalogue release department.

The latest blog from Bonnie is, essentially, just more of the usual; another gigantic dose of paranoia with a generous sprinkling of deception. But this time she has been caught out in a series of undeniable lies. She denied writing certain comments about me when those comments were still on her blog in black and white for all to see. In doing so, she has demonstrated just how changeable and unreliable she really is.

In the past it has been pointless to respond to Bonnie's claims because there has been no way to refute them. How can you prove that you haven't done something? If you've been to the Grand Canyon and someone accuses you of lying, you can pull out a photograph. If you haven't been to the Grand Canyon and somebody claims that you have - how can you prove they're lying?

What differentiates Bonnie's latest blog from her previous offerings is that this time she's trapped herself in her own web of deceit. Here, in black and white, are Bonnie's lies for all to see. On one day she'll claim that I'm in cahoots with Branca, on another she'll deny ever saying any such thing. In one entry she'll say I've been hired to attack AEG, in another she'll claim that it wasn't her and that it must have been a different blogger.

Her reader numbers have dwindled significantly since the summer after she embarked on a number of ill-advised campaigns against everybody from make-up artist Karen Faye to a variety of innocent fans. But after this latest embarrassment, it'll be a wonder if she has any readers left at all by the end of the year.

Here's an excerpt from the Blog Talk Radio discussion that caused the controversy:

US Ambassador Lends Support to Kelvin MacKenzie Campaign

2010-11-14T17:41:00.005Z

Paul W Jones, US Ambassador to Malaysia, has added his voice to the growing chorus of protest over Kelvin MacKenzie's controversial comments about Michael Jackson last week.

MacKenzie provoked a storm in Jackson's fan community this week after saying that he had a 'substantial question as to how and why' Jackson's children had ever been born, that the star's death could have 'saved some children from a lifetime of being mentally corrupted' and that the star's children are better off now their father is dead.

The comments have already attracted the ire of Jackson's nephew Taj, who on Thursday used his twitter account to threaten ITV with legal action unless they issue an on-air apology.

Now US Ambassador Paul Jones, a friend of Jackson's, has fired off a missive to ITV. He has not released his email for publication as he complained in a private, not professional, capacity - but his wife today confirmed that both she and her husband had registered complaints with the broadcaster.

In her email to ITV, Jones' wife Catherine said she was 'disgusted' and 'angry' over MacKenzie's 'sickening' comments and that an on-air apology is 'the very least [ITV] can do'.

New Clip: I speak on Blog Talk Radio about the Kelvin MacKenzie debacle

2010-11-14T14:57:00.003Z

I was invited onto Blog Talk Radio on Friday night to discuss the Kelvin MacKenzie outrage. Here's an extract from my interview.

To receive notices when I upload new clips, you can subscribe to my YouTube Channel. I also post regular updates on my twitter page.

Jackson to ITV: Give My Family an Apology or I'll Sue

2010-11-13T17:37:00.003Z

Michael Jackson's nephew Taj has waded into the row over Kelvin MacKenzie's comments on Tuesday's edition of UK breakfast show 'This Morning'.

MacKenzie sparked outrage among Jackson's fans when he appeared on the ITV show and said he couldn't understand why Michael Jackson's children had been born. He went on to raise the subject of Jackson's 2005 trial and suggest that the star's death had 'saved some children from a lifetime of mental corruption'. He ended his diatribe by stating that Jackson's children are better off now their father is dead.

Fans began complaining to ITV and UK television regulator OFCOM on Tuesday but on Thursday, after OFCOM stated that they would not be acting on complaints over the show and ITV removed the clip from its website, Taj Jackson took to his twitter page and weighed in on the row.

After re-posting links to articles about MacKenzie's comments and urging his 20,000 followers to complain to ITV, Jackson threatened legal action against the TV station.

He wrote, "If we don't get an on air apology from ITV soon, my next step is legal. The time for bad mouthing & spreading lies about my uncle are OVER."

Taj Jackson's comments sparked a groundswell of support for the campaign and on Friday the television station was bombarded with emails and phonecalls from fans around the world expressing their disgust at MacKenzie's outburst. An ITV representative confided in one caller that bosses were 'looking into' the complaints.

OFCOM: 'Bullying Grieving Orphans Doesn't Break Any of Our Rules' - Watchdog refuses to take action as ITV destroys the evidence

2010-11-13T16:00:00.006Z

On Thursday afternoon, just two days after Kelvin MacKenzie used breakfast programme 'This Morning' to attack Michael Jackson and his children, regulatory body OFCOM claimed to have conducted an investigation into the incident and said they wouldn't be taking any action over the complaints they'd received.

The watchdog, who wouldn't reveal how many complaints had been made about the programme, released the following statement: "Whilst we understand that some viewers may have been offended; it does not break any of our rules. The complaints have not been upheld."

The statement is both glib and inaccurate. At least one rule was unarguably broken; Section 7.11 of OFCOM's broadcast code demands that, "If a programme alleges wrongdoing or incompetence or makes other significant allegations, those concerned should normally be given an appropriate and timely opportunity to respond."

Kelvin MacKenzie undeniably used 'This Morning' as an outlet to accuse Jackson of significant wrongdoing, raising the singer's 2005 trial and saying that his death could have 'saved some children from a lifetime of mental corruption'. It's also undeniable that 'This Morning' did not give the star's family or estate an appropriate and timely opportunity to respond. There's a strong argument to be made that at least four other sections of the OFCOM code were breached as well. You can read about that in my last blog entry.

OFCOM's reaction is unsurprising. Like the PCC, where Michael Jackson is concerned OFCOM isn't interested in taking action over even the most blatant breaches of their broadcasting code.

In 2003, when Martin Bashir's 'Living With Michael Jackson' was aired, OFCOM was hit with an extraordinary number of complaints about Bashir's conduct - including a complaint from Jackson himself.

Jackson's footage, along with correspondence, proved that Bashir had lied about the subject of his documentary, lied about interviewing Jackson's friends like Elizabeth Taylor, set-up filming opportunities and then sneered at them in voiceover, omitted vital comments from Jackson, and used sneaky editing and snarky voiceover to give a misleading impression of Jackson's words and behaviour.

OFCOM took no action.

In 2007 Jacques Peretti made a documentary even more offensive than Bashir's. Watching the show with a notepad in hand, I counted almost one factual inaccuracy per minute of screentime. As well as misstating facts and evidence throughout the entire show, Peretti specifically sought out interviewees who disliked Jackson and had a history of lying about him.

Two of Peretti's talking heads - Diane Dimond and Victor Guttierrez - were sued by Jackson for millions of dollars in 1995 after the pair appeared on US TV show 'Hard Copy' and claimed to have a videotape of Jackson molesting a child. Jackson challenged them to produce the videotape and they couldn't.

Dimond used her friendship with DA Tom Sneddon to extract herself from the lawsuit but Jackson successfully sued Guttierrez and he was ordered to pay the star millions of dollars in legal fees and compensation. Instead he skipped the country and never coughed up the cash. Both Dimond and Guttierrez were interviewed in Peretti's documentary and the presenter didn't see fit to mention this lawsuit when introducing either of them, instead allowing them to masquerade as Jackson experts.

Another of Peretti's talking heads - former Jackson aide Bob Jones - admitted during his testimony at the star's trial in 2005 that his book on Jackson included embellishments to make it more enticing to publishers and public alike. The embellishments included a claim that he'd seen Jackson lick a child's head - a story he admitted on the stand was a fabrication. Peretti didn't see fit to mention this either.

The only pro-Jackson talking head and indeed the only real authority on Jackson's trial - lawyer Thomas Mesereau - was given roughly one minute of screentime and Peretti dismissed his comments by insinuating that he was money driven and Jackson had simply bought justice by hiring an expensive lawyer. On top of all this, Peretti at one point overtly stated that Jackson and Jordy Chandler had been 'in a relationship' and wrongly claimed that the boy had accurately described Jackson's genitals.

OFCOM dismissed all complaints about the programme on the extremely tenuous basis that some of them had been sent in before the show aired. But what of the complaints received afterwards? OFCOM didn't care.

OFCOM has a history of ignoring completely valid complaints about the media's treatment of Jackson and their dismissal of the complaints over MacKenzie's rant is simply another in a long line of travesties committed by the body against the singer and his family.

Bizarrely, on the same day that OFCOM announced that there was nothing wrong with MacKenzie's outburst, ITV seemed to reach the opposite conclusion. Although they still refuse to give Jackson's family and fans an on-air apology, or even an apology by telephone or email, ITV has removed MacKenzie's comments from the online version of the programme. Two days ago, Tuesday's episode of 'This Morning' briefly disappeared from the station's online catch-up service, the ITVPlayer. When it re-appeared, the entire discussion about Michael Jackson and his children had been deleted.

There's no question that the removal of MacKenzie's comments from the online version of the programme was a direct response to the barrage of complaints sent to the station and to OFCOM in the preceding days. OFCOM acknowledged in an email to me that they had requested footage of Tuesday's 'This Morning' from ITV, meaning ITV will have been aware that an OFCOM investigation into MacKenzie's comments was now being conducted. Perhaps foreseeing a potential PR disaster, ITV appears to have then removed the footage from their website, preventing new viewers from watching the clip and complaining about it and also preventing newspaper journalists from watching the footage and quoting it.

What we are witnessing is a cover-up and a clumsy one at that. OFCOM denies any rules were broken in spite of overwhelming evidence to the contrary and now ITV staff are trying to destroy that evidence before the media can get hold of it.

Kelvin MacKenzie: Jackson was an abuser and his children should never have been born

2010-11-09T15:38:00.015Z

It has been a while now since I blogged about Michael Jackson. There are two main reasons for this. The first is that in the wake of my last Huffington Post article I became the subject of some rather bizarre conspiracy theories. The second is that there hasn't been much to write about.

However, today I was informed of an incident which my conscience wouldn't allow me to ignore. Kelvin MacKenzie, former editor of the Sun newspaper, appeared today on the British TV show 'This Morning' and claimed that Michael Jackson was a child molester and his children are better off now that he's dead.

He launched this vicious diatribe in the wake of a moving interview with Jackson's children, conducted by Oprah Winfrey, in which the three kids recounted what a wonderful father Jackson was and how much they missed him.

Here is a full transcript of the exchange:

Phillip Schofield (Host): Let’s finish on this one. Michael Jackson was the best dad, his daughter tells Oprah. Oprah Winfrey has done the first interview with Michael Jackson – his parents, his children; Paris and Prince Michael and Blanket, of course, since he passed away. Paris called her dad the best dad and revealed that he was a normal dad. She said that he made the best French toast in the world. We’ve got a clip from it, actually. Here you go.

[Clip of the children talking about their father]

Schofield: Interestingly, these things don’t happen without controversy. Here you go. Michael’s brother Randy has spoken out against the chat, saying ‘I know that he would not have wanted this. In fact, she’s the last person on earth he would want around his children.’ He said that because in 2005 while the jury was deliberating Michael’s molestation charges, Oprah did a whole show dedicated to him.

Lesley Joseph (Guest): But you do wonder why they went on, because I have a feeling that those kids – much as I don’t know anything about it – but they do seem terribly well adjusted. So I’m sure they would not have been got on there had they not wanted to do it and had they not… Especially the girl, and you just have the feeling that she said, ‘Listen, I want to go on and say how great my dad was. And then who’s to say they shouldn’t? They do seem incredibly well adjusted, maybe I’m wrong.

Kelvin MacKenzie (Guest): Well, she gave a good interview but of course she’s been brought up in the limelight. It was quite a nice thing for her to say, I must say, about her dead father. I have much more significant question about how and why some of those children were born and under what circumstances they were born – and whether he, in the end, would have turned out to be a great father. Certainly, there are aspects to him which I think your audience would raise their eyebrows.

Joseph: But that’s them, Kelvin, that’s not the children. The children are born [audio interference].

Holly Willoughby (Host): Because their identities were kept so secret I think we all had it in our minds that they were going to be a bit of a horror show but they seem, like you said, very well adjusted and normal kids just talking about their father.

[Cross talk]

Joseph: And they’re not to blame for what went on before or even for the fact that they were born. That’s him, not them.

MacKenzie: OK, well a rather different view to that is that the death of Michael Jackson may well have saved some children, possibly, who knows…

Schofield: Allegedly, though…

MacKenzie: Others…

Schofield: He wasn’t found guilty

MacKenzie: …from a lifetime of being mentally corrupted, shall we say.

Schofield: We don’t know that, though. We don’t know that…

MacKenzie: No, we don’t know that.

Schofield: …that is the case.

MacKenzie: He’s faced a number of charges, a number of allegations, and I in some ways feel that the children will have a better life for their father not being around, which is pretty unusual.

Schofield: Those are tough words and I think they would obviously disagree with you there.

MacKenzie's comments were morally and ethically reprehensible. He demonstrated a complete lack of respect for the justice system and also for the ethics of his profession. Jackson was acquitted of any wrongdoing and nobody has any right to insinuate that he was anything other than innocent.

That said, it's not unusual to witness misinformed nitwits talking rubbish about Jackson's court case - the vast majority of those who take to the airwaves to deliver their expert opinion on his trial have never read single day's worth of transcripts. More alarming than MacKenzie's ridiculous comments about Jackson's trial was the callousness he demonstrated in claiming that the children were better off now that their father was dead.

The comments had no basis in reality. After watching video footage of Jackson's children speaking about what a wonderful father he was and what a magnificent childhood he gave them, MacKenzie completely disregarded everything they'd said in order to offer a baseless opinion that they were actually severely at risk of abuse and mental corruption. Moreover, he in one breath showed apparent concern for their wellbeing and in another insinuated that they should never have been born in the first place. In other words, he's a hypocrite.

He's also a bigot. In the past he has claimed that he tailored his newspaper to those who hate 'wogs' and 'queers' (note to US fans: 'wog' is a derogatory phrase used to describe black people). MacKenzie has a long and provable bias against Jackson and, during his time as editor of the Sun, was responsible for countless inaccurate and heavily biased stories about the star. He was also helming the newspaper when it coined the term 'Wacko Jacko' in the 1980s.

Given MacKenzie's long and demonstrable hatred of Michael Jackson, questions must be asked as to why exactly he was asked onto the show in the first place, unless producers were specifically angling for exactly the kind of cruel and heartless comments that he inevitably wound up making.

Moreover, the incident once again raises questions about the validity of television shows which invite non-experts to offer their opinions on people they've never met and stories that they don't understand. What purpose does this practice serve? These inane TV spots plagued Jackson during his 2005 trial. 'Expert panels' comprising collections of people who had been nowhere near the courtroom for the duration of Jackson's trial were routinely assembled on television shows to offer their brainless comments on a court case in which they couldn't even recite the charge sheet.

MacKenzie's outburst was unaccaptable. Although entirely devoid of any moral, ethical or factual basis, the comments about the trial were unsurprising. It's all been said before and - though I'm sure it'll pain MacKenzie to hear it - far more shockingly. But to announce on television that three orphaned children are better off now their father is dead and proclaim that they should never have been born in the first place - that is beyond vile.

Fans wishing to complain directly to the television show can do so by emailing viewerservices@itv.com

For fans wishing to take their complaints a little further, MacKenzie's comments also breached numerous segments of the OFCOM Broadcast Code. OFCOM is the UK's regulatory body for television and radio programming.

Section 2.2 of the code demands that, "Factual programmes or items or portrayals of factual matters must not materially mislead the audience." MacKenzie's comments were clearly misleading. He ignored the facts and evidence presented at Jackson's trial and dismissed the verdict. He also ignored the children's firsthand accounts of their lives with Jackson in order to portray them instead as having been 'corrupted' and say that they were potential victims of 'abuse'.

Section 2.3 of the code demands that, "Broadcasters must ensure that material which may cause offence is justified by the context." MacKenzie's comments were patently not justified by the context. In a discussion about an interview between Oprah Winfrey and Michael Jackson's children, MacKenzie irrelevantly raised the subject of Jackson's trial and proceeded to dismiss the verdict, insinuating that Jackson was a child molester.

