It begins, bright and early Monday morning. I don’t think any of us wanted this trial; certainly I know that MJ fans are not relishing the idea of yet another long, drawn out ordeal of media mud slinging. How many times does this make now? Sheesh, poor Michael has been “tried” more times in death than he ever was in life! At what point do we-even his family and loved ones-simply say enough is enough, and let the man rest in peace? I don’t know how you guys feel. But personally, I am more tired than fired up this time. I try to summon the anger; the outrage, the burning desire for justice/vengeance at all costs. But it just isn’t there anymore.
During the Murray trial, I wrote that justice for Michael will not come without scars:
My sentiments haven’t changed. However, Murray’s guilty verdict did provide much needed closure. That trial was dirty business, but necessary. And in hindsight, I still say it didn’t turn out so bad, as far as Michael’s legacy and reputation coming through relatively unscathed. Much of this, no doubt, was due to several factors: The prosecution’s strong, airtight case; the charisma of David Walgreen; a judge who seemed genuinely sympathetic to the fact that Michael Jackson was the victim in the case (and who showed much integrity in putting a gag order in place so that the case could not disintegrate into a media circus), and perhaps the most important factor of all-televised coverage. Televised coverage not only allowed America and the world to witness every word of the prosecution’s case, but also put a serious kink in any media attempt to spin the story how they wished. After all, it became pretty difficult-and would have been downright embarrassing-to try to spin the case in any way, when viewers could hear and see for themselves exactly what went down on the witness stand on any given day.
Add to all of this the fact that Conrad Murray himself does not come across as a very sympathetic or likeable figure, despite his best efforts to win over the world’s sympathy. (In fact, every effort Murray has made to win sympathy has, for the most part, simply blown up in his face, succeeding for the most part only to further reveal his egotism, lack of remorse, and sociopathic tendencies). Consider all of this, and you start to understand how Michael clearly emerged as the victim in the case. Although we will always have the stubborn faction who want to cling to the belief that Michael Jackson alone was responsible for his own death, I don’t think there were too many that came away from that trial-at least among those who followed it closely-who weren’t convinced that the guilty verdict was well deserved.
But now we are facing the prospect of an untelevised trial, and my biggest concern is that we may see the same kind of unethical media behavior that we had in 2005, in which pro-prosecution journalists took full advantage of the situation to manipulate, twist, and exaggerate witness testimonies. As we now know too well, Michael’s molestation trial was not televised, and therefore journalists during that trial had a field day reporting the prosecution testimony, often without bothering to report the results of cross-examination, and pretty much ignored the entire defense testimony altogether. They purposely honed in on the salacious and whatever headline was guaranteed to “sell copy,” knowing that by the time the actual verdict was reached, it wouldn’t matter one way or the other. They got their story; they sold their papers and spiked their ratings. What might happen months down the road-whatever the defense might prove or disprove-had no relevance. The media lives for the moment.
True, we will have transcripts made available, eventually. But as usual, only those truly interested in researching the case in depth-the MJ bloggers and the fans who care enough to bother-will learn whatever truth is revealed by those transcripts. The rest will simply swallow whatever CNN, HLN, TMZ, Court TV, etc, etc care to give them.
I am not so much concerned with what may come out of this trial, as the way the media will choose to spin it. And an untelevised trial will give them just that opportunity.
It also concerns me somewhat that this trial has already received double the media attention of the Murray trial. The Murray case was a criminal trial, in which a man charged with the homicide death of a beloved pop star and icon was to be determined guilty or innocent. Yet its coverage was mostly limited to HLN and Court TV, and the results of each days’ testimony given only small bites on most network newscasts. The majority of Americans weren’t even aware a trial was taking place, much less that Murray was convicted. Believe it or not, I still talk to people sometimes who have no idea. If the subject of Michael Jackson and his death comes up, they will ask, “Whatever happened to that doctor of his, did they ever charge him with anything?”
Yet the media has been practically salivating over what is, in essence, a civil case. Perhaps it is the stakes involved (to the tune of $40 billion), or the David vs. Goliath aspect of frail, elderly Katherine Jackson taking on the entertainment giant that is AEG, or (most likely) the fact that, based on what we’ve seen so far, AEG is willing to play as dirty as they have to in order to win this case, thus guaranteeing the media no shortage of dirt. In any event, I sense the stage is being set for another media feast the likes of which we haven’t seen since 2005.
