As I write this I am sure that most of you are well aware as to what has prompted me to write such an article. For those of you not so aware of what could have prompted such an article, I shall explain briefly. On Monday just passed (03/02/2003) at 9pm GMT a television programme was aired on ITV, entitled Living With Michael Jackson, a documentary by Martin Bashir (who interviewed Princess Diana for BBC’s Panorama programme a few years previous), in which Mr Bashir spent a period of I believe 8 months following Michael Jackson and being allowed to basically live with him, in a series of interviews. As I said, this programme was aired in the UK on Monday night passed, and last night (Thursday 06/02/2003) was aired in America. Whilst I am unaware of what impact the show made in the States, I now that the reaction over here in the UK has been quite a varied one although the majority of people, even those who felt sympathy and ‘warmed’ towards Jackson, seemed to have the same consensus, and that is one of him being a paedophile, which is where my title primarily comes from, and why I am writing to argue against this idea of Michael Jackson being yet another ‘celebrity paedophile’, and hopefully show him to be the good man I think a few people saw when watching the programme. And not only do I think he’s a good man, but also an extremely gifted and intelligent one.

Now, this programme certainly was ‘entertaining’ viewing, and the interviews were certainly probing, and Michael Jackson was certainly, on the whole, speaking his mind, and the truth. Perhaps that is what caused some of the controversy. I mean, let’s face it, the world has been full of lies in recent times: be it the British government’s most recent attempts to disguise their plagiarism in the most recent dossier being used to try and persuade the UN to back a war on Iraq, or the ‘links’ America has proof of between the Ba’ath regime and Al-Qaida network, Bill Clinton’s “relations” with Monica Lewinsky, or Baghdad’s dossier on their weapons of mass destruction. The list could go on and on depending upon what you class as ‘recent times’, with a lot having arisen with “The War Against Terrorism” (or “TWAT”) and the events caught up in that. So perhaps it is that in times such as these, when even the politicians you elect – and perhaps even the election process – work on lies, that people are scared by the truth. But that begs yet another piece of work. And so I move back to my argument.