Section 7.1 of the code demands that, "Broadcasters must avoid unjust or unfair treatment of individuals or organisations in programmes." This section of the code is constantly flouted when dealing with Michael Jackson. Examples of programmes which were biased, inaccurate and borderline illegal include Martin Bashir's 'Living With Michael Jackson' and Jacques Peretti's 'What Really Happened'. OFCOM never implements this section of the code. Does calling somebody a child abuser when they've been acquitted in a court of law constitute treating somebody unjustly or unfairly? You'd be hard pressed to find anybody to argue that it didn't, but watch OFCOM try anyway.

Section 7.9 of the code demands that, "Before broadcasting a factual programme, including programmes examining past events, broadcasters should take reasonable care to satisfy themselves that material facts have not been presented, disregarded or omitted in a way that is unfair to an individual or organisation." Material facts were clearly omitted and disregarded during Kelvin MacKenzie's unprovoked diatribe against Jackson. He ignored the facts, evidence and verdict in Jackson's trial and accused the star of being a child molester. MacKenzie also ignored the children's comments about their upbringing and proceeded to portray it as the exact opposite of what they claimed.

Section 7.11 of the code demands that, "If a programme alleges wrongdoing or incompetence or makes other significant allegations, those concerned should normally be given an appropriate and timely opportunity to respond." Clearly, Jackson could not respond to Kelvin Mackenzie's inaccurate allegations, but no representative of Jackson's family or estate was invited to appear on the show or to offer a rebuttal in the aftermath.

Fans wishing to complain to OFCOM can do so at this link:

https://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/tell-us/specific-programme-epg

However, they will be required to supply a UK address and telephone number.

New Video: Kriyss Grant speaks about dealing with crazy Michael Jackson fans

2010-10-11T04:49:00.003+01:00

Here's another excerpt from my interview with 'This Is It' dancer Kriyss Grant. In this clip he speaks about how he and his fellow dancers were subjected to abuse by some Michael Jackson fans in the wake of the star's death, and laughs about the sometimes crazy questions he receives from the King of Pop's followers.

In order to receive automatic updates whenever I upload more clips, subscribe to my YouTube channel.

The Interviewer becomes the Interviewee - The Final Instalment

2010-10-08T19:46:00.003+01:00

The conclusion of my interview with poet and author Lorette Luzajic has been uploaded. In this segment I discuss the dangers of fanaticism, what I've learnt from being attacked by conspiracy theorists, and my future plans.

Click here to read the final instalment of my exclusive interview with Lorette Luzajic.

The Interviewer becomes the Interviewee - Part Five

2010-10-07T18:44:00.007+01:00

The latest instalment of my interview with author Lorette Luzajic has gone online. In this segment I speak about conspiracy theorist bloggers who claim to be conducting 'investigations' but actually ignore facts which disprove their theories and perpetuate lies which have been disproven on numerous occasions.

I also speak about how these conspiracy theorists are preying on vulnerable fans, as well as discussing the overzealousness of some Michael Jackson fans and how politics and in-fighting in Jackson's fan community are having a detrimental effect on his legacy.

Click here to read Part Five of this exclusive serialised interview.

Throughout this interview I have often spoken about conspiracy theorist bloggers, using examples to illustrate how they repeat lies even after they've been repeatedly disproven, and use irrelevant facts to 'prove' absurd theories.

The response of one such blogger, Bonnie Cox, has been to publish even more hilarious fibs. In her latest blog entry she writes: "Now Charles Thomson has been recruited to cut into AEG (he’s out of hiding now, welcome back Charles) as well as Randy Taraborrelli and his trolls being sent to my facebook page."

In another perfect illustration of the very methods I have discussed in my lengthy interview with Lorette Luzajic, Cox claims with no evidence whatsoever that I have come out of 'hiding' after being hired by somebody to slander the concert promotion company AEG.

As far as I can remember, I haven't made any public comment on AEG whatsoever. Moreover, I was never 'in hiding'. Last month I conducted a highly publicised interview with the rapper Cazwell. I have also, in recent weeks, launched a YouTube page.

Cox also used her blog this week to publish some stunning anti-Semitic comments. "Using a jewish slang word in a song that calls attention to the separation of the races and his gets banned?" she wrote. "You know why? You know who's running the the Entertainment industry now, or at least who controls most of it..."

Looks like somebody's been spending too much time on illuminati conspiracy forums - and for somebody who posts so many bible verses on her blog, she doesn't seem to be doing very well on the 'love thy neighbour' front.

The Interviewer becomes the Interviewee - Part Four

2010-10-06T15:58:00.003+01:00

The latest instalment of my interview with author Lorette Luzajic has been uploaded.

In this segment, I discuss the demonisation of biographer Randy Taraborrelli, the methods of conspiracy theorists and the absurd claims that Deborah Ffrench and I are the same person.

Using examples, I reveal how conspiracy bloggers take small and inconsequential facts, then use them to 'prove' irrelevant, globe-spanning conspiracies. I also expose the enormous lie that conspiracy bloggers have been spreading about me for months, even though it can be completely disproven with one brief visit to my website.

Click here to read Part Four of my exclusive interview with Lorette Luzajic.

The Long Forgotten Q&A - Part One

2010-10-05T15:44:00.003+01:00

All the way back in February I announced that I was going to hold a Q+A for my blog fans. I asked followers to email me questions and said I would answer the first ten I received. I set up a second email account for blog correspondence - then forgot about it. I only recently remembered and realised that I'd better start answering questions.

This blog is dedicated to one question, which prompted a lengthy answer. More will follow.

How do we non-journalists best go about starting a career as a freelance journalist?

Helen, UK

I think that first and foremost it is important to decide whether you want to be a journalist or a writer. Lots of people say to me that they love to write and therefore would love to work in journalism, but the truth is that journalism has very little to do with writing. You can be the best writer in the world but if I sit you behind a desk and ask you to produce a news story, your writing skills are going to be of little value to you. A journalist's job is to report - it's no use being a great writer if you have nothing to write about.

As a journalist you will typically spend 90% of your time investigating and 10% writing. The job of a journalist is to find stories, gather evidence, interview sources and then, once all that research is completed, write it all up.

Being a great writer will be of especially little value to you in news journalism, where there is little creative freedom. Stories are generally written to a strict set of guidelines, often referred to as the 'inverted pyramid' structure. There's more creativity in feature writing but the focus remains on research as opposed to prose.

So if you want to be a journalist, your passion has to be for investigation; for digging out new information, sifting through documents, tracking people down, testing the gatekeepers and asking tricky questions. A passion for writing is way down the list.

If it's journalism you're interested in, it's also worth thinking honestly about what your motivation is for breaking into the industry. If you think it is a glamorous profession, think again. Shows like Sex and the City portray the life of a journalist as an easy one. Carrie Bradshaw writes a slender column for a magazine on what seems to be a fairly infrequent basis and can somehow afford to live in a central New York apartment while splashing cash on high end designer outfits. To say that this is not an accurate representation of the industry would be a huge understatement.

That's not to say there aren't perks to the job. Journalism can afford you the opportunity to meet your heroes - my first real excursion into the world of 'celebrity journalism' was a brief chat with my own hero, James Brown. You can also wind up scoring seats at movie previews or lining the red carpet at showbiz events - but these things often aren't as glamorous as they seem.

Red carpet events such as film premieres can be deathly boring. You stand around for hours on end waiting for the stars to show up and when they do there's no certainty that you'll have any access to them. If you happen to be fronting the TV coverage for a primetime show, you're quite likely to get an interview. The dozens of print journalists squeezed into the press pen, however, are often less lucky.

The minor celebs - the reality contestants and C-list popstars - will hang around the press pit for ages because the TV crews don't want to speak to them. The stars of the film, however, will often breeze straight past the print reporters and simply have their assistants furnish the press with generic quotes about how they 'love this city' and 'thank the fans'.

It's not just celebrity events which seem less interesting when you experience them close-up - it's the celebrities themselves. That's not to say they're all dullards or bores - not at all. What I mean is that the more time you spend around celebrities, the more you realise that they really are just people. Rich people. Famous people. But people all the same and, as with all people, there are some you enjoy talking to and some that you don't. After a while you stop getting truly excited about the prospect of interviewing a celebrity, unless it's somebody you really admire.

As a general - but not universal - rule, the more famous somebody is, the less interesting they are in interview. That doesn't mean they're a less interesting person, it just means they have more to lose by speaking freely. They're guarded, surrounded by PR professionals who hover over your shoulder in an attempt to intimidate you into not asking any tricky questions, and who glare at you if you dare stray from the topic of whatever it is the celebrity is promoting at that moment in time.

Stars often speak in soundbites or just recite pre-rehearsed answers. If you've ever watched multiple news channels during the week of a film premiere, you'll know exactly what I'm talking about. You'll watch ITV News and see an actor and director giggling as they recount an annecdote, then tune into BBC Newsnight and watch them telling the exact same annecdote to a different reporter with equal 'spontenaity'.

That's not to say all celebrity journalism is vacuous. Of course it isn't. Some can afford you a real insight into the mind of an artist; the process of a genius musician or the struggles of an icon behind the glamorous Hollywood facade. Jonathan Lethem's article 'Being James Brown' is one of the greatest articles I've ever read on any subject, for instance. But most celebrity journalism, particularly in newspapers and celebrity magazines, consists largely of puff pieces, gossip and dodgy paparazzi photographs. Glamorous is probably one of the last words I'd use to describe it and there are legitimate questions to be raised about whether much of it is even journalism at all.

Journalism has a few core functions. One function is to reveal new information to the public. Another is to tell the truth. Another is to act as the fourth estate, testing government and the legal system in order to ensure that they're held to account. If you're serious about journalism, I think you need to have a real interest in justice. I think you have to be invested in seeing that wrongs are righted, that power isn't abused, that corruption is exposed, that mysteries are solved and that justice is served.

It can have other facets, like high end celebrity journalism as I described earlier, which affords the public genuine insight. Sports too, and arts and culture. But primarily, it's about truth and justice. If the thought of upholding both of those really gets your blood pumping, journalism is probably for you.

My first piece of advice would have to be to go and get trained somewhere. In the UK you can study for a journalism degree or you can study with the National Council for Training Journalists (NCTJ). The former will equip you with far more knowledge and experience, but the latter requires a sixth of the time and, inexplicably, is more readily accepted in the industry.

Once you're qualified it will still be difficult to find work, especially since the recession, during which many newspapers were firing reporters and slashing freelance budgets. There are steps you can take that will make it easier to find work once you're trained.

During my journalism degree I had to complete work experience at local newspapers and was encouraged to contribute to local newspapers for free in my spare time as well as writing for our in-house student magazine.

In my second year I started writing articles for free and sending them to a US music journal, who were glad of the free copy. After two articles, they started paying me for my contributions. Writing articles for free is valuable in that it gains you first hand experience, it helps you to build up a portfolio of published work and it allows you to make contacts and build relationships in the industry.

By my third year at university - with my experience, my portfolio of published work and my network of contacts - I was contributing to newspapers and magazines on a national and international basis and usually being paid for my work.

My last piece of advice will sound quite contradictory: Carve yourself a niche, but don't limit yourself. I carved myself a niche as a black music writer. The more I published on the subject, the more people came to me for work in that area. But at the same time, there's no point in limiting yourself to that niche because it will reduce your income. Although I specialise in black music, over the years I've taken on financial journalism, property journalism, autosports journalism and various other topics. In a job as unreliable as freelance journalism, you can't really afford to pass on work unless you're only doing it as a hobby.

So that is my advice to anybody planning to become a freelance journalist. Make sure journalism is for you, get yourself trained, be willing to write for free in the beginning, make sure you build a network of contacts and try to carve yourself a niche as some sort of specialist.

Finally, read and write as much as you can. While literacy is not the most important part of a journalist's job, it obviously helps. Read everything you can from tabloids to broadsheets to celebrity magazines, obscure fanzines and specialist journals - so you can familiarise yourself with different journalistic writing styles. And write all the time, even if it's not being published. Practice makes perfect.

Examiner 'Plagiarism' Case: An Update

2010-10-05T13:42:00.004+01:00

Yesterday I received an extremely apologetic email from Valmai Owens, author of the Examiner piece which included large chunks of my Huffington Post article 'One of the Most Shameful Episodes in Journalistic History'.

In writing her article about the media's handling of the Michael Jackson trial, Ms Owens says she enlisted the help of a researcher. She asked her researcher to send her some information which would be relevant to the article.

Ms Owens received a research document from her researcher and liked it. Believing that her researcher was the author of the document, she included much of it and only changed it slightly. Ms Owens says she had no idea that the researcher had copied their information directly from my Huffington Post article.

The article has been removed from the Examiner and other websites and Valmai Owens has apologised profusely for the mistake.

Examiner Plagiarises My Huffington Post Article

2010-10-04T13:18:00.006+01:00

I was shocked to receive an email this morning alerting me to the fact that an Examiner writer has plagiarised large chunks of my Huffington Post article about Michael Jackson's trial.

In her September 8th article 'Truth Versus Sensationalism: A Global Event', Valmai Owens copies the theme and structure of my article 'One of the Most Shameful Episodes in Journalistic History' almost exactly. There is even a large chunk about the aftermath of the verdict in Jackson's case which she's scarcely bothered to alter. Moreover, she doesn't reference me or my work once in her whole article.

I have posted below some examples of this brazen plagiarism, including the lengthy chunk about the aftermath of the verdict. I have complained to the Examiner in writing and by telephone (rang several times and always reached a voicemail, so left a message). No response as yet.

Feel free to let the Examiner know what you think of their behaviour.

UPDATE: The Examiner appears to have removed the article in question but given that they still have not returned my email or phonecalls, I can't be sure what has happened.

EXAMPLES

My article:

Reading the court transcripts and comparing them to the newspaper cuttings, the trial that was relayed to us didn't even resemble the trial that was going on inside the courtroom. The transcripts show an endless parade of seedy prosecution witnesses perjuring themselves on an almost hourly basis and crumbling under cross examination. The newspaper cuttings and the TV news clips detail day after day of heinous accusations and lurid innuendo.

Examiner article:

There was no similarity at all between what was reported to the public by the media and the trial that was playing out in the courtroom. Instead, we read of the allegations, accusations and shocking innuendos written and aired by a biased press seemingly out of control. Nowhere during that time did we read of the unreliable and shady prosecution witnesses who deliberately gave false, misleading and incomplete testimony, and whose testimony disintegrated under the cross-examination of Jackson’s defense team.

My article:

Newspapers reacted just as hysterically as TV stations. 'Sicko!' shrieked the New York Daily News. 'Jacko: Now Get Out Of This One' goaded the New York Post.
The Sun - Britain's biggest newspaper - ran an article titled 'He's Bad, He's Dangerous, He's History'. The piece branded Jackson an 'ex-black ex-superstar', a 'freak' and a 'twisted individual' and called for his children to be taken into care. "If he weren't a pop idol with piles of cash to hide behind," it said, "he would have been picked up years ago."

Examiner article:

Jackson was deemed guilty by the media even before the trial had begun and with headlines like “Sicko!” New York Daily News. “Jacko: Now Get Out Of This One” New York Post. “He’s Bad, He’s Dangerous, He’s History” “If he weren’t a pop idol with piles of cash to hide behind, he would have been picked up years ago.” The Sun, fed the public’s insatiable need for scandal and gossip and boosted audience numbers which then encouraged the media to milk the case for what it was worth.

My article:

The story was over. There were no apologies and no retractions. There was no scrutiny - no inquiries or investigations. Nobody was held to account for what was done to Michael Jackson. The media was content to let people go on believing their heavily skewed and borderline fictitious account of the trial. That was that.

Examiner article:

No consideration was given to the toll all of this would take on Jackson; the damage it would cause to his reputation, career and more importantly, his spirit. No-one was held accountable. No apologies were offered. No retractions, no inquiries, no investigations and no blame were admitted on the part of the media for their assassination of Jackson’s character.

