One of the Most Shameful Episodes In Journalistic History

[Catherine Vincent]

"...the trial that was relayed to us didn't even resemble the trial that was going on inside the courtroom."

Charles Thomson.Award-winning writer
Posted: June 13, 2010 07:26 PM

It was five years ago today that twelve jurors unanimously acquitted Michael Jackson on various charges of child molestation, conspiracy and providing alcohol to a minor. It is difficult to know how history will remember the Michael Jackson trial. Perhaps as the epitome of western celebrity obsession. Perhaps as a 21st century lynching. Personally, I think it will be remembered as one of the most shameful episodes in journalistic history.

It's not until you find yourself digging through newspaper archives and re-watching hours of TV coverage that you truly understand the magnitude of the media's failings. It was industry-wide. No doubt, there were certain reporters and even certain publications and TV stations that overtly favored the prosecution, but many of the media's shortcomings were institutional. In a media obsessed with soundbites, how to you reduce eight hours of testimony into two sentences and remain accurate? In an era of rolling news and instant blogging, how do you resist the temptation to dash out of the courtroom at the earliest opportunity to break news of the latest salacious allegations, even if it means missing a slice of the day's testimony?

Looking back on the Michael Jackson trial, I see a media out of control. The sheer amount of propaganda, bias, distortion and misinformation is almost beyond comprehension. 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.

It was November 18th 2003 when 70 sheriffs swooped on Michael Jackson's Neverland Ranch. As soon as news of the raid broke, news channels abandoned their schedules and switched to 24 hour coverage. When it emerged that Jackson was accused of molesting young cancer survivor Gavin Arvizo, the boy who famously held the singer's hand in Martin Bashir's 'Living With Michael Jackson', the media went into overdrive. Networks were so obsessed by the Jackson scandal that a terrorist attack in Turkey went almost entirely unreported, with only CNN bothering to broadcast George Bush and Tony Blair's joint press conference about the disaster.

All three major networks immediately set about producing hour-long specials on the Jackson case, apparently undeterred by the fact that nothing was yet known about the allegations and prosecutors weren't answering questions. CBS dedicated an episode of 48 Hours Investigates to the arrest, while NBC's Dateline and ABC's 20/20 also rushed out Jackson specials. Within two days of the Neverland raid, and before Jackson had even been arrested, VH1 announced a half-hour documentary called 'Michael Jackson Sex Scandal'.

more....

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/charles-thomson/one-of-the-most-shameful_b_610258.html

[philly_bob]

1. Check out author Charles Thomson's background b4 you come to conclusions

He's a young English music journalist who writes for tabloids and seems to have made a career out of defending Jackson and offering inside-the-Jackson-camp scoops.

http://www.charles-thomson.net

See especially his blog.

Biographical info about Thomson on Huffington Post says only that he is an "award-winning writer."

I know nothing about Thomson but what he says about himself. But I would be cautious about accepting him as the sole source of info about Jackson's life. Huffington Post is not serving its readers well with this.

I read the article thinking it would be about Judith Miller's WMD stories or the media's fascination with the details of President Clinton's sex life.

[Jamastiene]

2. I wish more people would read a little deeper than the headlines.

Great article. :kick:

[Triana]

3. A-freaking men. One of the few journalists out there with any integrity

... people would rather believe Diane (Demon) Dimond, and the like apparently. They need to cop a damn clue. Ignorami. Pfft. The FACTS don't back up his 'guilt'. It's why the man was declared NOT GUILTY on ALL 14 charges against him.

Charles also says:

"The media did a number on its audience and it did a number on Jackson. After battling his way through an exhausting and horrifying trial, riddled with hideous accusations and character assassinations, Michael Jackson should have felt vindicated when the jury delivered 14 unanimous not guilty verdicts. But the media’s irresponsible coverage of the trial made it impossible for Jackson to ever feel truly vindicated. The legal system may have declared him innocent but the public, on the whole, still thought otherwise. Allegations which were disproven in court went unchallenged in the press. Shaky testimony was presented as fact. The defense’s case was all but ignored.

When asked about those who doubted the verdicts, the jury replied, “They didn’t see what we saw.”

They’re right. We didn’t. But we should have done. And those who refused to tell us remain in their jobs unchecked, unpunished and free to do exactly the same thing to anybody they desire.

Now that’s what I call injustice."


MJJ-777.com says:

"I strongly recommend reading Charles’ entire article. It is long, and goes in to necessarily excruciating detail about the self-servitude and brutal malfeasance of the lame$tream media today and its certain role in driving Michael Jackson to destruction.

If this industry can be allowed to participate so fully in the lynching of this innocent, not with a noose, but rather with a shameful excuse for “news”, who’s next?"

I agree:

SHAME on the United States of America - a country that allowed the public lynching of an innocent man's name and spirit in 2005. Not with a NOOSE but rather with a shameful excuse for "news" - and subsequently certainly helping to drive him to an early death because of it.

[verges]

4. O. J. Simpson was aquitted also.

What are your beliefs about his innocence/guilt? I actually have no opinion of MJ at all in regards to his trial. I kinda like some of his music. You might be interested inlooking at the trials of Roscoe "Fatty" Arbuckle during the 1920's. He was tried 3 times for a murder he didn't commit. He was finally aquitted. But in the mean time, the court of public opinion tried and convicted him. His career as a movie star was completely destroyed. He had been one of the top paid performers of his age prior to his ordeal.