In light of this, I wanted to share with you an interesting article sent to me by a reader (thank you, shelly!) that was written in 2005 near the close of the molestation trial. It was written by an NBC news correspondent, of all people, yet sheds a lot of insight into the way the media operates and, in particular, how and why they reacted to the Jackson trial in the way that they did:
SANTA MARIA, Calif. — A silver-haired attorney stood and said “The defense rests,” not calling any of the rebuttal witnesses he’d been expected to call, and the vast machine of the Jackson trial press corps poured out of the courtroom to report the news. After 13 weeks, 60 days of testimony, 140 witnesses and more than a dozen years of allegations, rumors, intermittent tabloid frenzy and Ahab-like persistence from a local District Attorney, the question of whether an entertainer of world-class stature is also a pedophile is about to be answered by a jury.
With no final defense rebuttal, the last piece of evidence presented by the prosecution to the 20 local citizens in the jury box (12 primary jurors plus eight alternates) was an hour-long videotape of the understandably sympathetic first police interview with Jackson’s young accuser. Mumbling and with seeming reluctance, the boy related the sordid details of his alleged molestation by the faded popstar over a few nights in the winter of 2003.
“Once you share this you’ll feel better,” prodded Sgt. Steve Robel. The boy, a cancer survivor, fidgeted in his chair, eyes downcast. Robel asked what sports he liked, he said “football and baseball.”
“I wanted to be a pro ballplayer,” the veteran cop said. “I was scouted by the Philadelphia Phillies, they came to talk to me and my parents. But certain things got in the way… it’s called politics.”
Soon enough the boy told his story. That Jackson trolled internet porn sites with him on the night they first met at Neverland. That he gave him wine, vodka, scotch and rum. That he talked often about sex, shared his collection of pornographic magazines and, “…maybe five times or so,” reached over as the two shared Jackson’s bed, after both had been drinking, and fondled him.
The jurors had heard those specific allegations before when the boy had testified earlier in the trial. I watched the boy on the tape: Were his hesitations and lack of eye contact evidence of the established difficulty male victims of male pedophiles have in first disclosing their molestation? Or was it a performance by a skilled and experienced liar as defense witnesses made him out to be? I looked at the jury box a couple of times: They were watching and listening, but gave no obvious hint of what they were thinking.
“You’ve been through hell,” Sgt. Robel was saying near the end of the interview. “What he has done to you, he is the bad person, not you. You, your mom, your sister, your brother… you’re the good people. You guys are doing the right thing, you’re helping a lot of people.”
Robel asked the boy if he’d “be open to making a phone call to Michael”– a pretext call in hopes that the popstar would make a damaging admission.
The boy shook his head. It was going to be his word… and that of his mother, sister and brother…against Jackson’s. Period. Four months later, with virtually no further substantive investigation beyond the interviews with the accuser and his family, one of the most famous people on the planet would be arrested. The tape ended.
The courtroom lights came back on. The silver-haired lawyer, Jackson’s lead attorney Tom Mesereau, stood up, said his three words, and sat down. A defense source had told me Mesereau had studied the tape and “wasn’t worried about it,” convinced, the source said, that the jury already had an indelible picture of the boy and his family as grifters out to skin any available mark, especially celebrities, with the boy’s sickness as their currency of persuasion.
I ambled deliberately out of court while other reporters raced past me to spread the news worldwide. Jury instructions and final arguments after the holiday weekend, and then those citizens in the box will do their thing. And then, thankfully for me, home.
I have never liked this story and would never have chosen this assignment. Of course there are others among the thousands of stories I’ve reported in nearly four decades at this craft that also would not have been my choice, and an assignment, in my business, is an assignment; but few have left me feeling dispirited and soiled at the end of a day’s work, as this one has. There are others in this press corps who feel the same way, and many of my colleagues and friends and intimates back home have declined to follow this story at all.
It feels voyeuristic, and for a dozen years it has been voyeuristic. There are “journalists” who’ve maintained careers by chasing down and breathlessly reporting every Jackson rumor peddled by real or would-be “witnesses” to the singer’s every move. Many of those rumors, enhanced by each sale and re-sale to the tabloids (print and broadcast), became embedded in the public consciousness because, in the past decade and a half, mainstream journalism itself and its relationship to “tabloid” stories have changed.
I think it began on the day in 1990 when the mainstream press covering the William Kennedy Smith rape trial in Palm Beach (I was there) was restrained outside the courthouse police lines as the key witness in that case was escorted into court on the arm of a “reporter” for one of the newly-popular tabloid TV shows… because that show had “bought” that witness and locked her up exclusively.
And because mainstream news organizations do not “buy” witnesses, the only way to compete on stories the tabloids increasingly “owned” was to legitimize the tabloids themselves. Thus, in the OJ Simpson case, the vaunted New York Times held its nose and started quoting the National Enquirer, because the tabloid (through whatever means) was often out front on that story. And CBS News, on its “Evening News,” used tape and information attributed to the television show “Hard Copy” in its reporting on the 1993 Jackson scandal.