My article:

When the jury delivered 14 'not guilty' verdicts, the media was 'humiliated', Mesereau said in a subsequent interview. Media analyst Tim Rutten later commented, "So what happened when Jackson was acquitted on all counts? Red faces? Second thoughts? A little soul-searching, perhaps? Maybe one expression of regret for the rush to judgment? Naaawww. The reaction, instead, was rage liberally laced with contempt and the odd puzzled expression. Its targets were the jurors... Hell hath no fury like a cable anchor held up for scorn."

In a post-verdict news conference Sneddon continued to refer to Gavin Arvizo as a 'victim' and said he suspected that the 'celebrity factor' had impeded the jury's judgment - a line many media pundits swiftly appropriated as they set about undermining the jurors and their verdicts.

Within minutes of the announcement, Nancy Grace appeared on CourtTV to allege that jurors had been seduced by Jackson's fame and bizarrely claim that the prosecution's only weak link had been Janet Arvizo.

"I'm having a crow sandwich right now," she said. "It doesn't taste very good. But you know what? I'm also not surprised. I thought that celebrity is such a big factor. When you think you know somebody, when you have watched their concerts, listened to their records, read the lyrics, believed they were coming from somebody's heart... Jackson is very charismatic, although he never took the stand. That has an effect on this jury.

"I'm not gonna throw a stone at the mom, although I think she was the weak link in the state's case, but the reality is I'm not surprised. I thought that the jury would vote in favor of the similar transaction witnesses. Apparently the defense overwhelmed them with the cross-examining of the mother. I think it boils down to that, plain and simple."

Grace later stated that Jackson was 'not guilty by reason of celebrity' and was seen attempting to hound jury foreman Paul Rodriguez into saying he believed Jackson had molested children. One of Grace's guests, psychoanalyst Bethany Marshall, leveled personal attacks towards one female juror, saying, "This is a woman who has no life."

Over on Fox News, Wendy Murphy branded Jackson 'the Teflon molester' and said that the jurors needed IQ tests. She later added, "I really think it's the celebrity factor, not the evidence. I don't think the jurors even understand how influenced they were by who Michael Jackson is... They basically put targets on the backs of all, especially highly vulnerable, kids that will now come into Michael Jackson's life."

...The following day on Good Morning America, Diane Sawyer upheld the notion that the verdict had been influenced by Jackson's celebrity status. "Are you sure?" she pleaded. "Are you sure that this gigantically renowned guy walking into the room had no influence at all?"

...In her final New York Post article about the trial, Diane Dimond bemoaned the not guilty verdict, saying that it left Michael Jackson untouchable. She wrote, "He walked out of court a free man, not guilty on all counts. But Michael Jackson is so much more than free. He now has carte blanche to live his life any way he wants, with whomever he wants, because who would ever try to prosecute Michael Jackson now?"

Examiner article:

Even after the jury reached its unanimous verdict of not guilty, a humiliated press still would not accept responsibility for their shameful behavior. The media analyst Tim Rutton said at the time, “So what happened when Jackson was acquitted on all counts? Red faces? Second thoughts? A little soul-searching, perhaps? Maybe one expression of regret for the rush to judgment? Naaawww. The reaction, instead, was rage liberally laced with contempt and the odd puzzled expression. Its targets were the jurors… Hell hath no fury like a cable anchor held up for scorn.”

Appearing on Court TV, Nancy Grace said, “I’m having a crow sandwich right now. It doesn’t taste very good. But you know what? I’m also not surprised. I thought that celebrity is such a big factor. When you think you know somebody, when you have watched their concerts, listened to their records, read the lyrics, believed they were coming from somebody’s heart… Jackson is very charismatic, although he never took the stand. That has an effect on this jury.

"I’m not gonna throw a stone at the mom, although I think she was the weak link in the state’s case, but the reality is I’m not surprised. I thought that the jury would vote in favor of the similar transaction witnesses. Apparently the defense overwhelmed them with the cross-examining of the mother. I think it boils down to that, plain and simple.” She later added that Michael had been found not guilty “by reason of celebrity.”

Wendy Murphy on Fox News added, “I really think it’s the celebrity factor, not the evidence. I don’t think the jurors even understand how influenced they were by who Michael Jackson is… They basically put targets on the backs of all, especially highly vulnerable kids that will now come into Michael Jackson’s life.”

Diane Sawyer on Good Morning America was another who adhered to the idea that Michael had been acquitted due to his celebrity status, “Are you sure?” Are you sure that this gigantically renowned guy walking into the room had no influence at all?”

Diane Dimond in her last New York Post article wrote, “He walked out of court a free man, not guilty on all counts. But Michael Jackson is so much more than free. He now has carte blanche to live his life any way he wants, with whomever he wants, because who would ever try to prosecute Michael Jackson now?”

New Video: Kriyss Grant speaks about his concerns over 'This Is It'

2010-10-03T14:18:00.003+01:00

In this latest excerpt from my interview with Kriyss Grant, the 'This Is It' dancer explains comments he made in an interview about organisers 'taking advantage' of Michael Jackson and elaborates on his early concerns over the comeback concerts.

The full article is available here on my website. To receive YouTube updates every time I upload a new video, subscribe to my YouTube channel.

The Interviewer becomes the Interviewee - Part Three

2010-10-02T15:35:00.004+01:00

Part Three of my in-depth interview with Lorette Luzajic has gone online. In this segment I discuss the bizarre series of events which led conspiracy theorists to accuse me of being involved in Michael Jackson's 'murder'.

Click here to read Part Three of this exclusive serialised interview.

In upcoming segments I will put some of these conspiracy theorists' claims under the microscope, showing how they continue to repeat lies even after they've been proven false and how they take small, innocuous pieces of factual information, then use them to 'prove' grandiose conspiracies.

I will also discuss the demonisation of Randy Taraborrelli, baseless claims that I have an alter-ego called Deborah Ffrench, why air-brushing over Jackson's mistakes actually removes culpability from those who drove him to an early grave and how in-fighting and power politics in Jackson's fan community are tarnishing his legacy.

The Interviewer becomes the Interviewee: Part Two

2010-09-30T16:14:00.003+01:00

Author Lorette Luzajic today uploaded Part Two of our brand new interview. In this part she asks me about my role in the release of Michael Jackson's FBI files and what we learned from their contents, as well as asking me about the strange similarities between Jackson's obsessive fans and his obsessive detractors.

Click here to read Part Two of our brand new interview.

In the coming days the interview will continue to be serialised, a few questions at a time. In upcoming segments I will talk about the overzealous fanatics who think they are improving Jackson's legacy but are actually staining it, and the methods employed by conspiracy theorists who are taking advantage of Jackson's vulnerable fans.

In other news, I have uploaded another clip from my interview with 'This Is It' dancer Kriyss Grant. To receive YouTube alerts each time I upload a new video, subscribe to my YouTube channel.

The Interviewer becomes the Interviewee

2010-09-29T19:23:00.009+01:00

I was recently interviewed at length by author Lorette Luzajic about my work on Michael Jackson and my strange experiences with his fans.

During the interview I spoke about how and why I became instrumental in the release of Michael Jackson's FBI files, the peculiar similarities between Jackson's supporters and his detractors and the farcical series of events which led conspiracy theorists to accuse me of assisting in Michael Jackson's murder.

The interview was long and detailed so will be serialised on Lorette's blog over the coming days, a few questions at a time. I will update my blog and my twitter page each time another part of the interview is uploaded.

Click here to read Part One of my brand new interview with Lorette Luzajic.

Earlier this year Lorette interviewed me about my growing fame as a Michael Jackson expert and my take on the allegations made against the star. Click here to read part one of our prior interview, and click here to read part two.

YouTube Update: Kriyss Grant talks to Charles Thomson

2010-09-29T19:18:00.004+01:00

I've added another clip to my YouTube page, this time taken from my interview with Kriyss Grant. In this clip, he talks to me about meeting Michael Jackson for the first time after his successful 'This Is It' audition.

I will be uploading more clips to my YouTube page in the coming days and weeks. In order to receive updates every time I add a video, you can subscribe to my Channel.

Cazwell Interview Now Online

2010-09-12T14:08:00.005+01:00

My interview with US rapper Cazwell has now gone online. Click here to read it.

As another treat for my blog readers, here's a second audio excerpt from the interview, in which Cazwell discusses his upcoming music videos.

In the coming days and weeks I will be uploading clips from past interviews, and I will also upload clips from future interviews as and when they're conducted. To receive YouTube updates when I upload new clips, you can subscribe to my YouTube channel.

Cazwell Interview - A Teaser

2010-09-11T03:46:00.003+01:00

I recently interviewed US rapper Cazwell for Sawf News. The full article will go online in the coming days - and I will update the blog when it goes live - but in the meantime here's a short teaser, in which Cazwell talks to me about homophobia in the hip-hop industry.

Thanks to Aphrodite Jones

2010-09-06T13:55:00.005+01:00

I was pleasantly surprised to log into my emails this morning and find that author and TV presenter Aphrodite Jones had defended me in a recent interview. Here is the extract, taken from from this article on the 'All For Love' blog:

But on that note, we also talked about the increasing division among the fanbase, and how it is doing more harm than good by undermining our best efforts... But I dropped a bomb she wasn’t expecting when I mentioned the latest source of division-Charles Thomson. She was absolutely shocked about that.

“WHAT?! You’re kidding me! Oh, and he’s such a sweetheart, too… Why are they attacking him? He’s written so many great articles about Michael.”

I said I only knew some things I had heard from various boards... but she cut me off before I could even make headway. “Oh, please,” she said, digging furiously among the contents of her bag until she had extracted a copy she just happened to very handily have on hand of the Andrea Peyser article, in which Peyser, of course, is ranting on and on about The Saratoga Dance Hall Of Fame honoring “a pedophile.”

Holding the awful article up as an example, she said righteously, “Do you see this? This is what you guys need to be concerned about. This is what we need to be fighting.”

So I just thought I'd take a moment to say thanks to Aphrodite for her kind words of support. Back in 2008, when I interviewed Aphrodite for Deadline magazine, she said my article was the best she'd ever seen written about her career. Since then she's always been available to give me quotes for articles or help me out with my research.

In the last month or two, a number of my followers have shown themselves to be extremely fickle and very easily led. It is nice to know that Aphrodite is not among them.

R.I.P Phelps 'Catfish' Collins

2010-08-28T02:05:00.011+01:00

R.I.P Phelps 'Catfish' Collins, 1944-2010
(Photo: Flickriver)

I learned today from my friend Tony Wilson that Phelps Collins, the legendary James Brown and P-Funk guitarist, passed away earlier this month.

Phelps, best known as Catfish, passed away on August 6th after a battle with cancer. His death came while I was on vacation in Cyprus with scant internet access and so passed me by. It was with great sadness that I learned today, several weeks later, of his death.

Catfish Collins is a legend in the world of funk music. His stint playing guitar for James Brown was short but prolific. Alongside his brother, bassist Bootsy Collins, Catfish worked with Brown for only 11 months between 1970-1971. However, during that time he played many of the most famous funk guitar riffs of all time, working on tracks such as Sex Machine, Super Bad, Soul Power and Talkin' Loud and Sayin' Nothin'.

L to R: Bootsy Collins, James Brown and Catfish Collins live in 1971.
(Photos: Getty)

In 1972 Catfish joined George Clinton's group Funkadelic where he recorded even more funk classics, including numerous credits on the album America Eats Its Young and, perhaps most famously, playing the infectious guitar riff on timeless party anthem Flashlight.

Stints in brother Bootsy's 'Rubber Band' aside, Catfish largely avoided the spotlight in later years.

I met Catfish briefly at London's Cumberland Hotel in 2008 while he was on a rare tour with his brother, paying tribute to the late, great Godfather of Soul. While waiting for an interview with Bootsy that never materialised - a long story for another time - I chatted to Catfish about life on the road. He complained that he'd never really enjoyed touring and was sick of living out of a suitcase. This would be his last tour, he said.

My friend Ron Roelofsen, a James Brown archivist, met Catfish at another stop on the same tour and had much the same conversation. "I had the honour to meet [Catfish] in person in 2008 during the JB tribute tour in Holland and Belgium," Ron wrote on his website after hearing the sad news. "A very nice and also funny guy. I never forgot his answer to my question, 'What have you been doing for the last 30 years?' Catfish: 'Fishing'. 'And is there a chance that you will be making some new music again after this tour?' 'No, I go back fishing.'"

In losing Catfish we have lost one of the architects of funk music. Despite the brevity of his time with James Brown and Funkadelic, he leaves behind a tremendous legacy. James Brown is famously the most sampled artist of all time, but little credit is given to the musicians playing in those samples. Catfish is one of the most (if not the most) sampled guitarists in the history of recorded music. Long may his music live on.

Bootsy Collins is hosting a tribute concert for his brother on September 4th at the Madison Theater in Covington, Kentucky. For details and tickets, click here.

Holiday Snaps

2010-08-10T05:19:00.009+01:00

As I mentioned in my last entry, I just returned from my summer vacation in Cyprus. Here is a handful of pictures, all snapped from my room/balcony.

The view from the room:

The view from the balcony:

Sometimes in the mornings the sea looks misty and seems to blend into the sky. Alas, this picture doesn't quite do the phenomenon justice.

A Final Word on the Lunacy

2010-08-09T02:16:00.024+01:00

I have spent the last two weeks in the mediterranean, scuba diving and the such like, but the vacation was marred somewhat by the knowledge that in my absence yet more tripe was being published about me all over the internet.

In the last two weeks an entire blog has been set up for the sole purpose of slagging me off. The blog - created by a fanatic called Yazmeen, who last month launched numerous racist tirades against her followers on twitter - claims that I am a 'hypocrite' and cites as its proof a bunch of old comments I made on a message board.

The comments, selectively lifted from thousands made on the website in question, include me bemoaning Michael Jackson's decision to appear in public with a young boy after announcing his London residency last year and stating repeatedly that the star was to blame for a lot of his own negative press.

And if you think that's evidence of 'hypocrisy' then I suggest you invest in a dictionary.

My work on Michael Jackson has centred almost exclusively on the allegations of child molestation made against him in 1993 and his trial on similar charges in 2005. Using the Michael Jackson case as a vehicle to explore wider social ills, my articles contend that the case against Jackson was flimsy at best and the media's coverage of his trial was utterly shambolic.

Nowhere among the comments on Yazmeen's blog do I say anything to the contrary.

Look over the comments and you will see me complaining about Jackson's insistence on miming the majority of his latter performances, lamenting his apparent laziness and blaming him for many of the PR disasters that defined his later career - all comments that I still stand by to this day, many of which I even reiterated in my fairly recent interview with Lorette Luzajic; an interview I plugged on this very blog without any shame or apprehension.

What you will not see anywhere among the comments which Yazmeen claims prove my 'hypocrisy' are any statements endorsing the media's right to call somebody a child molester when they have been acquitted by a jury. You will see no comments trumpeting the work of those who have profited by accusing Jackson of molesting children and no argument in favour of the media's trial coverage.

In fact, if you look closely enough you will actually find comments in which I berate former Jackson associates for making lurid claims about his personal life in exchange for column inches. You'll also see me complaining to official bodies about reporters who call Jackson a paedophile, and urging others to do the same.

So far from evidencing 'hypocrisy', the comments Yazmeen has unearthed actually serve only to prove my consistency.

Yazmeen has been attacking me publicly and emailing me privately for several weeks now. While I was on vacation she offered to stop harrassing me if I told her everything I knew about the O2 announcement and the This Is It concerts. What I knew was limited and uninteresting and I gladly told her, thinking it would finally give me some peace. I even offered her detailed advice about how to investigate Jackson's concert rehearsals for herself and wished her good luck in her research.

However, Yazmeen is convinced that I am lying to her and keeps accusing me of holding back information, particularly regarding Sony's involvement in the O2 gigs. No matter how often I tell her that I don't know anymore than I've already told her, she keeps emailing me back threatening that if I don't tell her what I know, she will keep slandering me on her blog.

While I know little at all about Sony's involvement in the O2 gigs, it is clear to see why they would be chipping in. The publicity surrounding the concerts was sure to result in an enormous boost in record sales, from which Sony would obviously profit hugely.