Michael Jackson, it is true, claimed to only have had two plastic surgery operations on his nose, a claim many people have sneered at, perhaps quite rightly, but also perhaps wrongly. Is it not possible that perhaps he has only had two types of operation on his nose, but perhaps had a certain type of the operation repeated many times as he perhaps felt it wasn’t quite right? In which case he could quite reasonably claim that he has only had two operations. But then that comes back to the world of ’spin’ and wordplay, and I do not have the time, nor the facts, to enter a reasonable argument about that. Perhaps I should, but I won’t, all I can do is offer a possible reason as to why he made this claim, whether it is true or not, I wouldn’t like to say, because, as mentioned, I do not have the facts. I am not Michael Jackson (sorry to ruin any illusions!). But let us also remember, if he has indeed (as many people claim to ‘know’) had more than two operations of plastic surgery, let us remember the society in which this was made socially acceptable – the money-driven and shallow capitalist society that we live in and which many of us support yet seem to think very little about. It is that society which has led us to this type of surgery, because the shallow people’s of our “civillized” (to use a much over-used American government term) ‘Western’ world. In this little world where it has become common that people buy certain clothes or pay for certain operations, such as plastic surgery, and promote these items, in the vain belief that they look better and are therefore better people. In my opinion, nonsense. To quote an age-old saying, ‘beauty is only skin deep’ and it certainly is, from my – albeit limited – experience on this earth, personality that counts and shines through above all else, and good looks certainly do not make you a better person by any stretch of the imagination. But I am not here to criticize the system as such, the way I look at it is that until people can come to terms with the pitfalls at the system then people can spend their money as they wish, and if it makes them feel considerably better about themselves then I am glad about it. But what I am criticizing in making this point is the way in which people who advocate these operations, despite being aware that sometimes these operations do go wrong, openly criticize some public figures, including Michael Jackson, when the operations are seen by them to have had a ‘negative’ effect upon the person’s looks. And let us also remember what Michael said during the interview, when he commented upon a time during his adolescence when both his father as well as members of the public commented and indeed mocked him to his face about his spots and various other ‘visual defects’. What kind of effect must that have had on such a young, influencial teenager? Particularly one in such a central ’spotlight’ at that time. If that were to happen at any school it would be classed as bullying, but for some reason it passed barely without comment. Surely such events as that must have had some effect, perhaps even giving Michael a complex about his appearance, leading him to feel he had to have plastic surgery and each time was never truly happy with the result and feeling he still looked ‘ugly’ and so wanted more surgery – and let’s face it he was never short of the money to do it with.
And then there comes yet another point it is necessary to look at. If indeed Michael does have a complex with his looks, which by all accounts it would seem he does, is it then right or fair for the public, and in particular the tabloid media to be so cruel and insulting about his operations? We all must remember that we are talking about a man who was thrust into his career at the age of 5 by his family, beaten by his father to ‘help’ him perform better and then rocketed into the public eye at the age of 8, having had very little in the way of a ‘normal’ childhood. In fact he never really had much of a childhood at all. By all accounts he and his brothers were worked and disciplined hard by their father in order to keep him (his father) in the manner to which he wished he was accustomed. Then having gone through that into his teenage years and to be further bullied due to his looks and almost certainly leading to a complex being formed within Michael. And to add to this at no point during his time, even up to the present day, as he been able to be a recluse from the cameras. He has always been in the spotlight, sometimes due to his own will, a lot of the time due to the intrusiveness of the press and paparazzi. Is that right? Should such a talented and gifted individual be given such littl space by the media? And if so, should his coverage in the media be so derogatory? Living With Michael Jackson certainly set out in the first half hour or so as showing Michael Jackson’s incredibly amazing talent he possesses and demonstrates through his music and, clearly, his dancing.

I feel I should point out at this time that for any of you reading this who are thinking that I am just a ‘die-hard Jackson nut’, writing a one-sided view as I have liked Jackson as long as I can remember etc etc you couldn’t be more wrong. Quite a few years ago I passed through possibly the most shallow period of my life, and I too, I concede, happily referred to him as “Wacko Jacko” and many other tabloid-induced nicknames. Whichs is why I appreciated this programme so much. Over the last two or three years I have found myself listening to and appreciating music much more, and clearly the Jackson saga comes into that, but I did not know much about the man himself. And that’s why I was so keen to watch the programme. And I’ll be honest, as much as I enjoyed the programme, I thought it was edited to be as sensationalist as possible, and I believe Mr Bashir was unjust in some of his questions and narrative comments, which seemed – to me at least – to have been used by him by way of almost persuading the viewing audience further. Very basic propaganda.
But I should continue in my writing about the topics raised in the programme, particularly the ones that seemed to cause most outrage or response from the audience.

Now, to return to the subject matter after that slight aside, and to concentrate briefly on another thing some poeple seem to find slightly strange about Michael Jackson, his ranch-home – Neverland. Now, again, some people seem to find this a strange kind of setup. A 44 year-old man living in a ranch as a single parent with his 3 children, the latest of which is born from a surrogate mother, the ranch being home to its own zoo and fairground. It is, I agree, at fist glance somewhat different. But this is where the pieces of the jigsaw about his childhood start to come together. As I have mentioned, Michael had no form of a childhood, and never truly had the chance to experience a ‘normal’ one by any means. By the age of 10 he was receiving checks for a substantial sum of money every month, how could it be ‘normal’? But as he had this great amount of money with him Michael was fortunate enough to never have to grow up. As he said in his interview, “I am Peter Pan”. And in a way that’s true. He has never had to grow up, that isn’t to say he is not mature, but he has never had to act as an adult in the generally accepted sense of the word. He can afford more or less what he wants, when he wants it, and can enjoy himself as he pleases, almost in an attempt to make up for his ‘lost childhood’. And perhaps he also chose such a huge ranch not only for its capabilities for expansion of whatever buildings he wishes to have, but also as it allows him a rather extensive and impressive retreat from the media that has so haunted him in his years and the public that mocked him. He can be alone with his children and his thoughts. I’m sure you agree the when you look at it like that and consider the shocking thinks he has had to put up with during his lifetime the whole situation is not really quite so strange.