The 9/11 effect
In the meantime, over the years, the preferences of news consumers seemed also to be changing. Or maybe they were being changed. I think—and, let me stress, this is just my opinion—that 9/11 contributed to that change in a fundamental way: The event itself was so incomprehensibly awful that news consumers (consciously or unconsciously) suddenly wanted something different from the news organizations on which they’d depended for years. Less bad news, fewer investigative reporting efforts that required hard work on the part of viewers and readers. Keep it simple, make it pleasant or safely entertaining, make it diverting. The great newsmagazines on the major networks fought shrinking audience shares by changing their fare. Reality television arrived… and exploded as the genre of audience choice. In the cable universe the trial of a fertilizer salesman accused of killing his wife and unborn child became the lead story for a year… audienceswanted that story, the ratings instructed. There was live coverage of Joey Buttafuoco’s sentencing on the same day the realignment of NATO earned a 30-second reader on one network newscast.
And, since November of 2003, the question of whether Michael Jackson fondled a young boy from a family of graspers who may also be con artists has been the epicenter of a worldwide reporting effort by scores of news organizations.
I’m a reporter assigned to this story, so I’m here. Soon, though not soon enough, I’ll be home because one story– Jackson’s guilt or innocence as determined by this apparently hard-working jury—will be over.
But the other story and the bigger one in my mind– how and why we all got here in the first place– is yet to be told.
If there is any silver lining in this, it is that the media, for the most part, does have a tendency to be pro-prosecution. We have seen this play out in many high profile cases, including-no huge surprise here!-even the Murray case. So perhaps it is also possible that the very thing that worked to Michael’s disadvantage in 2005 could work to his advantage now.
Perhaps. But remember that the trade-off in 2011 was that, while Michael ceased being the villain, he became “the victim”-a figure on a gurney; a naked man on an autopsy table; his entire life reduced to his medical history and the gruesome, clinical details of his autopsy report. Not exactly a great alternative.
Ultimately, whether Katherine wins or loses the case, Michael loses. No one from AEG is going to serve prison time; there is no real justice other than that, if the Jacksons win the case, they get some money out of it. It won’t bring Michael back; it’s not going to bring real justice (no matter how it turns out). In the meantime, we-a “we” that includes Michael’s children, as well as his fans-must once again relive Michael’s death and all of the tragic circumstances that led to it. A doctor was said to have proclaimed that being forced to testify would be “medically detrimental” to Blanket. I would say it’s going to be detrimental to all of them.
At what point can we simply celebrate Michael’s life, and cease rehashing his death? At what point will we be able to celebrate his many strengths and accomplishments, without constantly having his every human flaw and weakness held up for scrutiny?
This past week, country music legend George Jones passed away. Don’t get me wrong, I have a lot of respect for Mr. Jones’s artistry. But as a human being, George Jones was certainly a very flawed man. He was an alcoholic, a drug addict (whose abuse included recreational as well as prescription drugs) and a deadbeat dad. Yet all of the media write-ups, such as the obituary which appeared in The New York Times, have been quite respectful. And if you read the comments left by readers, there is no ridicule, no finger pointing, no trolling. None of the disgraceful and downright dehumanizing kind of comments that we see accompanying anything that is written about Michael. Even the recent story of Ozzy Osbourne’s fall from the wagon was treated with more respect in the press than anything we will be apt to see reported on Michael Jackson during this upcoming trial. The fact is that while so many talk, talk, talk about “personal responsibility” one really has to ask the question…why are there so many people who apparently are so invested in one man’s “responsibility” for his own death? And what part of the word “homicide” do these people fail to get?
This isn’t exactly sour grapes, but the double standard does bother me; always has. Certainly Michael Jackson’s flaws-such as they were-were no greater or worse than many celebrities-including many of the artists I most admire. Yet the media will always relish in his flaws far moreso than any other celebrity. It is always as if Michael has twice as much to prove, and twice as much to lose, with every bit of negative publicity. And if we are honest with ourselves, it is the negative publicity that we fear most about this trial.
But is that the selfish way to look at it? While many are bashing Katherine, we should keep some things in perspective. She is the one who lost her son. And if this trial is something she feels has to proceed in order to bring closure and justice for what happened to her son, do we have the right to question it? Katherine had to have known the negative consequences of this trial, yet she has felt strongly enough about this case to proceed. I’m sure that having gone through the ordeal of being by Michael’s side every day during the molestation trial, and the toll of being there almost every day at the Murray trial, the last thing she really wants-anymore than the rest of us-is to go through the ordeal of another trial.
Is it just about the money? I know some will say so. Many have convinced themselves so. The word “greed” is used so often in conjunction with the Jackson name that I’m surprised there isn’t a Jackson family photo in the dictionary when one looks up the word “greed.” But personally, I don’t believe it’s about the money. Perhaps I am naive and idealistic, but I believe Katherine genuinely wants justice from those she feels are responsible for Michael’s death, and this civil suit is as close as she is going to get to any sense of justice. I also know the fur is going to fly these next few months; things are going to get very ugly and heated. This trial has already further polarized an already divided fan base. It’s only going to get worse.