Additionally, Sony was responsible for the majority of Jackson's solo back catalogue meaning that any CDs or DVDs sold at the O2 during Jackson's residency would be earning them money. So the question is clearly not why Sony would be involved in This Is It, but why they wouldn't. Apparently, though, this common sense explanation isn't sinister enough for Yazmeen, so she keeps pressuring me for a less flattering one. When I can't produce one, she takes to her blog and slags me off again.

Furthermore, given that she keeps writing ridiculous and inaccurate articles about me, I occasionally feel the need to publicly defend myself as I am doing here. When I do, she acts completely outraged - as though it's perfectly acceptable for her to keep libelling me but not pefectly acceptable for me to defend myself - and sends more emails threatening even more slander.

This culminated in her latest assault on my character, in which she nastily outed me as a gay man, as though that in itself is a legitimate reason for her followers to turn on me. This was something she'd threatened to do last month while pressing me for info on Sony.

In an email on July 29th she wrote, "I screencapped your posts both on MJ and James Brown forums & a queer site.... I am NOT trying to expose you but your denials and attempts to discredit ME is leaving me no choice.... I want INFORMATION."

I gave her all the information I had - which was very little. She outed me anyway.

Yazmeen's latest article about me proves that those currently attacking me have absolutely no idea where to draw the line between what is and is not acceptable. They see themselves as crusaders fighting desperately to bring Jackson's 'murderers' to justice and, as far as they're concerned, nothing is sacred. They don't care who they hurt, who they slander, who they intimidate or who they baselessly accuse of murder.

A person's private life and their professional life are separate entities and it is unacceptable to raise the former in an argument about the latter. In my professional life, I am a journalist and I take that role seriously. I never publish an article for mass consumption unless it has been deeply researched and thoroughly fact-checked.

But I do not apply the same rigorous fact-checking procedures to comments written on my personal social networking accounts - and nor should I. It is absurd to claim that I am compromised in my professional life by comments made on message boards as a teenager.

More absurd is Yazmeen's decision to unnecessarily reveal my sexuality to her readers. My sexual orientation is completely and utterly irrelevant to my profession, so to publicly declare it in a below-the-belt attempt to discredit my work was beyond petty. It was downright spiteful.

The fact that Yazmeen genuinely thought her followers would see my sexuality as a character flaw of some kind - proof of my unreliability - serves only to diminish whatever faint glimmer of credibility she and her supporters may once have laid claim to. Those who take their orders from a homophobic internet bully with a propensity for racist diatribes are not worth worrying about. I shan't mourn their departure from the Charles Thomson fan club. Yazmeen is welcome to them.

What it boils down to is this: As far as these people are concerned, I am not a big enough fan - and for that, I must be punished. The smear campaign against me began several weeks ago when I made some comments during a conversation on my personal twitter page about Michael Jackson's struggles with drug and alcohol dependencies at various stages in his career.

I was bombarded with angry messages from fans insisting that Jackson had never been addicted to any substance in his life and scolding me because commenting on his alleged addictions was 'not helping Michael' and 'could prejudice Dr Murray's trial'.

Since when is it my job to ensure that everything written on my personal twitter page is 'helpful' to Michael Jackson? I'm not Jackson's spokesperson, I'm a journalist - and I wasn't even writing in a professional capacity when I made the comments. Furthermore, the idea that me writing to a paltry 250 followers on twitter is going to shift the foundations of Dr Murray's criminal trial is laughable.

Since Jackson's death his own relatives, including sister Janet, have given candid interviews in which they state that they knew Jackson had drug problems and tried repeatedly to stage interventions. That these bloggers are so self-righteous as to assume that they know more about Jackson's private life than his own family members highlights the shocking extent of their delusion.

When I cite these interviews, the bloggers say that the star's siblings have clearly been drawn into an evil conspiracy to wrongly paint their brother as an addict and destroy his reputation!

Bottom line: I don't purport to know more about Jackson's private life than his own family members, and for that reason I have become the victim of a prolonged campaign of abuse.

The 'discovery' of my controversial message board posts has riled these fans further. Many of Jackson's fans live in a bubble of denial and mandatory self-delusion. Lots of fansites censor all their news content on the basis that anything positive is true and anything negative is 'tabloid garbage'. Anything they don't want to hear is branded a lie.

A lot of Jackson's fans cannot handle any negativity whatsoever. Some fansites will even ban you for stating proven facts, such as discussing the star's stint in rehab in 1993, debating the morality of miming concerts for paying audiences, talking about his wigs or complaining that he let kids into his bedroom after the Jordy Chandler debacle.

These fans don't seem to realise that in refusing to ascribe Jackson any blame for any of the bad things that happened to him, they effectively paint him as an invalid, incapable of making any decisions for himself - everything is always somebody else's fault. Unless it's positive, at which point Jackson transforms into a shrewd businessman and all round genius. They want to have their cake and eat it and anybody who challenges their sanitised and unrealistic image of the star immediately becomes the subject of threats, abuse and character assassination.

While the majority of emails, tweets and other communication I receive from Michael Jackson's fans are friendly, supportive and complimentary, there are those - led by Yazmeen and other fanatical bloggers - who take the view that unless a person writes 100% positively about Michael Jackson at all times, they are a hater, a hypocrite or even a hired agent in Sony Music's apparent conspiracy to murder the popstar. For these people, it is all or nothing. You either believe he was 100% right all of the time, or you're an asshole.

Why must one be a raving fan in order to believe in Jackson's innocence? What does my opinion on Jackson's music have to do with my opinion on his trial? I don't have to agree with Jackson's decisions in order to recognise the ludicrousness of the case against him in 2005. I don't even have to like him. What I think of Jackson, his music, his performances or his decisions is totally irrelevant.

To call my negative comments evidence of 'hypocrisy' is patently ridiculous because I have remained entirely consistent in my attitude. I've never defended incidents like the baby dangling episode and I never will. It is entirely indefensible. So is Jackson's decision to let children into his bedroom after 1993 and, perhaps more importantly, his decision to broadcast it to the world using Martin Bashir's documentary as a mouthpiece. The list goes on and on.

Yazmeen's logic is flawed on every level. Her contention is that by writing about Jackson's innocence and at the same time not agreeing with a lot of his career decisions I am somehow contradicting myself, but there is no correlation between the two. It is perfectly legitimate to hold one opinion about one issue and a different one about another.

Yazmeen's argument is, effectively, that anybody who says they like apples but hate pears is a hypocrite.

Where is the hypocrisy? I was writing articles about Jackson's innocence all the way back in 2008 and I'm still doing it now. Whether or not I agree with Jackson's miming, find his extensive surgery aesthetically pleasing or enjoy his post-Thriller musical output has nothing to do with my thoughts on his trial, which have provably not changed.

I am growing tired of answering these delusional claims on a point by point basis. I think this will be my final blog on the subject. My detractors have already been roundly discredited, not least by their own cockamamie conspiracy theories about body doubles and Sony assassins, and anybody who continues to hang on their every word is not going to be swayed by logic or reason.

Those who choose to lend their support to paranoid fantasists with provable racist and homophobic attitudes are undesirables. I won't lose any sleep over their decision to stop supporting my work.

My final comment on the situation: That these fans are branding me a hypocrite is made all the more hilarious by their own blatant hypocrisy.

Yazmeen herself is about as changeable as they come. This article documents some of her racist outbursts on twitter. How Yazmeen can be such a vehement supporter of the biggest black popstar in history and at the same time write such horrendous racist abuse on the internet is mind-boggling.

Among other things, she calls one poster a 'smelly, cotton picking NIGGER' (her capitalisation). "Why do black people smell?" she asks in another post. "Don't you sell deodorant in the ghetto? Oh, they only know how to get to the liquor store!!!! How many babies u have?"

In another shocking comment she writes, "Answer this, DID I THROW YOU A BONE? NOO, SO WHY ARE YOU BARKING NIGGER BITCH?" Another comment says, 'Why burn coat [sic]... when you can burn niggers?"

Yazmeen squares her racist beliefs with her support of Michael Jackson as follows: "Well it's because I despise niggers...,,and before a stupid ass jumps...,Michael wasn't a nigger, he was black."

Bonnie Cox's response to Yazmeen's racist tirade: "She said some things in the heat of the attack that I would not have condoned... but she was right." Bonnie, by the way, recently claimed on her blog that Tom Sneddon was a Sony hitman, adding that my decision to hide my facebook profile after her supporters bombarded me with obscene mail is concrete proof that I am also on Sony's payroll.

The article containing Yazmeen's racist tweets also reveals how she went from claiming to be 'a billion percent sure' that Sony murdered Michael Jackson to claiming that she believed he'd actually faked his own death. It further details how she berated Jackson's fans for sending abuse to the star's family members, then began harrassing them herself.

But it's not just Yazmeen who is gunning for me. It's her barmy army of supporters; conspiracy theorists who believe that Sony murdered Michael Jackson and I am somehow involved. This group of hardcore zealots is equally hypocritical.

When Jackson was on trial his hardcore fans adopted 'innocent until proven guilty' as their mantra and repeated it until they were blue in the face. Now his doctor is on trial and they show up in their droves at each of his court hearings to scream 'murderer' at him as he walks into the courthouse. It's one rule for Michael Jackson and another rule for everybody else. Constitutional rights must be upheld when their idol is on trial, but are meaningless when somebody they don't like is put in the same situation. And the hypocrisy doesn't end there.

Jackson's hardcore fans complain ceaselessly about his unfair media treatment but at the same time have absolutely no hesitation about publishing inaccurate, libelous information all over the internet about anybody they take a dislike to, be it branding somebody a liar or a hater or outright accusing them of murder.

Jackson preached love, acceptance, understanding and charity - an ethos that his hardcore fans claim they wish to perpetuate - but they see nothing wrong with directing horrifying abuse at anybody who dares to disagree with them on any issue.

In one breath they preach 'L-O-V-E' and in the next they unleash racist tirades and death threats. Those who are now gunning for me were, a few weeks ago, spamming Jackson's shattered brother Randy - who recently suffered a mild heart attack - with shameful diatribes accusing him of looting his brother's bank accounts in order to fund an addiction to hard drugs. A message of support sent to me from a Jackson family member said they've even gone after Jackson's grieving, 80-year-old mother.

Where my attitudes towards Jackson are concerned, there is no hypocrisy to speak of. Where those attacking me in his name are concerned, there is plenty.

The Lockdown

2010-07-22T02:00:00.006+01:00

As of yesterday my twitter account is locked and I will only accept followers who I know in person. Anybody I don't know personally has been removed from my facebook friends list and my profile is no longer accessible to anybody who isn't already following me.

The reason for this drastic course of action is that Bonnie Cox's supporters, either with or without her instruction (she says without), yesterday bombarded me with obscene hatemail and one fan in particular began recruiting cronies to spy on my personal accounts.

As anticipated, Bonnie Cox has posted a third blog about me. In it she claims that I sent her 'obscenity laden threats'. The only thing I sent Ms Cox which even vaguely resembled a threat was a notice that if she continued to publish libelous information about me, I would seek legal action.

As it happens, I will not be taking any action against Ms Cox. Whereas I was at first outraged by the misinformation being perpetuated about me, after a few days' reflection I've come to realise that anybody who subscribes to conspiracy theories about Sony assassins and body doubles is simply confused and vulnerable. Judging by much of the obscene mail and personal threats I received yesterday, the same is true of many of her supporters.

Ms Cox claims in her latest entry that I 'sent her way' a series of angry fans. This allegation is entirely bogus. I didn't ask anybody to email Bonnie Cox and even posted a message on my facebook wall today asking my remaining followers not to harrass her, because I feel she is emotionally vulnerable.

Cox continues to brand the lowly newshound blog false and nasty. For a 'false' blog, it sure got a lot of information right. Over the years it accurately reported the dismissal of Raymone Bain, the re-hiring of Frank Dileo, Jackson's return to LA, his concert residency and the firing of Peter Lopez before they were reported by any major news outlet.

Among Cox's 'proof' that I authored the newshound blog is the fact that we both used the words 'diary' and 'reporter' in our blog titles. The fact that we both happened to be reporters writing diaries has apparently escaped her notice.

Cox further alleges that I claimed never to have heard of the newshound blog - which is either an intentional lie or a misunderstanding. I've never said I didn't know about the newshound blog, nor have I said that I don't know the newshound. I followed the newshound's blog before I even started my own.

Cox and her supporters' favourite bogus allegation appears to be that I said Michael Jackson was a drug addict at the time of his death. I did not say this. A few weeks ago I became involved in a heated debate with several twitter users after I made a comment about Michael Jackson's issues with drugs over the years. A number of hardcore Jackson fanatics began sending me furious tweets, claiming that Jackson had never been addicted to drugs in his life.

Jackson's own family members have repeatedly stated in interviews since his death that he was addicted to painkillers at various stages in his life and they attempted to stage several interventions. Quite what it is that makes Cox and her supporters think they know more about Jackson's drug problems than his own brothers and sisters, I'm not sure.

Cox's supporters have left equally baseless comments beneath her blog and all over twitter/facebook. Many of them claim I am 'cashing in' on the wave of support for Jackson since his death. How many times do I have to tell them that my pro-Jackson articles have been written pro bono before they actually digest the information? Moreover, I've been penning articles in Jackson's favour since 2008. It's Cox, not me, who only began covering Jackson after he died.

Others claim that Bonnie Cox never accused me of being in cahoots with Sony, but I have emails forwarded to me by fans in which Cox states clearly her belief that the only reason I'm angry about her blog is because she made the connection between me and Sony.

Just to put an end to any speculation that I am, or ever was, on Sony's payroll; the only exchange I've ever had with Sony was when they banned me from their catalogue release department after I wrote a negative review of Thriller 25.

One Cox supporter named Jazelyn, whose twitter account was closed today after she spammed users with racist abuse, left repeated comments underneath my last blog entry, believing she'd discovered the smoking gun connecting me to the newshound blog. Over a year ago, the newshound apparently used the phrase 'toodle pie' on his twitter page. Roughly one week ago, I used it on mine.

Cox and her followers acknowledge in their own rants that I was a follower of the newshound before his accounts disappeared, meaning I could very easily have picked the phrase up that way. I didn't, but they should still have taken it into consideration.

One key fact that Jazelyn neglected to mention is that moments before I said 'toodle pie' on my twitter page last week, I had posted a funny video on my twitter feed of a boy ranting about inept staff at his local Subway branch. How did he sign off his video? 'Toodle pie!' Mystery solved.

Clearing Up More Nonsense

2010-07-20T13:19:00.018+01:00

After discovering yesterday that one individual was impersonating me on TMZ, I discovered that another was writing inaccurate articles about me for consumption by thousands of vulnerable and impressionable fans.

Bonnie Cox, author of the 'Michael's Guardian' blog, has recently published two inaccurate and defamatory articles about me and has alluded on her twitter page to the fact that she's planning a third.

Cox, a supporter of the Tea Party movement who last year wrote on her facebook page that she hoped President Obama would get on a plane with one of his 'muslim buddies' and crash, insists on her blog that Michael Jackson was murdered by Sony, 'This Is It' is full of body doubles and Jackson's friends are being murdered to disguise the truth about his death.

Among the brainless witterings on her blog, she baselessly accuses me of authoring 'false' blogs about Michael Jackson, suggests that I am only covering him positively for my own financial gain and implies that my friendship with J Randy Taraborrelli is part of a Sony conspiracy to destroy Michael Jackson.

Four days ago she wrote, "It has been brought to my attention that Charles Thompson [sic] and the Lowlynewshound are are one and the same." Her evidence? Well, she didn't have any evidence. Her sources? She didn't have any of those either. And this is a lady who frequently berates the media for its shoddy reporting?

The Lowly Newshound blog, which has disappeared amidst this latest controversy, contained numerous in-depth articles about Michael Jackson. Bonnie Cox brands the information in the blog 'false' but offers no evidence to corroborate this, writing only that she couldn't believe some of its claims.