Connecting to that topic of Neverland which connects very much to more or less what followed on in the programme, children, firstly his own. Michael has 3 children, Prince Michael I, Paris, and Prince Michael II (Blanket), whom he appears to love and care for very much. In no way can Michael be at all doubted or criticized for this. I am a firm believer that all any child needs in growing up is a loving background, and I personally am quite confident that he can provide that. Then of course there comes the greatly tabloid exaggerated ‘baby dangling’ incident. Well, what to make of it all? Well, my first impressions were that it was massively exaggerated, as per-usual by the tabloids. The reason I feel I can say this is because, as far as I could think, how many people must go on holiday somewere with a small child and unknowingly walk out on a balcony holding the baby as they usually would and maybe go close to the edge of the balcony? I imagine quite a few people do it and quite innocently do not realize that they are holding the baby slightly over the edge but nothing happens. But if you put that person in the spotlight in front of tabloid media who appear to have a deep-rooted dislike for that person then things that didn’t happen seem to look like they did. Now, I’m not claiming to know what went on, but judging by the video evidence shown on the news and shown again more recently with the showing of the programme mentioned I cannot actually see that the child did slip in Jackson’s arm. If anything it appears Michael got a bit scared and maybe panicked slightly, perhaps fearing that the child could fall, when in fact the child’s position in relation to Jackson’s grip never altered. But Michael’s reaction may have given the impression that the child was slipping. That’s my opinion on it anyway.
However, I will agree that I found Jackson’s behaviour later on in the programme worrying when he was feeding Blanket, but I think that there can be a justifiable reason for that. Let’s first consider what had happened in the time previous to that. First of all there was the tabloid explosion of Jackson’s “baby dangling” and “bad parenting” and then there was the trip to the zoo, which, as the programme pointed out, Michael did ask his fans and the press to please give him and his children some privacy then, which, considering how good Michael appeared to be to both the press and certainly his fans, this should have been accepted. However, it wasn’t. Was it Michael’s fault that the paparazzi basically attacked his entourage and scared his children? Perhaps you think it was, but does that mean you would prefer it if Michael locked himself away in privacy and kept his children hidden from the outside world? To me, the latter would be an example of bad parenting, not the first. He just wants to give his children a relatively decent and as normal as possible childhood, especially seeing as he was allowed neither of them when he grew up. If anything had ruined his childrens’ day on that trip to the zoo it was the ignorant, selfish, cash-orientated paparazzi, so desperate for shots of the children that they will happily take part in a mini-brawl centering around the children….all for the thought of a few extra ‘bucks’ – sick, no?