I know there are passionate and ardent defenders on both sides of this case. I also know there are many who are so anti-Jackson family that they will automatically criticize any action the family takes, even down to demonizing Michael’s own mother. And some who are so anti-estate that they have allowed the poison of this hatred to even taint how they portray Michael’s own children.
When “fans” are even attacking Michael’s own mother and kids-the very people he loved dearer than life-what is next? For sure, I know that Michael had some private reservations about his mother. He was very careful who he confided those reservations to. But I still think he would be very unhappy to see how his mother is now being attacked in some circles. Michael’s relationship with his parents was complex, just as most of our parental relationships are, but does that give us the right to judge? Michael certainly never made it any secret that his mother was someone he held in high regard.
I can certainly understand not agreeing with this trial, but I don’t get those who are so pro-AEG that they will attack Michael’s own flesh and blood to defend an organization whose only vested interest in Michael Jackson was as a commodity. Just because I don’t approve of this trial doesn’t mean I hold them blameless.
Let’s not lose perspective on this. For me, there is no love lost for AEG. AEG was nothing to Michael except a corporate entity; Michael in turn was nothing but an entity to them. It was a business arrangement, pure and simple. Whether Michael lived or died; whether he was happy or miserable, sick or well, meant nothing to them as long as a show went on. It was in their best interest, of course, for him to be well and happy. But in the long run, as long as they got their 50 shows, it didn’t matter.
My sympathies, for sure, are with Katherine and the kids. But that doesn’t mean I don’t question the wisdom or folly of this trial. The Jackson family have been guilty of some pretty bonehead statements and actions (let’s see, there was “Grannygate” last summer, and all that nonsense regarding body doubles in This Is It, etc-I could go on but I won’t). The point I’m making is that, while I may sympathize with them on many issues, I certainly do not always agree with them-or the actions that they take. For sure, there have been times when the family has irritated me to no end. But I am a firm believer in that,when push truly comes to shove, blood is indeed thicker than water-as it should be.
And something else that bugs me about all of this…if indeed Katherine Jackson has a case, does that mean AEG sold us a lie with This Is It? It’s a question that has been on my mind for over three and a half years. I suppose it is because part of me still wants to believe that Michael was indeed that guy we saw in the film, fully in control and in charge, vibrant and ready to take on the world again; a man excited to perform again for his fans. I used to be the first to scoff at the This Is Not It faction; I put them down as just a bunch of people (haters, perhaps even)who wanted to see the film fail and Michael’s legacy destroyed. These days, given the facts that came out during the Murray trial and more recent developments that have come to light, I am not so sure anymore.
Perhaps the best clue as to how Michael was really feeling about his life, the shows, and most importantly, about AEG was revealed by Paris during her recent deposition (and I believe his own daughter would certainly be in the best position to know):
Paris also states that Michael told her schedule for TII was “too much” for him and “Phillips and them were out to get them”
Retweeted by MelanieLOVESMJONE!
Ivy @Ivy_4MJ 37m
Paris states Michael was happy about the ticket presales for TII tour & excited about the tour & he wanted concert footage to be 3D
Her comments seem an interesting contradiction, but not an unfeasible one. I think it is very possible that Michael wasexcited about the shows, but not with the undue pressure he was being put under to suddenly have to perform 50 of them. I certainly have no intention of tossing out my copy of This Is It. For what it is, I still think the film is a precious momento of Michael’s last days, and I like to think that all of the stories of how excited he was to be performing again are at least partially true. So in light of Paris’s words, I think it is possible that there is truth to that, and that what we get in the film is at least a truthful representation of those last, few days when Michael reached deep within himself and connected with that fire again. I have to believe that. But I am sure I can’t be the only fan for whom the desire to reconcile that belief with much of what we now know from the Murray trial and of AEG’s bullying/”tough love” tactics presents a bit of a conundrum.
I’m sure my comments are going to invite a barrage of heated opinions from both camps. But that’s okay. As always, I will try to respect most opinions. For myself, I have usually found it’s best to keep a somewhat neutral perspective; if nothing else, it enables me to see the facts clearly without allowing my own bias to cloud my judgement. So for now, perhaps it is safest to say that my official “position” is to have no position. Or at least, to keep an open mind until we hear all of the facts of this case.
I don’t agree with this trial. I wish with all my heart and soul that it wasn’t happening. But it is, and it’s here. And seeing as how it is here, I am not ashamed to say that my heart, my prayers and my full support will certainly be with Katherine and the children during these next few, difficult months.