Not content with branding the blog's contents 'false' on the sole basis that she didn't like what it said, and accusing me of writing it with absolutely no corroborative evidence, three days later Bonnie Cox penned a second article claiming that J Randy Taraborrelli's biography 'Michael Jackson: The Magic and the Madness' was sponsored by Sony as part of a campaign to smear Michael Jackson. Not only this, but Cox went on to insinuate that because I am friends with Randy Taraborrelli, I could be in on it.

After I sent Bonnie Cox several strongly worded instructions to remove this libelous material from her blog, she promised via twitter to retract the inaccurate allegations from her blog:

However, while she amended the blog entries in a small way, she has still left in place speculation that I am the newshound (suggesting that I have had a 'change of micro chip') and questions about the nature of my friendship with Randy Taraborrelli. She later sent me a message via twitter implying that there was something shady about my friendship with Taraborrelli, saying, "I have a photo of you and Taraborrelli together. How am I supposed to deal with that?"

The notion that a photograph of myself and J Randy Taraborrelli is evidence of a conspiracy is laughable. I have made no secret of my friendship with Randy Taraborrelli and nor has he. We had dinner together in LA several weeks ago and both posted the pictures on our facebook pages. I'm not ashamed of our friendship and nor should I be. Taraborrelli is a kind, warm, funny and generous man, and any implication that he's part of a conspiracy to destroy Michael Jackson is beyond absurd. The idea that a photograph of us together would evidence any shady conspiracy or subterfuge, or would be of any interest to Cox's readers, is insane.

Randy Taraborrelli and I in Los Angeles.

Cox has since threatened me indirectly via twitter, writing a message that I'm 'not going to like tomorrow's blog', so apparently her next entry will be filled with even more deluded nonsense.

Cox, by her own admission, only began writing about Jackson after his death. I, meanwhile, have a documented history of Jackson-related journalism stretching back at least as far as 2008. Ironic, then, that Cox should accuse me of being the bandwagon jumper.

Her inexperience shows, too. Among her 'evidence' of Randy Taraborrelli's anti-Jackson agenda she cites Bob Jones's tell-all book about Michael Jackson. That would be Bob Jones who admitted on the stand during Jackson's trial that his book contained fabricated information, such as false claims that he witnessed Jackson licking the head of a young boy.

Cox also neglects to mention that in a series of tape-recorded telephone conversations between Jackson and a female friend, known as the 'Glenda Tapes', Jackson name-checks Taraborrelli's book and confirms its accuracy.

A final word: The idea that I have only started writing in Jackson's defence since he died and it became profitable is easily disproven by this 2008 interview I conducted with Aphrodite Jones about her book 'Michael Jackson Conspiracy'.

As for the idea that I am benefitting financially from my articles about Jackson's media treatment, my work on the Michael Jackson case has been conducted largely at my own expense. My most recent Huffington Post article, 'One of the Most Shameful Episodes in Journalistic History', took a month to research and is over 5000 words long. I was not paid for any of my research or writing on that piece. I wrote it because I am passionate about the cause and believe the injustice needs to be highlighted.

Quite how my willingness to spend one month doing unpaid research and writing on a pro-Michael Jackson article ties in with the theory that I'm part of a Sony-controlled anti-Michael Jackson conspiracy, I'm not sure. You'll have to direct that question to Bonnie Cox.

The Idiots Have Landed

2010-07-20T00:06:00.003+01:00

It has come to my attention that one or more mentally challenged individuals have been posting obscene comments at TMZ under my name.

Just to confirm, I do not post at TMZ under any name and the comments are nothing to do with me.

My Interview with Lorette Luzajic

2010-05-13T02:42:00.005+01:00

It was four months ago today that Lorette Luzajic first asked to interview me for her website. After many technical setbacks, our conversation has finally gone online.

To read it, click here.

With a decade's experience in the publishing industry, Lorette has three books under her belt. Her latest, 'Goodbye Billie Jean: The Meaning of Michael Jackson', is an exploration of the man dubbed the King of Pop and what he meant to the world.

The book comprises 51 chapters by 51 authors, each explaining what Michael Jackson meant to them and how he impacted their lives. Contributors include Pulitzer-winning journalist Chris Hedges, writer and Jackson friend Jonathan Margolis, playwright Kevin Craig and political activist Ralph Remington.

To find out more about Lorette Luzajic, visit http://www.thegirlcanwrite.net/

See below for an edited extract from 'Goodbye Billie Jean: The Meaning of Michael Jackson'.

Extract

It was a rainy summer in Toronto. Michael Jackson was everywhere. Fans, foes, neutrals - we'll all look back at this later and remember the summer of Michael Jackson.

The men at the ginseng and spice store seemed to love 'Jam'. It was pumping out of the shop every time my streetcar transferred on that corner of Chinatown.

'Heaven Can Wait' was playing at Wazema, where Ethiopian food lovers gather for amazing grub. Car stereos pumped 'Beat It' up and down the main drag of summer in the city. The Turkish-owned convenience store aroud the corner played nothing but 'The Way You Make Me Feel'. Vigils took place in Dundas Square and at MuchMusic. A 36-week special MJ film festival kicked off at Reg Hartt's Cineforum.

That's just my city, Toronto. Michael Jackson rocked the whole damn planet. There were millions of people playing his music all at once, all summer long and likely for years to come...

Who knew Michael had a fan club in Cameroon? Who knew that thousands of hardened criminals in hardcore prisons for hard time for hard crime would start gyrating in sync to falsetto 'hoo hoos'?

Who knew that butter sculptures and sand drawings and shrines would form from Iowa to Russia?

Fan club head Gary Taylor reminded suicidal fans that Michael would have wanted you to live. Suicide hotlines were getting distress calls after the funeral. Astonishingly, some fans did commit suicide...

A Russian Jackson impersonator named Pavel Talalayev slit his wrists but he was rescued. He was very perturbed about this. "I don't know why the doctors saved me," he said. "I want to be with Michael, and I will kill myself anyway."

The internet crashed under the gargantuan volume of information exchangers searching for, finding and creating information about Michael Jackson.

A two-day ritual ceremonial funeral took place in the Ivory Coast, where Michael was their prince.

Lorette Luzajic

Preview: True Crime with Aphrodite Jones - The Michael Jackson Trial

2010-04-29T18:48:00.017+01:00

Aphrodite Jones's Michael Jackson documentary hasn't even aired yet and already the media is gunning for it. The documentary, which aims to highlight slanted media reporting about the allegations against Jackson, has already been dismissed by New York Daily News as a 'love letter' to the star. Meanwhile, South Coast Daily News says it is unobjective because the interviewees are 'a parade of former Jackson managers and retainers'.

The latter comment in particular is both untrue and unfair. Firstly, the show's interviewees include two of the jurors from Jackson's trial, a criminal defense expert and Jones herself. None of these people knew Jackson and they certainly weren't on his payroll.

Secondly, the idea that a documentary about Michael Jackson should be dismissed as unreliable because the talking heads actually knew him is beyond ludicrous. The clear inference is that the documentary would somehow be more reliable if half of the screen time was dedicated to people who never met Jackson speculating wildly about his private life. This is patently absurd.

Having arrived home today and found an advance screening DVD of the show on my doormat, I thought I would post a preview/review ahead of tonight's airing.

Preview

The show begins with Jackson's death on June 25th last year, with Jones positing that while the star was technically killed by acute propofol intoxication, his death had been a sad inevitability. His spirit was crushed, she argues, by bogus allegations about his relationships with children and the way in which the media had misrepresented them. "Jackson never came back from his trial," Jones says in publicity materials. "He died trying."

The audience is transported back to 1993 and taken through the first set of allegations levelled against Jackson. Much time is dedicated to the controversial settlement of the civil suit brought by Jordan Chandler's parents. That settlement, Jones suggests, is the primary cause of many people's reservations about Jackson.

Former Jackson manager Frank Dileo says that Jackson was tricked into the settlement by business advisors more interested in the star's earning power than his public image. Thomas Mesereau, who represented Jackson in his 2005 trial, adds that the settlement also set a precedent for anybody wishing to extort money from Michael Jackson, sending the message that he was an easy target. It created an attitude, he says: 'Why work when you can just sue Michael
Jackson?'

It was Jackson's concern over the impact of the settlement on his public image, Jones claims, that inspired him to let Martin Bashir into his inner sanctum. Seduced by Bashir's promise that his documentary would centre on Jackson's quest to achieve an International Children's Holiday, the star gave Bashir unprecedented access to his life in the hope that it would vindicate him of the 1993 child abuse allegations. But Bashir manipulated the footage in order to advance his own career, Jones says. Bashir ended up crossing the pond to work as a news anchor for ABC, while the documentary Jackson hoped would vindicate him actually wound up serving as the catalyst to a second set of allegations.

Thomas Mesereau describes former DA Tom Sneddon - who tried to prosecute Jackson in 1993 and brought charges against him in 2003 - as being "obsessed to the point of absurdity". Paul Rodriguez, jury foreman in Jackson's trial, agrees. "He came across like he was just doing anything he could to pursuade us to look at things his way, regardless of the evidence," he says. "It was almost like he had a vendetta against him."

Criminal defence lawyer and celebrity trial expert Mickey Sherman adds:

"I think [the prosecution] got too emotionally invested in the case. I think Tom Sneddon seemed gleeful. Gleeful. He took a little too much pleasure in dishing out misery to Michael Jackson... There was such an eagerness to dish out some bad stuff to Michael Jackson that the credibility was, if not lost, certainly diminished."

Jones asserts that the media ignored the not guilty verdicts in Jackson's trial and continued to portray him as a predator because it made 'great headlines on the covers of rag papers'. Mesereau adds that the media was 'humiliated' by the verdicts because reporters had been predicting a conviction and 'almost salivating about him being hauled off to jail'. Jones concludes that the trial traumatised Jackson to such an extent that he was unable to sleep, and this is why he died of a propofol overdose last summer.

Review

While early reviews have been unfair and inaccurate, this documentary is not without fault. For the uninitiated, it offers a tantalising glimpse of what was wrong with the prosecution's case against Jackson and the extent to which the media skewed its reporting on the trial. However, this documentary is not a definitive guide to the allegations against Jackson. The 2005 trial alone lasted four months and could warrant a six part TV series of its own. By condensing both rounds of allegations against Jackson - plus his death - into an hour-long show, programme makers have omitted a wealth of key information.

The 1993 case is all but skipped over. Claims made by Evan Chandler are stated as fact rather than conjecture and the ample evidence undermining the Chandler family's case is not mentioned at all.

The show also fails to mention the enormous legal reason behind the settlement of the civil suit in 1994. Tom Sneddon had so little evidence to support his case in 1993 that two separate grand juries refused to allow him to bring charges against Jackson. The upshot of this was that the civil trial wound up scheduled ahead of any potential criminal trial. This was a violation of Jackson's fifth amendment as it would severely undermine his right to a fair trial.

Holding the civil trial in advance of a criminal trial would give the prosecution unqualified access to Jackson's defense strategy. If Jackson cited an alibi in his civil trial, Sneddon could go back to the office and change the dates on the criminal charges. If Jackson called witnesses to corroborate his version of events, Sneddon could go back to his office and mould his case around their testimony. He could tailor his case exactly to the defense strategy, making it impossible for Jackson to win a criminal trial. The only way Jackson could guarantee himself a fair criminal trial was to make the civil trial go away.

The settlement agreement did not prevent the Chandler family from testifying in a criminal case. Jackson was prepared to fight the allegations in court but he was not prepared to forfeit his right to a fair criminal trial by wasting his defense on a civil suit. The Chandlers' decision not to testify in the criminal case was entirely their own and is perhaps the best indication of what they were really about.

None of this was mentioned in the show's discussion of the 1993 case.

When the second set of allegations rolled around in 2003, Sneddon repeatedly broke the law in his pursuit of Jackson. He breached the conditions of his own search warrant, illegally raided the office of a PI hired by Jackson's lawyer, breached a court-imposed gag order and stole defense documents from the home of a Jackson employee.

When Jackson's lawyer appeared on NBC and stated that the star had a 'concrete, iron-clad alibi' for the dates on the charge sheet, Sneddon shifted them by almost two weeks in time for the arraignment.

None of this is mentioned in tonight's show. Nor is there much discussion at all about the testimony presented in Jackson's trial. Each of the Arvizo family was caught in countless lies. They contradicted their own and each other's versions of events. They claimed to have been held captive at Neverland when records clearly showed that they'd entered and exited the ranch at will and had ample access to telephones while they were there. It was also revealed that the family had lied about sexual abuse in the past for monetary gain.

Elsewhere, former employees took the stand and claimed to have witnessed Jackson molesting Brett Barnes, Wade Robson and Macauley Culkin - only for all three of them to take the stand and tell the prosecution, in no uncertain terms, that they'd never been touched and they resented the implication. The prosecution was also unable to produce a single piece of evidence linking Jackson to their ill-conceived conspiracy charge. All of this - and much more - is omitted from tonight's documentary.

In brief, tonight's show suffers due to time constraints. Whilst it does include interesting commentary from experts like Thomas Mesereau and jurors Paul Rodriguez and Paulina Coccoz, and it will give non-fans an insight into Sneddon's questionable motives and tactics, it is simply impossible to condense the story behind the allegations against Jackson into a one-hour TV show. Aphrodite Jones herself wrote a 296 page book about the 2005 trial alone.

Although this documentary does not include all of the exculpatory evidence relating to the allegations against the King of Pop, it may inspire Jackson skeptics to re-evaluate their stance and perhaps intrigue them enough to seek out Jones's book, Michael Jackson Conspiracy, which contains far more information.

True Crime with Aphrodite Jones airs tonight at 10pm (ET) on Investigation Discovery.

Why Channel 4's 'Greatest Stand-Ups' was actually just the station's latest cock-up

2010-04-12T17:36:00.021+01:00

It was with trepidation that I tuned into Channel 4's 'The 100 Greatest Stand-Ups' on Saturday night. The original 2007 line-up was dubious at best and recent publicity claiming that the poll had been repeated to account for new comedians like Russell Howard didn't fill me with hope for the 2010 edition.

Alas, my misgivings were entirely valid. Those expecting a comprehensive list of world class comedians will have been disappointed. The list served only as a testament to the general public's pitiful attention span. That, or many of the voters confused the phrase 'greatest stand-ups of all time' with 'list of comedians who were on telly last week'.

The 2010 update saw Jason Manford ranked 30 places higher than Jackie Mason, Peter Kay more than 20 places higher than George Carlin and Michael McIntyre inexplicably making the top ten. Racist icons like Bernard Manning and Roy Chubby Brown were voted dozens of places higher than the hugely respected Dick Gregory. Recent discoveries Russell Howard and Rhod Gilbert, who have yet to prove their staying power, made the top 50 while comedy legends like Joan Rivers and Andy Kaufman did not. And to top it all off, Ricky Gervais ranked higher than Bill Hicks.

There were also glaring omissions. Rowan Atkinson's stand-up gigs were masterclasses in character comedy, easily rivalling Steve Coogan, who himself took a surprisingly low 59th place. Jeremy Hardy was also noticably absent, despite being one of Britain's most astute and consistently funny comics. Sarah Silverman, whose divisive but taboo-busting material is challenging and original, didn't appear on the list. But shock jock Frankie Boyle, whose 'edgy' material consists largely of calling celebrities 'c*nts' and talking endlessly about paedophilia, ranked in the top 30.

For a show which purported to celebrate great comedy, laughs were surprisingly thin on the ground. The selection of clips was mind-boggling and can't have inspired many viewers to seek out a lot of the showcased acts. To illustrate Sean Hughes's worthiness, programme makers played an unspectacular clip of the comedian pretending to dance with his dog. Frankie Howerd's 'comedy genius', meanwhile, was demonstrated by endless clips of Howerd gurning and saying 'oo-er missus' over and over again.

By far, the funniest moment of the night had to be programme makers playing indisputable footage of Dennis Leary ripping off a Bill Hicks routine word for word - then cutting to Jimmy Carr cluelessly insisting that Leary wasn't a joke thief.