Now of course this leaves me free to start on the final section of this, and perhaps the one that caused the most controversy, the idea of strangers (children) sleeping at Michael’s Neverland Ranch without their parents, although with their parents permission. This is where I grew particularly angry towards Bashir whilst watching the programme, because it was clear that he was intentionally trying to make more of what happened than was necessary, in an attempt to make for better viewing, particularly in the way he narrated it afterwards. This I found sickening. Because, let’s face it, Michael had no pretence of a ‘normal’ childhood. I am sure you have noticed that I have mentioned this a couple of times already in this talk, the reason I have done so is because, in my opinion (note, I am not a psychologist), that is a huge factor in trying to understand Michael and his mannerisms, which to many seem strange – as the responses to the said programme have shown. But let’s look at the fact now. Michael, as I have said, has never had to grow up. He has always had an abundance of money – a large amount of which he does give to needy causes I might add – and this great abundance allowed him to build up his own Neverland (see above) and keep himself – in some ways – as a child. I say ‘in some ways’ because if you listen to Michael’s views, which he did mention quite a few times during the course of the programme, he is an extremely sensitive and intelligent individual. He explained clearly what happens when children stay at his house; he does not invite them into his room, if they choose to sleep in his room he sleeps most of the time on a sleeping bag, and he certainly doesn’t have sexual relations. Now, I’m sorry, but no matter how warped you may think Michael Jackson’s mind is, there is now way he would choose to admit to people staying in his room if he could easily deny it, which I believe he could have easily done. By opening himself up and admitting he allows children to stay in his room and being able to justify himself took courage, why can’t people give him credit for that? He knows he is doing no wrong, and therefore is not ashamed to tell the truth. As I have said, he is an intelligent human-being, he knew that by admitting what he did would open him up to some form of strange response from Bashir, perhaps not as harsh as Bashir ended up in being, but harsh nonetheless. And in my opinion Michael did a great job in justifying himself, and did so in quite an emotional heartfelt way, but I certainly have no doubt in my mind that Michael Jackson is not a paedophile.
Nor do I believe he ever has been.
The court case back in the early 90’s was solved out of court for a large sum of money, now, if Jackson was guilty then, does that show yet another fundamental flaw in the American capitalist system by the very virtue that the family of the child involved preferred to have lots of money rather than see a person they claim sexually assualted their child be brought to justice? Can money heal the pain? In my opinion, no. Which is why I am led to believe that this was an attempt to take ruthless advantage of Michael’s generosity in an attempt to get some ‘lovely’ money. And Michael will always be a possible target for such attacks, through no specific fault of his own. He grew up a relatively lonely child and therefore wants to be a child now, and he achieves this through his generosity of inviting people into his home, quite often those invited are under-privileged. Michael is helping a lot of children in the works he does, but unfortunately the system which helped him to amass the wealth he has does not, on the whole, work for him. Instead it leaves him vulnerable to malicious attacks on his actions and generous nature.

So, in conclusion now, what is my view of Michael Jackson? Well, as you may have been able to tell by the general way in which I have been explaining each point, I quite firmly believe Michael to be man, and certainly not the ‘monster’ which the tabloids and some people would try have you believe. Undoubtedly Michael does have certain psychological problems, all of which are quite justified, given his upbringing and financial situation, but he is not in my opinion a ‘threat’ to anyone, and certainly not his children, whom I strongly believe he cares a lot for. Clearly, I do not know Michael personally and therefore I am merely expressing my opinion on the subject but in the aftermath of the first showing of the programme I felt it was right to publicly express my interpretation of the man, if only to get some of the anger Bashir’s comments had left with me off my chest, so to speak. And I must be fair, I understand why some people may think he’s ’strange’, even (to a certain extent) where the nickname ‘Wacko’ comes from. But, as in all walks of life, we have to sit back and consider the wider picture. And we also have to ask ourselves one very important question: What is normal? I know I can’t give a definate answer to that yet. I know what I want to write but can’t think how to explain it clearly yet, although no doubt yet another string of articles can arise in response to that. But I digress. As for Michael, I feel justified in saying that I believe him certainly not to be the paedophilic, baby-dangling, lunatic ‘monster’ that the tabloids in particular seem desperate to portray him as, rather I believe Michael Jackson is a thoughtful, caring, intelligent and slightly eccentric man who cares very much for the world around him and his children. Now, with all that going for him, should we really be so shallow as to criticize him so heavily for bad plastic surgery? Perhaps once more that epitomizes even further what is wrong with our society. Does visual appearance really count more than personality traits? It is an interesting question that requires too long an answer to be answered here.

Hopefully this has helped explain a few things. Take care.