AEG, I am quite certain, can fend for themselves just fine. After all, the only thing they “lost” on June 25th, 2009 was a business deal.
ETA (04/28/13): I am excited to announce that, due to the demands of keeping up with this trial over the next several months, I have decided to open up an Allforlove forum.
I know that events will be unfolding rapidly; far more rapidly than I can keep apace here. This way, you all can post updates as necessary, while leaving the comment section on the blogs only for comments relevant to that particular entry. I have created three sticky threads for the time being-a thread for discussion, one for media postings only, and one for transcripts as they are made available (or if they are made available). More threads can be added as needed; these are just a starting point. The forum at present is just for discussing the trial. I haven’t decided yet if I will want to continue the forum as a permanent feature after the trial is over, or simply lock it down and keep it as a ‘read only” archive. I really never embraced the idea of having a forum; I had operated a forum once before (not related to MJ) and had said, “Never again!” I rather like just having my little corner here where I can express my thoughts about Michael, without all of the madness and responsibility of running a forum. But after much thought (and much persuading from my better half, lol) I have decided that the demands of keeping up with this trial are going to require a much more interactive medium than what I currently have. Another advantage is that it will keep the blog open for other topics as well. (The idea of writing on nothing but this trial for four months on end is, frankly, a depressing thought to contemplate!).
You will have to register to be able to post and comment. I am the administrator, but not the moderator (just so you know). I decided it would be best to delegate that responsibility to someone else.
I will be posting daily updates on the trial on the Allforlove Facebook page and (yes!) my soon-to-be-active Twitter account (which I’ve actually had for some time, but just never got into the swing of using it; I am slow to come around to change, haha. But again, with the demands of this trial, I think it is going to be a necessity).
I will post trial-related blogs as developments warrant, but mostly those will be limited to developments that I feel require in-depth analysis or response. Otherwise, look to the forum, Facebook and Twitter for most of the daily trial bites.
And, as we move forward, let’s keep in mind these words that Michael wrote, which are going to apply these next few months more than ever:
In Our Darkest Hour In My Deepest Despair Will You Still Care? Will You Be There? In My Trials And My Tribulations Through Our Doubts And Frustrations In My Violence In My Turbulence Through My Fear And My Confessions In My Anguish And My Pain Through My Joy And My Sorrow In The Promise Of Another Tomorrow I’ll Never Let You Part For You’re Always In My Heart.
This may be an interesting exercise in extremes. My previous post, featuring the interview with Lisa D. Campbell, promoted a book of over 700 pages that took me almost three months to read; a book that fully encompasses the entire epic scope of Michael Jackson’s life. From that, I went to a very slim volume of about 56 pages, a book whose scope is considerably more narrow. Yet no less important. Veronica Bassil’s Michael Jackson’s Love For Planet Earth joins the ever growing list of volumes and critical voices that are creating the current revisionism of Michael Jackson’s post-Thriller work. This book makes an excellent companion piece to Joe Vogel’s Earth Song: Inside Michael Jackson’s Magnum Opus (a source Bassil acknowledges liberally, along with Armond White’s Keep Moving, The Michael Jackson Chronicles and Michael’s own Dancing The Dream). But Bassil’s book also deserves to stand alone, apart from these works, as she expands on all of the above to create a work that completely encompasses the scope of Michael’s planetary vision, focusing primarily on the trilogy of his poem “Planet Earth,” his great epic masterpiece “Earth Song” (both of which were originally intended to be part of one complete work) and his 1992 book of poems and reflections, Dancing The Dream, of which his poems and thoughts on ecology and the state of the earth were a major theme.
This passage, taken from her prologue, sets the stage for what the reader may expect:
Standing midst the betrayals, accusations, and rumors that encircled Michael Jackson, his art shines like a purecolumn of life and light. Here is the creativity of the master, undefiled by the ruinous handiwork of those he sang about in “Money”and “2Bad,” the “idle-jabbers” and “backstabbers”who “tried to bring me to my knees.”–
Steven Spielberg once described Michael as “a fawn in a burning forest,” yet this fawn was able to create enduring, staggering beauty in the face of that conflagration. For this reason, for his dignity, his courage, his great heart, and most of all for his artistic achievements, Jackson will always be one of the most beloved and honored of artists.
It has been over three years since his death, and the re-visioning of his art and contribution is well underway. Books and articles flood out because there is so much “depth and complexity,” as Dick Gregory said, to this artist and person.
I wanted to write about Michael, but this same depth and complexity were daunting obstacles. I needed a tight focus because he covered so much ground—a global figure transcending and yet encompassing almost every category one could imagine. Trying to cover it all would take volumes. I decided to focus on an area of vital importance to Jackson: his concern for Planet Earth, its ecosystems and life forms, human and nonhuman, its flora and fauna. In rehearsals for his This Is It, he defined the purpose of his planned tour as spreading a two-fold message: the importance of love and protecting the environment. Because he made his love and concern for the planet central to his art, including in his last tour, and because it is a deep concern of mine as well, my focus here is to explore Michael Jackson’s love for Planet Earth.- excerpted from the prologue to Michael Jackson’s Love For Planet Earth.