It wasn't all bad, though. Stewart Lee deservedly climbed from 41st place to 12th. Jim Bowen, Mike Reid and John Thompson, who all bafflingly appeared on the 2007 list, have since fallen off the bottom. Mercifully, Andrew Dice Clay has also disappeared after bizarrely making top 40 in the original poll.

Overall, though, the list was a disappointment. Run of the mill modern comics were consistently voted into higher positions than legends with decades of fantastic material behind them. Innovators barely scraped the list while derivative hacks permeated the top 30. But little else can be expected of such polls. I remember watching in horror a few years ago as Little Britain beat Monty Python in a Channel 4 poll to find the greatest comedy sketch of all time.

So here is my alternative list of the five greatest stand-ups of all time.

Bill Hicks

As is often the case with counter-culture icons (eg. Hunter Thompson), Hicks is arguably more popular for his lifestyle than his incisive commentary. His pro-drugs material is some of his best known and most celebrated, despite being some of his weakest. Hicks was truly at his best when delivering impassioned diatribes against hypocrisy and corruption at the heart of government.

Like Thompson, Hicks was a phenomenal political commentator who made the subject both funny and accessible. Both were spurned to some extent by their own country when their frustration led to them being branded unpatriotic. Hicks played to sold out theatres in the UK but was consigned to small comedy clubs in the USA.

Commercially available footage is sparse and never quite does him justice. Hicks's best material is showcased on his various live CDs; 'Dangerous' and 'Rant In E-Minor' are works of art. It is in these collections that we hear Hicks muse on abortion, the military, trailer park culture, religion, his mum's unerring fascination with other people's tumours and plenty of other dynamite routines which never found their way onto his live DVDs.

Stewart Lee

In my estimation, Stewart Lee is the best comedian currently working in the UK. His deadpan delivery and repetitive joke structure infuriate some punters but Lee's world-weary material and eye for the absurd are second to none.

Lee's 2008 DVD '41st Best Stand-Up Ever' is quite possibly the greatest live comedy DVD I've ever seen. In the show Lee details the year after he was voted number 41 on Channel 4's '100 Greatest Stand-Ups' poll, including his mother's insistence that Tom O'Connor is the greatest comedian of all time and Lee's thwarted attempts to record a BBC TV series. Hilarious and touching, the show is an exercise in pathos and was described by the Times as, "Cheerfully heretical, rapturously rhythmic and inspiringly intelligent... He remains the standard by which his fellow Fringe comics must measure themselves."

Lee's 'If You Prefer A Milder Comedian, Please Ask For One' show was easily the best comedy gig I attended last year. Including an assault on the audience for not buying his DVDs, a faux meltdown which saw him vacate the stage and dangle himself precariously from one of the boxes and a lengthy routine about how and why he'd like to murder Richard Hammond, it was hilarious, theatrical and heart-warming.

There are few jobbing comedians with as much to say and none who say it more eloquently than Stewart Lee.

Billy Connolly

The Big Yin topped both Channel 4 polls and rightly so. While Connolly has never been a political comedian, he was certainly subversive and is credited by many comics as the forefather of 'alternative comedy'.

Connolly never intended to be a comedian. He started out as a folk singer but realised that the chit-chat between his songs got a better reaction than the music itself, so decided to make a career out of it. As such, he was performing long annecdotes, sweary routines and observational humour long before it became a trend. It is for this reason that everybody from Ross Noble to Robin Williams credits him as the greatest comedian of all time.

A naturally gifted raconteur with a delightfully warm personality to boot, you might say Connolly has the gift of the gab. You feel comfortable at a Billy Connolly gig. As he's aged, Connolly has developed more of a 'grumpy old man' persona onstage but he remains down to earth, often collapsing into fits of giggles at his own temper.

I saw Connolly in 2007 and have never laughed so much or left a gig feeling so elated as I did that night. Performing more than two hours with no interval, Connolly held the audience in the palm of his hand and had us all doubled up, stomachs knotted, breathless throughout. Connolly was so good that for a while he ruined stand-up for me - everything seemed anti-climactic by comparison. No subsequent gig has ever come close in terms of unrelenting joy and hilarity.

Andy Kaufman

Kaufman turned the genre on its head to such an extent that, arguably, he wasn't really a stand-up comedian at all. His gigs were more like one-man variety shows featuring characters, skits, practical jokes, music, wrestling and more.

It was Kaufman's unpredictability that made him one of the most exciting live performers in the history of stand-up comedy. Walking into a Kaufman gig you never knew what you were going to get. He might come onstage and deliver an hour of dynamite material. But he might come onstage, sit at a table and silently eat ice cream. Or make carrot juice. Or read The Great Gatsby in its entirity. Later in his career, he wrestled women onstage and proclaimed himself the Inter-Gender Wrestling Champion of the World. After one Carnegie Hall gig, he took every member of his audience out for milk and cookies.

Kaufman didn't care whether his audience laughed or not as long as their reaction was strong. It didn't matter whether that reaction was horror, revulsion, confusion or anger. Some have even proclaimed him the forefather of performance art.

Regrettably, Kaufman is best known for his appearances in the sitcom Taxi as foreign mechanic Latka Gravas. But Kaufman despised the show and repeatedly attempted to sabotage it. Perhaps even funnier offstage than on, Kaufman insisted when signing his Taxi contract that the producers guaranteed several guest spots for Las Vegas lounge singer Tony Clifton. (Clifton, of course, was Kaufman underneath latex and a wig.) When it came time for Clifton to shoot his guest spots, he raised hell around the set. One day he showed up with the Hell's Angels as his security. Another day he telephoned the studio claiming to have car trouble and insisted that the execs buy him a new car. They begrudgingly agreed. He arrived shortly afterwards and promptly drove it into the studio wall.

Kaufman may seem a strange choice given that his live shows were very patchy. But his character work was so phenomenal that people were guessing for years as to whether he and Tony Clifton were the same person or not. His live shows were always exciting and unpredictable. Although he wasn't really appreciated in his own time, he has rightfully become a legend since his premature death. He has since been immortalised in the 1999 film 'Man On The Moon', where he was perfectly played by Jim Carrey.

Chris Rock

Although Rock has spent much of his career labouring under the illusion that saying the word 'pussy' over and over again equals instant comedy gold, once you get past his amateurish sexual material Rock is arguably the most important comedian working in the world today.

Rock is one of America's premier political commentators, speaking authoritatively and side-splittingly on racial inequality and social injustice. Like Dick Gregory before him, Rock uses his biting humour as a weapon, revealing widespread hypocrisy and prejudice in modern society and particularly at the heart of government.

I saw Rock in 2008 on his 'No Apologies' tour, during which he delivered a devastating monologue about modern day segregation and the obstacles that African Americans face. In his entire neighbourhood, he explained, there were only four African Americans. The first was Rock himself - a world famous comedian. The other three comprised of a world famous actor (Denzel Washington), a world famous singer (Mary J Blige) and a world famous rapper (Jay-Z). But what about the white guy living next door to Rock? A dentist.

"Black man gotta fly," he said, "to get something a white man can walk to. Do you know what a black dentist would have to do to live in my neighbourhood!? He'd have to invent teeth!"

Previous tours have seen Rock rage against the treatment of African American celebrities by the authorities and the media, including a lengthy rant about the murder of Tupac Shakur. But Rock has also courted controversy by highlighting problems within the African American community as well. Unafraid to speak his mind, Chris Rock is perhaps the closest we have to Bill Hicks nowadays. If he'd only ditch the endless 'pussy' gags then his important voice might get heard a little more often, too.

KPFA interview now on YouTube

2010-03-24T15:55:00.005Z

My hour-long interview with Jane Heaven on KPFA radio is now available on YouTube.

Here is part one. Parts 2-6 are available from the same user.

Radio Interview Now Online

2010-03-15T11:56:00.004Z

The bulk of my KPFA radio interview with Jane Heaven is now available to stream online.

CLICK HERE to listen.

I come in at 2hrs 06mins. The interview cuts off abruptly as we went over time but I may be able to upload my own MP3 version at a later date.

Radio Interview Tonight - KPFA 94.1FM, California

2010-03-14T03:10:00.006Z

I will be live tonight (Sunday night) on KPFA 94.1FM, starting at around midnight (PST) [that's 7am Monday, GMT], to discuss Michael Jackson, James Brown and more.

I am scheduled for an hour-long interview with Jane Heaven.

The station broadcasts to central and northern California but streams worldwide via the website. The show is also available afterwards as a podcast, I am told.

Jackson Guitarist: 'No Truth' to Simmons Claims

2010-02-27T14:19:00.011Z

Michael Jackson's long-serving tour guitarist Jennifer Batten has slammed Gene Simmons' recent allegations against the King of Pop.

Last week I sat down for an hour-long interview with Batten, who accompanied Jackson on all three of his world tours. During her decade of service she was also seen in the Dirty Diana music video, Jackson's feature film Moonwalker and the star's record breaking Superbowl performance, which was watched by more than a billion people.

Batten performs Dirty Diana with Jackson on the Bad Tour, 1988.

During our interview, I took the opportunity to quiz Batten over allegations recently made by aging glam rocker Gene Simmons, who claimed in a Classic Rock interview that a musician friend of his had quit a Michael Jackson tour after 'seeing boys coming out of the hotel rooms'.

Was it true, I asked her, that a musician had quit one of Jackson's tours while on the road?

"Number one," said Batten, "there's no truth to it. Number two, I would guess that it was somebody who got fired. Somebody who was embarrassed that they got fired and made-up a story."

But did any musicians ever get fired mid-way through a tour?

"No. Nuh-uh. No, there were a couple of people who got fired like a week before we took out on the road."

So there you have it, folks. No musician ever left a Michael Jackson tour mid-way through. Some musicians were fired but before the tour even hit the road, meaning that they couldn't have seen anything going on inside any hotels.

Yet again, Simmons' ravings about Jackson have been entirely debunked.

'Take Me Out' Contestants are Actors, Models and Dancers

2010-02-21T12:37:00.010Z

Ever wondered why the girls on ITV1 Blind Date-a-like 'Take Me Out' are so quick to turn their lights off? Their motivation is sometimes unfathomable. 'We interviewed Simon's mum' says Paddy McGuinness - and four lights go out. Why? Because he has a mother?! What is going on here?

I think I may have cracked it.

A shocking number of the contestants on Take Me Out are actually entertainment industry professionals; actors, singers, dancers and models. So their compulsive light switching is apparently nothing to do with their compatibility with each potential suitor, and everything to do with keeping their mugs on the telly for as long as possible.

Roz is an 'experienced video model and dancer'. Here's her StarNow profile. Caroline, another model/actress, is also a StarNow client. So is Louisa. And Maria.

Elisha is registered to Solomon Artistes casting agency (you'll have to hit F3 and type her name in).

Natasha's facebook directs you to Summer Star Entertainment's website. Tabitha's facebook says she's a singer, dancer, actor and model. Jayne's facebook includes pro-shot pole dancing photos and she writes on her wall about upcoming photoshoots.

Siobhan's facebook states, simply, 'I'm going to be a star'.

According to Wales Online, Charlene is a model, while the Accrington Observer reveals that the show's infamous twins are budding actresses.

Georgee is a gigging singer/songwriter. Tandie is a 'singer, songwriter, actress and dancer'. Laura's myspace page lists her as a singer and actress and reveals that she's appeared in 'Skins'.

Meanwhile, this facebook page reveals that Rihanna appeared under the name Taniesha in a film called 'One Day'.

But it's not just the girls who are at it. A hefty number of the boys also seem to have ulterior motives.

Scottish hunk Tony Pang said he was a humble waiter, but here's his StarNow profile touting him as an actor and model. He's also the cover boy for PhD Nutrition, whatever that may be.

Tom Chilton has modelled for Cosmopolitan.

Adam Fothergill turns out to be a professional singer represented by Talent Lounge (here he is on the Talent Lounge YouTube page).

Rob Kilburn's facebook page reveals that he attended the Italia Conti Theatre School and runs a company called Limelite Events.

Perhaps most bizarrely, one of the batchelors in episode two was Alan Whitehead, former member of 60s pop band Marmalade, who had a British number one with a cover of Obla Di, Obla Da.

So just how real is 'Take Me Out'? At least five of the contestants are represented by the same talent agency and upwards of 15 others are professional actors, models, dancers or musicians.

And those are just the ones I've managed to track down in an hour-long research window.

FreelanceUK Spotlight Interview + Your Chance to Ask Me A Question

2010-02-10T23:42:00.009Z

I've been chosen as the subject of this month's FreelanceUK Spotlight Feature.

The monthly interview focuses on the peaks and pitfalls of life as a freelancer, offering advice and annecdotes from self-employed professionals in various industries.

This month I have been selected to speak about my experiences as a freelance writer. During my interview I discussed my work on James Brown and Michael Jackson, offered tips on how to earn money as a writer and recalled how I had been ripped off early in my career - plus more.

To read the interview, click here. Comments can be left on this page.

Given the volume of emails I have been receiving from supporters in recent months, I have decided to take some questions from my readers. They can be about anything to do with my work - how to get into writing, how to get published - or my specialist subjects such as Michael Jackson, James Brown and so on.

I have set up a dedicated email address for this Q+A and any others I might do in the future. Readers can send one question plus their first name and country to cethomson@live.co.uk. Put your email subject as 'BLOG INTERVIEW'. I will answer the first ten questions I receive in another blog entry in the near future.

Gene Simmons In Bonkers Jackson Rant

2010-02-05T11:04:00.014Z

It seems that the lead in Gene Simmons' make-up has gone to his brain.

In a bizarre rant during a Classic Rock interview, Simmons accused Michael Jackson of child molestation, citing several completely fictitious pieces of evidence.

The aging glam-rock star claimed that he knew a musician who quit a Michael Jackson tour because of 'what he saw' on the road. I am frequently paid as a Jackson expert and I can state with certainty that I am unaware of any musician ever quitting a Michael Jackson tour mid-way through. In fact, Jackson used the same musicians every time he toured, with minor alterations on a tour by tour basis, but never mid-way through.

Elsewhere, Simmons claimed that Michael Jackson was on tape ordering 'Jesus Juice' for children. This is a fiction.

It was alleged during Jackson's trial that he served alcohol to the Gavin Arvizo and his siblings, but they each gave contradictory accounts of the incident. Staff accused by the children of serving them booze all denied having ever done so, but did reveal that the children had been caught stealing alcohol behind Jackson's back.

No audio tape of Jackson ordering alcohol for children was ever brought forward and the star was acquitted on multiple counts of serving alcohol to a minor. Simmons' claim that Jackson was on tape ordering alcohol for children is pure fantasy.

By far, Simmons' most outrageous claim was that during Jackson's trial a travel agent testified that the star had hired them to fly to Brazil and fetch young boys for him. This allegation is a total figment of Gene Simmons' imagination. No such testimony ever occurred during Jackson's trial.

Growing up, I was always taught that if you don't know what you're talking about, you shouldn't say anything. Evidently Gene's parents didn't instill in him the same belief. That, or he's just going senile.

It is completely irresponsible to pass comment on a criminal investigation that you know nothing about and even more irresponsible to make a criminal accusation and then support it with non-existent evidence. Simmons has heard fragments of reported speech from Jackson's trial and then assigned them entirely new meaning as the years have passed, building up an arsenal of evidence against Jackson which never actually existed.

However, the blame doesn't lie solely at Simmons' door. Classic Rock should do their research before regurgitating such drivel. Yes, it is reported speech, but it is still irresponsible for any publication to perpetuate baseless myths which indicate that an innocent man is a paedophile.

Thanks to Google News, this story has now gone global. All over the world people are reading it and many will believe Simmons' comments, partially because he's in the music business and there is an element of presumed insider knowledge, but mostly because the initial reporting on Jackson's trial was so inept.

Simmons' comments have no basis in reality. Jackson is categorically not on tape ordering children alcohol. There was categorically not any testimony at his trial about flying boys in from Brazil. These two allegations are without any evidencial basis whatsoever, and for Simmons to state them as fact is despicable.

In future, Simmons should either do his research or shut his trap. His irresponsible and unfounded allegations have now entered the homes of millions around the globe and you can bet your bottom dollar that nobody is going to print a rebuttal or a retraction.

