Xscape Origins: Book Review

Earlier this week I posted the world exclusive first review of new book Xscape Origins. The book, by Australian journalist Damien Shields, tells the story of the eight Michael Jackson tracks which were remixed and released on the posthumous album Xscape.

Damien wrote the book after feeling aggrieved by the way Sony and the Michael Jackson Estate treated the artist's unreleased work. Instead of putting the songs out as Jackson created them, the companies hired outside producers to 'contemporise' them first. Then they prominently released the remixes and relegated Jackson's own work to a more expensive, expanded version of the album.

When it came time to promote the album, a lengthy documentary was created about how the outside producers had altered Jackson's compositions. Shields felt the album was presented as theirs, while Jackson's own creative process and visions for each song were barely discussed at all - a particular insult given that Jackson's own versions were universally superior to the remixes.

So Shields traveled to America to interview as many of Jackson's collaborators on the original songs as he could track down. In his introduction he makes clear that this is not a book about the Xscape album. It is a book about eight disparate songs from all different eras in Michael Jackson's career, which happened to be gathered together after he died and released on the same CD.

Upon the album's release last year I published an article on the Huffington Post, in which I drew on Jackson's own interviews and writings to present an argument as to why he would not have endorsed such a release.

Some fans who took issue with Jackson's philosophies, claiming he must have accidentally said the exact opposite of what he actually meant in each instance I referred to, have seized upon my book review as evidence of 'hypocrisy', saying I appear to now like the Xscape album. Perhaps they should have read the review before critiquing it. In it, I refer to Xscape as 'muddled' and 'uninspired'. I describe the remixing of Jackson's work as 'vandalism' and say the album was 'irredeemable'.

For those who do not understand my review - although I believe that their misinterpretation is largely willful - let me summarise: The album was bad; the book about Michael Jackson's creative process is good.

To read the full review, click here.

The Big Lie in the James Brown Biopic

Watching the trailer for the new James Brown biopic Get On Up, I was surprised to notice it prominently featured a scene in which Mr Brown is depicted walking into a room full of civilians and discharging a shotgun. I was surprised because this incident never occurred. It is a fabrication - and a potentially very damaging one.

It is true Mr Brown walked into an office in the 1980s with a shotgun in his hand, but he never fired it and FBI files released after his death showed there was a lot more to the story than the public was told at the time; officers involved in the case fired more than 20 bullets at Brown while he was unarmed and had allegedly waged a campaign of racist abuse against he and his wife in the preceding months and years. 

I used this disparity between reality and the silver screen as the launch pad for a new Huffington Post article, questioning why filmmakers would arguably seek to justify cops' brutal behaviour by inventing an incident in which Mr Brown carelessly discharged a deadly weapon in a room full of innocent people. Is it really responsible to include fabricated incidents in films marketed as 'true life' stories?

I have since discovered an additional key fact, which I would have included had I known about it at the time of writing. A police officer involved in the incident detailed in my article has since given an interview to Mr Brown's son Daryl, who has included it in his new book. In the interview, the officer states on the record that he believes police officers acted with unnecessary violence towards James Brown.

James Brown live in London, 2005.
Copyright: Charles Thomson.

I've also since learned that there is a scene in the documentary James Brown: The Man, The Music and The Message in which Mr Brown sits in his truck, riddled with bulletholes made by police officers' weapons.

Two of Mr Brown's daughters, one of whom I previously interviewed for an in-depth exploration of their father's humanitarian work, were annoyed by my article, both posting negative messages on Facebook. I have to say, I can't really understand their annoyance. I know they were involved in the film but nonetheless, you'd think they'd thank someone for pointing out that while the movie as a whole is apparently very good, the scene where their father recklessly endangers the lives of innocent people by firing a shotgun was not actually true.

Oh well. C'est la vie.

It's probably worth pointing out, in the name of balance, that other family members including Daryl Brown are opposed to and offended by the film, saying they were not consulted and that it contains lots of omissions and inaccuracies. The same complaint has been voiced by others portrayed in the movie, such as Mr Brown's former manager and some of his ex-band members.

Click here to read my Huffington Post article. 

Xscape: What Would Michael Jackson Think?

Back in May, perhaps against my better judgement, I waded into the debate about posthumous Michael Jackson album Xscape. Sick and tired of watching opposing fans having endless arguments on Twitter, many of which I found myself tagged in, I decided to set out my stall at the Huffington Post.

But rather than posting my own opinion on the album, I opted to explore what Michael Jackson's opinion would likely have been. Drawing from Michael Jackson's own words - in interviews and in his written works - I explored his publicly-stated views on all of the key issues; the remixing of his music, the release of unfinished music and his feelings about Sony.

This was not my polemic, but Michael Jackson's; they're remixing Michael's music, but here's Michael stating on the record that he didn't like people doing that; they're releasing it on Sony, but here's Michael saying he hated Sony; they're releasing half-finished demos, but here's Michael saying he'd never release anything unless it was totally finished and 'perfect'. Every point is illustrated by a direct quote from the man himself.

As you might imagine, some fans still took great issue with the article, claiming - variously - that I had fabricated Michael Jackson's words, that I had twisted his words, that he wouldn't have cared as long as the album made money, that he was too stupid to state his actual opinions and must have got them wrong, and a number of other arguments.

I stand by the article.

If you want to read it, click here.

Jermaine Jackson Interview

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.


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 a picture - me 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--

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

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.

AUDIO: Live in conversation with Deborah Ffrench

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.

The Phantom TMZ By-Line

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.

Anti-Jackson Propagandist Posing as Charles Thomson

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.

Martha Reeves Interview - A Teaser

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.

US Ambassador Lends Support to Kelvin MacKenzie Campaign

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'.

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

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.

Examiner 'Plagiarism' Case: An Update

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

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?”