Regardless of whatever bad blood may have existed between Michael and Steven Spielberg at some point, I love that quote from him of Michael as a “fawn in a burning forest.” In many ways, that quote is true. But there is also one flaw, for all its lovely poetics. It conjures an image of an innocent, passive victim, one who (if the quote is to be taken at full face value) lost control of his life in a world surrounded by corruption and vultures. As anyone knows, that is certainly part of Michael’s story. But hardly the whole picture. It does not take into account that other side of Michael Jackson-the pro-activist whose voice became a powerful, rallying “El Grito” (read the book to discover why Bassil specifically chooses that term in relation to Earth Song!). Or, in other words, if Michael was going to be consumed by the flames of that “burning forest,” he wasn’t going to go out without a fight; without having been heard.
Perhaps those shouts to be heard were best exemplified by the three works discussed here. Bassil takes on a thorough, microscopic examination and analysis of this important trilogy. “Planet Earth” and “Earth Song”, as well as the entire collection of Dancing The Dream, cannot really be separated, as they all form an essential part of the fabric whole. Michael was in the same “place,” as they say-mentally, spiritually, and physically-at the time that all of these works had their genesis and reached their fruition. As I mentioned in my own recent presentation of Dancing The Dream, it was a time in which Michael-having recently broken away from the Jehovah’s Witness church-was doing a lot of crucial self-examination. It was a time in which his own religious views and values were being redefined; a time in which he was becoming more enlightened by Transcendentalism and was breaking away from the rigid ideas of the Jehovah’s Witnesses, who preached of a wrathful God and that all life was only a preparation for Armageddon. In light of his more liberated views, Michael came to embrace the importance of our relationship to the earth, and to understand our role as its stewards rather than its conquerors.
Recently one of my students did a class presentation of “Man In the Mirror”. This was none of my bidding; the students were allowed to present on any work of their own choosing. But this student, inspired by my own lectures on Black or White, had taken it on his own to dig deeper into the meaning of Michael Jackson’s work. While I cannot quote his words exactly, the gist of what he said was that he believed that Michael Jackson, by the late 1980’s, must have been looking around him and saying, “There has to be more than this. I have achieved everything that anyone could possibly want; I have everything that anyone could possibly desire. Where do I go from here? I have this amazing platform, which I can use for the good and betterment of the world, or I can simply add to its meaningless noise and clutter. Which path do I choose?” We don’t know if Michael spoke those exact words, or formulated those exact thoughts. But we do know, as evidenced from works such as “That One in the Mirror” from Dancing The Dream, that Michael did ask himself these very questions-and from that point forward, his life and art became about fulfilling that promise. He told us many times that he was human; that he might stumble along the way (that heartbreaking plea from Will You Be There comes to mind immediatly, a work that was also born out of this period) but that his ultimate goal was to live up to the ideals he had set. It would not, however, be an easy path.
In one of my personal favorite sections of the book, “Michael’s Fans,” Bassil addresses an important issue which I think is crucial to understanding both Michael’s art and, ultimately, what made him a great artist. While most critics would agree that Michael was a musical genius (at least, most are in agreement when it comes to praising his Off The Wall/Thriller-era work) the critical reception to his published poetry was, let’s just say, a lot less kind. Perhaps there is something to be said for those criticisms. I believe Michael was probably a greater lyricist than a poet (and despite what some say, there is a difference between the two art forms; they are not simply one and the same). I can’t say I’ve never cringed at some of Michael’s more trite and/or mawkish lines. Michael Jackson was, if anything, an artist of great extremes-one capable of writing some of the most searingly profound lyrics of our time, yet also capable of extremes in sentimentality and cliches. But even at his occasional most mawkish extremes, the biggest compensating quality he had was sincerity. It was this sincerity that touched people on such profound levels, and it was partly what made him such a great performer. He had that ability to “connect” with people on an intensely emotional and visceral level-which is precisely why there is a vast world of difference between reading a poem like “Planet Earth” on the written page, and actually hearing Michael’s voice reciting it. I am so grateful that we do, at least, have this one recorded selection from Dancing The Dream, for it is in the performance of this piece that all the difference is made.