EXCLUSIVE: John Terry in Abortion Scandal

2010-01-30T13:02:00.000Z

A high court judge yesterday lifted an injunction which had prevented the media from reporting that England squaddie John Terry had been caught out in an extra-marital affair.

Terry has spent the past 24 hours at the centre of a fierce media storm after it was revealed that he'd conducted an affair with fellow England team mate Wayne Bridge's ex-girlfriend Vanessa Perroncel.

Today I can exclusively reveal that not only did John Terry have an affair with Bridge's ex-girlfriend - he got her pregnant and then paid for her to have an abortion.

An FA source revealed that fellow England squaddies are so disgusted by his behaviour that they want him kicked off of the team.

Expect the newspapers to run with this story in the coming days, but remember that you heard it here first.

2009: A Year in Review

2010-01-03T21:43:00.001Z

It is difficult to know where to begin in my summary of 2009. It has been action-packed, for sure.

2009 has seen me make the surprisingly speedy transition from college student to award winning writer. Within months I made the leap from writing essays and attending lectures to penning stories for the country's biggest newspaper, being interviewed on several news channels and even contributing to a bestselling book.

It has all been a bit of a blur but in hindsight I have squeezed a lot into the last 12 months.

I have stood metres from Michael Jackson as he annouced his comeback concerts inside the O2 arena and later stood outside the arena in the rain, watching his memorial service on a giant screen. I have interviewed rappers, filmmakers and jazz musicians, then published the stories in my own magazine. I have trodden the red carpet at a London film premiere and shared a stage with Motown legends.

It has been a year of extraordinary highs and lows, the highs understandably including my press accreditation for Michael Jackson's concert announcement. Other highs included completing my graduation ceremony without falling over, walking down the red carpet at a film premiere without falling over and accepting my Guardian award without falling over.

The lowest low, of course, was the death of Michael Jackson just weeks before I was due to see him live at the O2. In a way I had never quite believed that those concerts would go ahead, but I certainly didn't think he was going to die. I remember receiving a text message from my friend James, a jovial comment along the lines of 'What has Michael gone and done now?'

As I watched the news unfold I was initially not too concerned. I suspected he had manufactured some illness or injury in an attempt to postpone or cancel his comeback shows. Behind the scenes, Jackson insiders had been speculating all along that he would 'do anything' to get out of them.

When TMZ first announced Jackson's death I was again largely dismissive, partly because blog sites had inaccurately reported his death in the past and partly because it seemed like an impossibility that Michael Jackson could be dead. For Jackson at 50 years old to join the ranks of deceased icons like Elvis Presley, James Brown and Ray Charles - it seemed implausible; far too soon.

When BBC confirmed the news, I wilted.

Less than three years previously I had seen Michael Jackson and James Brown within weeks of one another. I had seen James Brown deliver what would become his last concert on British soil in late October 2006 and I saw Michael Jackson appear at the World Music Awards in November. I never dreamed that so soon afterwards we would have lost them both.

Speaking of Mr Brown, he figured into my year quite prominently for a man who had been deceased for the best part of three years. Before that concert in October 2006 I had been invited to Brown's pre-show press conference, where he spoke to me about an album he had been recording. In the wake of his death I wondered what had become of that album; surely that was the smartest time to release it? In the aftermath of Ray Charles's death his new album posthumously soared to the top of the charts. The same happened to Luther Vandross.

As time passed, I forget about the album. Then, in early 2008 I was dispatched by the US magazine 'Wax Poetics' to interview Brown's former sideman Fred Wesley. Knowing that Wesley had contributed to Brown's lost album I asked him about it and got to thinking that there could be a story in there somewhere.

I emailed a music magazine contact, who said they were interested in a piece about the album, so I set about researching it. I contacted and interviewed everybody I could who was involved in the recording - songwriters, session musicians, core band members, backing vocalists, studio engineers, managers and more. Then I got back in touch with my music magazine source and was discovered that they had lost interest in the project. Saddled with tens of thousands of words' worth of interview transcripts, a hefty transatlantic phonebill and no outlet, my research began gathering dust.

By early 2009 I had decided that if nobody else had the imagination to publish the article, I would do it myself. I believed in the piece. I knew it was a good story and I knew it was significant; Brown is widely considered to be the most influential musician of the 20th century and my research documented a significant milestone in his recording career; his final work. I set about whittling my interview material into a coherent piece - James Brown: The Lost Album - and published it in my own magazine; JIVE.

JIVE launched in May 2009. A one-off publication, I saw it as a reduced prototype for a British answer to VIBE or Wax Poetics, covering the areas of black music ignored by the UK's mainstream music press. With Brown as its cover star, the magazine also boasted in-depth interviews with rapper Sway DaSafo and calypso legend Eddy Grant, as well as an advance preview of Zaire '74 documentary 'Soul Power' and a candid chat with jazz stalwart Digby Fairweather, who mused on why musicians so frequently fall victim to addiction and detailed his own battle with the booze.

The magazine launch was attended by none other than the legendary, Grammy Award winning music writer Cliff White, with whom I chatted at length about his memories of James Brown, George Clinton, Bernie Worrell and others.

Creatively, the magazine was a success (apart from a few typos, inexplicably undetected by the countless spellchecks I carried out - curse you, Adobe InDesign!!). Financially, however, was another story.

The magazine, like the Brown article, was a labour of love. I conducted all of the interviews, I wrote all of the articles and I undertook the vast majority of the design work. I even included some of my own photography. However, I also footed the printing costs. The magazine was distributed for free apart from a handful sold over the internet, meaning that I made a net loss somewhere in the region of £900.

Taking home a prestigious Guardian Award for my James Brown article went a long way towards cushioning the blow of the £900 deficit. I had felt disheartened when I couldn't place the James Brown piece. At the time I had felt angry that the article was overlooked - that nobody saw the same potential in the story as I did. When members of the Guardian judging panel told me it was possibly the best piece they'd ever seen, I felt vindicated in my decision to pour so much time, effort and money into researching and publishing it. I had always believed in it and it was nice to know that I wasn't the only one.

In spite of Michael Jackson's passing, 2009 was a good year for live music. A mid-summer evening spent in the company of BB King was a highlight. The aging blues man's vocals and guitar work don't betray his age whatsoever; his rendition of 'Thrill Is Gone' sounded no different to the original 1970 recording. At 83 (now 84) he seemed to have years left in him.

October offered a double helping of Motown magic. First, Gladys Knight enchanted Wembley Arena, ably supported by Tito Jackson. The pair played to an audience which included Jackson family matriarch Katherine and British pop sensation Boy George. Tito Jackson and his Bowler Boys delivered funky renditions of Jacksons classics such as Dancing Machine, Shake Your Body and This Place Hotel. Gladys Knight's followed with a plethora of hits including a gutsy delivery on Licence to Kill, performed to a backdrop of Bond title-esque flames.

Three weeks later Smokey Robinson breezed into town for the BBC's Electric Proms. I watched from the front row of the Roundhouse's standing pit as Smokey crooned his way through hits from his own back catalogue as well as songs he penned for other acts, such as the Temptations' Get Ready and My Girl. Like Ms Knight, Smokey remains on fantastic vocal form and his unique performance style sucks the audience in. During ballads such as 'Ohh Baby Baby' and 'Tracks of My Tears' Robinson paced the stage, holding eye contact with what seemed like each individual member of the front row at one time or another. As his piercing blue eyes lock onto your own, he holds you captive and his syrupy falsetto digs deep into your soul.

Smokey Robinson performs at the Camden Roundhouse

November saw a roster of Motown legends perform a week of engagements in London. Described by the Jazz Cafe's Chris Steele as 'a week of real Motown, true Motown', the line-up included several significant figures from Motown history; Mable John - the first female act signed to Motown, Chris Clark - the first white artist signed to Motown, and Thelma Houston, the first Motown artist to win a Grammy.

Supporting the line-up was none other than Jack Ashford, the legendary percussionist and last surviving member of the original Motown Rhythm Section. I interviewed Jack in January 2008 for Wax Poetics and we have remained in touch. He kindly invited me backstage during rehearsals for the Hammersmith Apollo DVD recording. As it turned out, backstage meant onstage. My friend Angela stood to the side of the stage as we watched the Supremes rehearse their set before they were joined by Mabel John, Thelma Houston, Chris Clark and Brenda Holloway. Then we watched Jack put his Funk Brothers through their paces as they rehearsed songs including Dancing In The Street.

Jack Ashford conducts his Funk Brothers during a rehearsal

Afterwards, we joined Jack in his dressing room as he was interviewed for the DVD extras and chatted with him briefly before making our way to the auditorium and taking our seats. For Motown enthusiasts there was much to enjoy; Mabel John looked and sounded sprightly at 79 as she prowled the stage during hits such as 'Same Time, Same Place', 'Able Mable' and 'Who Wouldn't Love A Man Like That'. Thelma Houston's performance of 'Don't Leave Me This Way' got the whole auditorium on its feet and Scherrie Payne's vocal performance on Supremes hit 'Stoned Love' ellicited a huge response.

I had intended to round off my live music year with Chuck Berry, but his tour was cancelled at the last minute. The official reason was that there wasn't enough preparation time, but the tour had been scheduled for months. I hear that the cancellation was actually due to a problem with the promoters.

While 2009 may have been a great year for live music, it wasn't such a great year for film. Highlights were few and far between. Much praise was heaped upon Michael Jackson's This Is It but while it was enjoyable and Jackson did seem to be on good form, the film is inherently untrustworthy. When I saw it I noticed immediately that old vocals had been dubbed into the film. The filmmakers had used obscure vocals in a bid to trick fans - for instance, using Jackson's 1991 demo version of Earth Song instead of the 1995 album track, and using a 1982 demo of Billie Jean instead of the version we all know and love. But it was dubbed nonetheless, a fact to which Sony admitted once the Sun hired audio experts to prove it.

This year's best music flick was actually 'Soul Power', Jeffrey Levy-Hinte's dazzling verite docmentary composed entirely of original footage from the Zaire '74 music festival, organised to coincide with Muhammad Ali's Rumble in the Jungle. Featuring stunning performances by artists including Bill Withers, BB King, James Brown, the Spinners and Miriam Makeba at the height of their powers, the film transports you back to 1974 and viewing it on a big screen almost felt like you were there watching it live. The film serves as a stark reminder of what soul and talent truly mean and proved a glorious antidote to today's depressing music scene.

My JIVE interview with Soul Power director Jeffrey Levy-Hinte

I was fortunate this year to find myself in possession of two tickets to the London premiere of 'The Men Who Stare at Goats', where I repeatedly walked past George Clooney but was more excited by the free popcorn and chocolate bar that awaited me in my seat. Despite a fairly poor critical reception I thought the film was solid. Brilliantly acted by a dream cast including Kevin Spacey and Jeff Bridges, the film was adapted by Jon Ronson's hilarious non-fiction book about the US Army's long obsession with teachng soldiers to harness psychic ability. Although not entirely faithful to Ronson's source material, Peter Straughan did a good job of weaving Ronson's research into a more linear narrative and I didn't feel the film was deserving of the harsh reviews that it received.

2009 will be most remembered for two major world events - the inauguration of America's first black president and the death of its biggest superstar. On a personal level, 2009 has been a good year. It hasn't been without its disappointments but on the whole it has been positive.

My new year's resolution? To make 2010 even better.

FBI File Reveals Attempt to Convict Jackson with Racist Law

2010-01-03T01:01:00.000Z

Documents contained in Michael Jackson's FBI file show that the LAPD tried to prosecute the star under the same legislation used in the past to smear black luminaries such as Jack Johnson and Chuck Berry.

Records show that the LAPD contacted the FBI on 7th September 1993 to ask whether the bureau would assist in the prosecution of Michael Jackson under the Mann Act.

The Mann Act, also known as the 'White Slavery Act', was introduced in 1910. Allowing officers to make arrests on the vague premise of 'immoral behaviour', the law was frequently used to smear black men, particularly those who consorted with white women.

Jack Johnson, the world's first black Heavyweight Boxing Champion, was the first person to be prosecuted under the act. In fact, Geoffrey C Ward writes in his book 'Unforgivable Blackness' that the potential to smear Johnson had been one of the primary motivating factors behind the introduction of the law.

Johnson was viewed by the press and the establishment as a black man who didn't know his place. Not only was Johnson a black world champion more than 50 years before segregation was lifted, but he flaunted his success in a society which demanded that he be humble. He wore expensive clothes and jewellery and invested his money in a fleet of luxurious automobiles, a hobby for which he was repeatedly punished by white policemen who issued him with undeserved speeding tickets.

But what riled the establishment more than anything was that Johnson consorted with white women. Johnson was often accompanied on his travels by prostitutes, but so were the majority of his white contemporaries.

In 1913 Johnson was prosecuted under the Mann Act for 'transporting a female across the state line for immoral purposes'. None of his white contemporaries who also travelled with prostitutes were arrested or charged with similar crimes.

Johnson's alleged victims had travelled with him willingly and admitted it under oath. Moreover, the trips in question had taken place long before the Mann Act was even introduced. However, an all white jury convicted him regardless.

Years later the Mann Act was also used to sabotage the career of black musician Chuck Berry.

In 1959 Berry met a 14 year old waitress in El Paso and asked her to work as a hat-check girl in his restaurant. The girl agreed and he drove her from El Paso to St Louis on his way back from a concert.

On this flimsy premise Berry was arrested for 'transporting an underage girl for immoral purposes'. He was convicted under the Mann Act and sentenced to three years in prison.

In the same year Berry's white copycat Elvis Presley began openly dating Priscilla Beaulieu, a 14 year old girl. Furthermore, Scotty Moore's biography of Presley asserts that prior to his involvement with Beaulieu, the star had been dating an even younger girl.

Ergo, in 1913 the Mann Act was used to convict a black boxer whose only 'crime' was to indulge in the same behaviour as his white contemporaries. Later, In 1959, the Mann Act was used to prosecute a black musician for giving a job to an underage girl, while his white contemporary repeatedly slept with underage girls and went unpunished.

The Mann Act is an inherently racist law. Whilst it has not been used solely to prosecute African-Americans, the potential imprisonment of Jack Johnson was a primary motivating factor behind its introduction and since then it has been repeatedly used to convict black men of crimes that they didn't commit.

That Jackson was also targeted under the Mann Act is certainly intriguing and only strengthens the argument that he was targeted by a malicious prosecution on account of his race. In a way, it shows that little has changed since the days of Jack Johnson. The United States Attorney's decision not to prosecute Jackson under the Mann Act could be seen as a sign of progress, but the LAPD's decision to pursue Jackson in the first place - given the sheer abundance of evidence suggesting his innocence - remains disturbing.

That Jackson wasn't railroaded once he entered the courtroom is another indicator of progress. Of course, that the 2003 allegations against Jackson even made it into a courtroom was proof in itself that Jackson was given a bum rap - the allegations were nonsensical and his accusers were proven con artists - but while Johnson was found guilty of crimes that he patently did not commit, Jackson's jury at least made the right decision.

In Jackson's case it was only the media which tarred him as guilty.

FBI Files Support Jackson's Innocence; Media Reports Otherwise

2010-01-02T23:21:00.001Z

I should begin by saying that the release of Michael Jackson's FBI file was not motivated by any desire to damage his legacy or smear his name. Many of Jackson's fans are understandably distrustful of the establishment which repeatedly pursued the star on trumped up charges, but the release of Jackson's FBI file is no conspiracy. Jackson's file was requested under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and I was one of those who requested it.

The FOIA allows members of the public to request classified or unattainable information held by any public body. The act is designed to uphold democracy by allowing citizens to scrutinise anything from local government budget reports to dossiers on UFO sightings. Requests can only be turned down for a handful of reasons, including privacy issues and national security.

When I requested Michael Jackson's FBI file, I wasn't even sure he had one. If he did, I had no idea what I would find in it. In Sammy Davis Jr's I found nothing but countless investigations into death threats sent to the singer. In James Brown's, however, I found an explosive re-telling of his infamous 1988 'car chase', which showed the authorities in a very poor light and contained numerous accusations of police brutality.

The FBI released roughly 300 pages on Jackson, constituting less than half of his overall file. The reason behind the withholding of the other half is yet to be made public, but it most likely consists of information on Jackson's dealings with still living figures of interest to the bureau - civil rights activists like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson, and the various Middle Eastern businessmen and royals Michael Jackson befriended.

The released half of Jackson's FBI file supports the star's innocence entirely. Perhaps most notably, a lengthy report shows that when Jackson's Neverland Ranch was raided in 2003, the FBI went over every computer seized from the property with a fine toothcomb looking for any incriminating files or internet activity. Jackson's file contained individual summaries of the FBI's findings for each of the 16 computers. Scrawled in capital letters across each of those 16 reports - 'NOTHING'.

But not many media outlets included that nugget. In fact, numerous outlets - including the Daily Mail - inaccurately reported that the file did not include the bureau's findings.

On a more general level, the files reveal that it was not only the Los Angeles Police force which pursued Jackson for more than a decade and failed to produce one iota of information to connect the star to any crime - it was the FBI too. That Jackson's life was dissected and his bevahiour was investigated for more than 10 years by two major law enforcement agencies and not one piece of evidence was ever produced to indicate his guilt speaks volumes.

On the whole, the media didn't quite tell it that way, though.

The FBI file included numerous allegations reported to the bureau which, of course, the media at large bogusly reported as the bureau's own findings. So here is a breakdown of what the media told you existed in Jackson's FBI file, and what the file actually contained.

MYTH: Michael Jackson was investigated for possession of child pornography.

FACT: The FBI file includes analysis conducted on a videotape 'connected to Jackson' in order to ascertain whether or not it included child pornography. Some media outlets erroneously claimed that the tape had been seized from Neverland. In fact, the tape was seized by customs at West Palm Bach and there is no indication that it ever belonged to Jackson. The file states only that the tape was 'connected with Jackson' and the connection appears solely to be that the programme recorded onto the cassette had Jackson's name in the title.

The FBI file does not contain any indication that the tape included child pornography at all and certainly does not contain any indication that the tape was ever in the possession of Michael Jackson.

But that's not a particularly media-friendly story; a videotape that didn't belong to Michael Jackson was analyzed and didn't have child porn on it. So the media told their own story instead, working on the assumption that nobody would read the files to verify the facts for themselves.

MYTH: The FBI file reveals that Jackson was investigated in 1985 for molesting two Mexican boys.

FACT: An FBI officer recorded an allegation that the bureau had previously investigated Jackson in 1985 for the molestation of two Mexican boys. This allegation was made by an unnamed writer who said the story had been told to him during research for a book. However, the FBI files contain no information whatsoever about any 1985 investigation into Michael Jackson.

Countless media outlets reported this story as the FBI's own finding when in fact it was merely a baseless allegation made to the bureau by an anonymous source. The FBI found no merit to the allegation:

... but the majority of media outlets failed to mention this important fact. A simple oversight, I'm sure...

MYTH: The FBI found a couple in the Phillippines who witnessed acts of molestation at Neverland.

FACT: This couple - Mark and Faye Quindoy - had worked at Jackson's Neverland Ranch between 1989 and 1991, but left in a dispute over pay. Between 1991 and 1993 neither ever made any complaint that Jackson behaved inappropriately around any child. However, after the 1993 allegations broke, the Quindoys began selling interviews about Jackson's alleged improper behaviour.

The pair's claims were suspect from the outset. They had left Neverland in 1991 in a pay dispute but were now telling tabloids that the reason behind their departure was that they were appalled by Jackson's behaviour around children - a provable fiction. Besides, if they had been so shocked and appalled by Jackson's behaviour, why had they not contacted the authorities?

Mark Quindoy's story changed repeatedly; the more money he was paid for his story, the more appalling the alleged molestation became. The prosecutors in the 1993 Jackson case sent two officers to Manila to interview the couple, but the officers concluded that 'their testimony was worthless and the credibility of their claims was highly questionable'.

MYTH: The FBI found that Jackson had engaged in phone sex with a British boy.

FACT: This story comes courtesy of The Sun.

The FBI file briefly references a newspaper story in which a man called Terry George claimed that Jackson, aged 19, had engaged in phonesex with him when he was just 13.

The Sun was rather proud that this story was referenced in the FBI file because it was the Sun which published it in the first place. As such, the newspaper was quick to toot its own horn with an 'FBI investigates Jackson over Sun's investigation' type fanfare.

In fact, the FBI did not investigate the claim and to date no evidence has been produced to support Terry George's story.

In its story about the FBI file, the Sun repeatedly referred to the phonecall between Jackson and Terry George as a matter of fact, even though no evidence has ever been produced to prove that the conversation ever took place.

George is a man of dubious character to say the least, currently owning a string of smutty phonesex companies. His story doesn't seem to add up, either. Despite Jackson's supposed inappropriate behaviour, George's website carries a photograph of himself with the star more than five years after the phonecall allegedly happened. The two still look like firm friends.

In subsequent interviews George has described how he lost touch with Jackson and resorted to behaviour which could be described as stalking - calling the Jackson all the time, hanging around outside his hotels, trying to bluff his way past Jackson's security. More than anything, George's interview with the Sun seemed like an act of jealous revenge by an embittered former acquaintance. Either way, the FBI found no merit to George's claim.

Vic Reeves in Comedy U-turn

2009-12-18T09:56:00.000Z

Vic Reeves this week blasted Michael McIntyre for not performing edgy enough material.

Branding the comedian 'too easy and soft', he concluded: "I haven't seen much of him - but what I have seen, I didn't like."

Am I the only person who remembers that last year Reeves made a completely oppositional statement?

In an interview with The Sun around this time last year, Reeves slated Frankie Boyle for his edgy material. Calling edgy comedians 'grubby and lazy', he complained that there was too much swearing on television.

He continued: "It's really easy to do dirty jokes and swear for a laugh but it's a lot more difficult to do clean stuff."

Last year Reeves made the controversial comments while on the publicity trail, promoting the return of Shooting Stars.

This month he is promoting the inevitable DVD release in the run up to Christmas.

Clearly Reeves knows how to get the media's attention; by laying into popular modern comedians he can bank on a number of 'Reeves Blasts McIntyre' headlines, many stories containing references to his new DVD. But perhaps newspapers should look over their clippings in future when dealing with the Vic Reeves. They've fallen straight into his trap. There is no sincerity to his comments. He has flip-flopped from last year's position.

With falling circulations and a global recession full force, journalists are being made redunant by the week. With less and less journalists on hand to fill each day's newspapers, fact checking is becoming increasingly difficult. Journalists simply aren't given the time to do their jobs properly. This is how such stories end up reproduced en mass across the entire British media. It fills space and the presumption is made that the original outlet checked the story before publishing it.

Until corporate owners decide to stop robbing journalists of their assets and resources, such stories will become more and more prevalent. In the meantime, celebrities are fast learning how to manipulate an industry which is being prevented from doing its job properly.

PCC rules in favour of columnist who portrayed Jackson as a paedophile

2009-12-15T12:34:00.000Z

The Press Complaints Commission last week responded to ten complaints made about a Guardian article in which writer Tanya Gold strongly insinuated that Michael Jackson was a paedophile.

Perplexingly, the PCC ruled in favour of the Guardian.

The PCC listed two main reasons as to why they had not ruled against the offending article. First, that Michael Jackson's family had not complained directly. The PCC said:

"Many of the concerns raised rested on the impact of the coverage on the Jackson family and the singer's memory. Two complainants were concerned that Clause 4 (Harrassment) had been breached and two individuals argued that the article was discriminatory. In this instance, the Commission felt that it must be for the Jackson family to guage such issues as this and to make clear whether they have found that there has been an incidence of harrassment or discrimination, as alleged by complainants. They had not done so."

So in other words, it is perfectly acceptable for a newspaper to strongly insinuate that an innocent man is a paedophile, unless his family complains directly to the PCC.

How and why, exactly, would the Jackson family - who live in Los Angeles - be reading the Guardian? The newspaper is published on the other side of the planet.

This rule is absurd, placing the onus on the families of well known figures to scour thousands of newspapers on a daily basis in case a libelous comment has been printed about their loved one. It is ludicrous to expect the Jackson family to dissect the world's media on a daily basis in case somebody has called their son/brother/father a paedophile. What kind of rule is that? The onus should clearly be on the newspapers not to print the libelous comments in the first place.

The family is essentially left in a catch-22 situation; either spend their entire lives scrutinising national and international newspapers on a daily basis, or simply turn a blind eye to the systematic portrayal of their loved one as a predatory paedophile. The ruling is utter nonsense.

The second get-out clause that the PCC pointed to was that the article was an opinion piece, not a news article. The PCC ruling states:

"The Commission noted that the article was an opinion piece clearly identified as such in the 'Comment is Free' section of the newspaper in line with the erms of Clause 1 (iii). The piece contained the journalist's personal impression of Michael Jackson's lifestyle and talents."

This section of the ruling is totally irrelevant. Complaints relating to Tanya Gold's editorial did not pertain to her opinion. In my own blog on the subject I stated that Ms Gold clearly has the right to an opinion. But the article did not only contain Gold's opinion. It contained a number of factually inaccurate statements.

While a writer of course has the right to his or her opinion, they do not have the right to misstate crucial information or twist facts in order to suit their agenda. Gold used numerous inaccurate statements to support her opinion.

The publication of inaccurate information most certainly is within the PCC's remit. However, in a lazy attempt to dismiss the complaint as quickly and easily as possible, the Commission has skirted around the issue of factual inaccuracies entirely.

The PCC ruling in this matter is a joke. The Commission purports to protect the victims of inaccurate reporting but in this instance it has condoned the publication of a bigoted editorial which used inaccurate statements to support the notion that Michael Jackson was a paedophile.

The PCC has ruled and it isn't pretty. Let it be known; It is perfectly acceptable to use inaccurate information to portray an innocent black man as a paedophile. The onus is on his elderly mother, as trustee of his estate, to scour newspapers on a daily basis looking for allegations that her son molested children. That the article was printed on the other side of the planet is irrelevant; it's still her responsibility.

Nice.

Common sense prevails in X Factor final while snobbery prevails on Facebook

2009-12-14T00:54:00.001Z

For a brief moment during tonight's X Factor final, Joe McElderry's victory seemed to be in question. Before Olly Murs performed the winner's single, Simon Cowell introduced him to the stage with a knowing smile. "Singing for what could be his last time on the X Factor, although I've got a feeling it won't be," he beamed, "Olly Murs."

I wondered: 'Does he know something we don't?'

He didn't. Olly promptly murdered the winner's song - 'The Climb' - although Cowell, who was apparently experiencing the performance through a haze of mushroom-induced hallucination, proceeded to heap praise upon it anyway.

Moments later Joe McElderry took the stage and made Olly's performance look like amateur hour, giving several of the night's ropey guest performers a lesson in vocal dexterity while he was at it.

With his soaring vocals and his cheery disposition, Joe had to win this year's competition. The show was a one horse race from beginning to end, McElderry being the only stand-out vocalist of the series, easily outshining the competition every week. That he found himself in the final with a wobbly-legged Austin Drage impersonator was indicative of this year's talent drought. Even the real Austin Drage didn't make it past week four.

Newly released figures reveal that Joe ranked highly in the phone polls every week and won the last five shows of the series by a large majority, eventually beating Olly in the live final by a margin of almost 25%.

But already McElderry has been the target of overwhelming cynicism and nasty abuse on various blogs and social networking websites, much of it laced with subtle homophobia; Joe "belongs in musical theatre." The winner's single "suits Joe better because it's a girls' song."

Olly is a geezer; a snappily dressed Essex boy with a couple of dance moves under his belt that might be passable on a drunken night out in Bas Vegas. With tabloid coverage of his serial womanising and frequent mention of his apparent football skills, he's become a hero to blokey blokes up and down the country.

Joe, by comparison, is young and a tad effeminate. A drama school student, Joe is self-confessedly bored by sports, prefers to hang around with girls and tends towards ballads. He has reportedly not had a girlfriend since his early teens and a friend today claimed that he "was teased for years about his sexuality." While the friend states that at the time Joe 'was adamant he wasn't gay', the friend never states outright that he's straight.

Olly's fanbase has seemingly come to view Joe as a sissy and apparently feels that its jack-the-lad hero has been robbed. Seems to me like just another case of pointless belly-aching. Perhaps if Olly's fans had picked up their phones and voted a couple of times each then he wouldn't have lost so spectacularly.

As for Joe's tendency towards ballads - that apparent fault only served to highlight how much more talented he really was than his competitor. While Olly chose to hide behind big productions - chasing girls around the stage to loud backing tracks which disguised his often breathless vocals - Joe wasn't reliant on gimmicks. Tonight his talent has been deservedly rewarded.

Congratulations Joe - a worthy winner.

Elsewhere, the X Factor has been targeted in recent weeks by a series of vindictive campaigns to prevent this year's winner from taking the Christmas number one spot.

One such campaign, started on Facebook, aims to send Rage Against The Machine to the number one spot this year. Very christmassy. What exactly do they think they're striking a blow for? What will be achieved by sending an already filthy-rich act to the top of the charts? In what way is that combatting the supposed capitalist conspiracy they're campaigning against?

Cowell's label Syco is a branch of Sony. Sony owns Rage Against The Machine. So the money will end up in Sony's coffers either way.

Another campaign aims to send Dame Vera Lynn's 'We'll Meet Again' to the top of the charts instead of this year's X Factor winner. Why? Dame Vera Lynn didn't write or compose 'We'll Meet Again', so what exactly makes her a more legitimate artist than Joe McElderry?

The campaign is predicated on nothing more than snobbery; an assumption that anybody who enters the X Factor is a fame hungry mongrel and anybody who watches the show or buys the singles is a moron, incapable of independent thought. Such campaigns are mean-spirited and condescending.

The campaigns purport to be striking a blow against Simon Cowell's capitalist regime. However, in reality these campaigns will still favour the rich, lavishing cash upon already famous acts rather than sending it into the bank account of a young, working class lad whose only opportunity to achieve his dream is to enter a competition like the X Factor. That Christmas number one spot could change Joe McElderry's life, affording he and his family a better quality of life and opening doors that would otherwise have remained forever closed.

If the X Factor single were to lose a Christmas number one battle fair and square, that would be a different matter altogether. But these campaigns actively encourage people to buy music not because they want to listen to it, but for the specific purpose of crushing another person's dreams. Such campaigns are not only unfair, they are fundamentally spiteful.

Should any of these campaigns succeed in their aim, the impact on Cowell will be non-existent. He will still celebrate another carefree Christmas in his LA mansion. All they will achieve is to crush the spirit of a young boy who has spent much of this year working hard towards his lifelong dream.

Daily Mail in more Jackson lies?

2009-12-07T01:20:00.000Z

The Daily Mail today published an article claiming that Janet Jackson's performance on Sunday night's X Factor was actually pre-recorded on Saturday.

However, Janet Jackson was clearly seen still onstage as Dermot O'Leary introduced last night's results. The star was seen stood at centre stage as though waiting to be interviewed, then dashing into the wings when she realised that the results were being introduced.

Jackson was clearly seen stood at centre stage as Dermot O'Leary introduced last night's results, whilst the Mail claimed her performance was pre-recorded on Saturday.

The Mail claimed that Jackson's performance was recorded 'after Saturday night's show'.

But X Factor fans will know that immediately after Saturday's episode finished on ITV1, partner show Xtra Factor aired live from the same studio on ITV2.

During Xtra Factor, the ITV1 audience was seen in the background leaving the studio. But Jackson's performance was clearly filmed in front of an audience. So how was it recorded after Saturday's show?

Once again, the Mail's facts don't seem to add up. Perhaps the performance was pre-recorded and clever photography was used to place Janet Jackson onstage during the results show. But the Daily Mail's claim that the performance was pre-recorded is unsourced and given the newspaper's history of libeling the Jackson family, it doesn't seem unlikely that the story is fabricated.