Also, as Bassil points out, it is ignorant of those critics who fail to recognize that Michael’s poetry was actually part of a long and ancient tradition of art, in which the role of the poet/singer/songwriter was not that of a coldly calculated and academic craftsman, but as seers, prophets, and troubadours whose purpose was to reach the masses on a spiritual level. No, perhaps we can safely say Michael Jackson was no T.S. Eliot. Aesthetically, he was more in line with artists like Orpheus, harkening back to a much more primal tradition before art and poetry got all cerebral and climbed into that Ivory Tower from which, sadly, it has never been allowed to entirely return. In other words, there was a time when it was okay-even expected, for our artists to not only make us think, but to make us feel.
In this passage, Bassil quotes from a fan, which appeared in the comments section of a Huffington Post article:
“Michael, like the ancient mythical character of Orpheus, is one of the greatest musicians ever blessed with the gift of making music. Like Orpheus, his art has the power to raise the human spirit above the mundane, cross boundaries, and break down taboos.
Michael mastered the physical with his unique dance moves, rhythms and timing. He was able to inspire, enchant, and move people emotionally with his clear, sweet voice as peacemaker, environmentalist, and revealer of the earth’s realities and mysteries.
Michael was a masterful and gentle soul with great empathy and feeling for transcendent realities that few have and expressed this through his music on a broad cultural basis.
I am grateful for all he has given us from his highest dharma in We Are the World to his simple ability to make us feel the beat, move, and dance. MJ had the ability through his own sensitivity, sensibility, and raw creative talent to make a great ‘feeling’ (both sadness and happiness) impact on culture.”-Excerpted from Michael Jackson’s Love For Planet Earth, p. 19.
Bassil also links Michael’s art to the seminal works of important Transcendentalist authors such as Ralph Waldo Emerson and Henry David Thoreau. In doing so, she further strengthens the argument that Michael Jackson’s best work is certainly deserving of a place in our literary-as well as musical-canon.
The book expertly breaks down and analyzes Michael’s great ecological trilogy. I don’t wish to give too much away, but I will just say that for the analysis of Planet Earth alone, it is well worth the time of any serious scholar of Jackson’s work. I came away with a whole new perspective of the poem (have you ever seriously contemplated just what Michael meant by referring to the planet as his “sweetheart?” The answers here might surprise and enlighten you!).
The analysis of Earth Song, as I noted earlier, makes a great companion piece to Joe Vogel’s Earth Song: Inside Michael Jackson’s Magnum Opus, as both Bassil’s and Vogel’s analysis dovetail each other nicely. While Vogel’s book is dedicated more to the actual genesis and composition of Earth Song, as well as its critical reception both then and now, Bassil places it more firmly in the context of the urgency of its message, as well as offering up a very thorough analysis of the video. While much of this section quotes heavily from Armond White, Bassil also provides a fascinating historical context for Earth Song with the ancient Greek story of Erysichton, who was punished by Demeter as a destroyer of the Earth.
In the legends of ancient Greece there are tales of punishment for those who reject being earth’s loving children and instead become earth’s destroyers. In one tale, a wealthy man cuts down the trees in a grove sacred to Demeter, the Earth Mother, in order to build a hall for his feasting. His name is Erysichthon, which means “one who tears up the earth.” Demeter punishes him by giving him an insatiable appetite. He even eats the food intended for his children, and so they starve.In our desire to have a “feast hall” for ourselves, we too are literally starving our children, stripping the nourishing capacity of the planet for profit, destroying ecosystems and species, and hoarding the wealth of the planet for a select few. As Jackson knew so well, thousands of children die of starvation every day. In fact, 25,000 people, including 16,000 children, die of starvation-related illnesses every single day.
Jackson confronts us in Earth Song with the great damage the Erysichthons of the world have done.-Excerpted from Michael Jackson’s Love For Planet Earth, pp. 38-39.
The fascinating in-depth analysis of Earth Song continues in a chapter titled “The Prophet,” in which Bassil expands upon critic Armond White’s interpretation of Michael’s performance of Earth Song as a “jeremiad.”
The prophet Jeremiah in the Old Testament is the basis for this term“jeremiad.” Jeremiah, a voice in the wilderness, known as “the weeping prophet,”cries out to the people to change their apostasy and return to God.-excerpted from Michael Jackson’s Love of Planet Earth, p. 41.
Although focused primarily on Michael’s great ecological works of the 90’s, the book concludes with a chapter on This Is It, which is fitting since we know that Michael had intended for his message on environmentalism and saving the planet “before it’s too late” to be at the forefront of his This Is It shows.
Perhaps it is appropriate that the last song Michael Jackson ever sang was not Thriller, or Billie Jean, or Beat It, but Earth Song-his masterpiece that was the culmination of his lifelong love affair with his “sweetheart.” As he wrote in one of his best pieces from Dancing The Dream, “We have been treating the earth the way some people treat a rental apartment. Just trash it and move on. But there’s no place to move on now…”
Michael Jackson’s Love For Planet Earth is a book that, undoubtedly, will never be touted on the national talk show circuit. It is not a book for anyone whose only interest regarding Michael Jackson is in sordid gossip. But for those who are seriously interested in the study of Jackson’s craft and his inspiration-and especially those who desire a more serious, in-depth study of Michael’s ecological philanthropy-it is a must have.
Michael Jackson’s Love For Planet Earth can be purchased as an e-book on Amazon.com:
I am excited to share with you my long awaited interview with Lisa D. Campbell, author of three books that rank among the best written on Michael Jackson, Michael Jackson: The King of Pop, The King of Pop: His Dakest Hour, and her most recent, Michael Jackson: The Complete Story of the King of Pop. Campbell also has the noted distinction of being the only MJ biographer to have impressed Michael enough to warrant a bouquet of roses and a mention of thanks in the liner notes of his HIStory album!
Lisa D. Campbell is an author and researcher whose passion for Michael Jackson-as both a hobby and “full time job”-is impressive indeed. After completing her latest book, I submitted a list of interview questions, which Lisa was gracious enough to kindly answer, despite the fact that the list quickly grew into an epic! Well, I had a feeling that was bound to happen, given our mutual passion for this subject (although I will admit, unlike Lisa-whose resolve to abstain from Pepsi out of loyalty to Michael is admirable, I still have my weakness for my Diet Mountain Dew! Sorry, Michael).
Anyway, soft drink preferences aside, I hope you will enjoy this question and answer exchange between two very dedicated MJ researchers!
Raven: Something that struck me as unique about this biography is that it is one of the few MJ biographies that simply presents a straightforward presentation of the facts, without embellishment. The problem with so many MJ biographies is that the writers often have a specific narrative they are trying to push, or an agenda they are trying to accomplish. Their overall purpose seems to be to convince people that MJ was this, or was that. Your book doesn’t do that-and I must say, it is a refreshing change! You are obviously a fan, but the book at all times maintains a very neutral and balanced perspective. My question is: Did you set out intentionally to write this kind of book? And how difficult is it, when writing about MJ, to keep your own perspectives/opinions/biases out of the narrative?
Lisa:I wanted to present a picture of Michael Jackson that examined all aspects of his life. Some go well out of their way to paint every aspect of his life as somehow weird, depraved, or at least bizarre and skim over all the positive things he accomplished. Others, in attempt to canonize him pay little if any attention to the difficult times of his life – the Chandler accusations; his trial; drug usage, etc. My focus was on presenting the facts of his life to inform readers and let them see MJ without being colored with my bias. This was certainly most crucial in covering the Chandler accusations and his trial. The facts in each case speak for themselves and lead readers to a logical conclusion, something we all know the media coverage did not do.
I did add a little more of my own two cents in this latest edition – something I debated about throughout the whole process. But I think it is clear when something is just my opinion. My true objective was to present a complete picture of his life including the highs and lows, and hopefully change some people’s perception of him that have largely known him through all the tabloid headlines and rumors throughout the years. The painful times of his life – as well as the good times- certainly helped shape the man he was. To think it took the Arvizo family deliberately turning their backs on him, creating lies and more lies about him after he helped them all so extensively, that it took this level of betrayal for him to use the “h” word, that he hated someone, I think speaks volumes about his character. That is what I wanted to illustrate for readers.
Raven: This next question is a bit of a spin-off from the first. Do you think this may have been one reason why Michael was so impressed with your first two books? For someone who had become so used to seeing himself “psychoanalyzed” in every way possible, it must have been a refreshing change for him to finally read something that simply presented the facts of his life, without embellishment and with no sinister, hidden “narrative” to promote. For Michael to have acknowledged your work the way he did speaks volumes, for as I’m sure you know, it was very rarely that Michael ever acknowledged any of the many books written about him-and when he did, it usually wasn’t positive. Did he ever tell you, specifically, what quality(ies) he most admired about your first two books?
Lisa:Michael’s acknowledgement of my work was truly unexpected and overwhelming. My highest hope was that I would somehow have an indication that he was just aware of my work. I sent him two copies of my book. One was inscribed with a note to him, for the other, I asked if he could sign it and return to me. Just a couple of days after receiving the book, it was Fed Ex-ed back to me with a note and autograph from Michael. I was told Michael loved my book, “he flipped over it”. I agree that he had to have been tired of being psychoanalyzed by so many and that a book simply chronicling his unrivaled career accomplishments and humanitarian efforts must have been quite refreshing. I was told he appreciated my attention to detail and he wrote a note to me saying, “… your book is a wonderful inspiration.” As you may know, his kindness and consideration did not end there. A few weeks later I received three dozen beautiful red roses on my birthday with a card reading, “With sincere thanks and love, Michael Jackson.” I will forever cherish his acknowledgement of my work.
“Thanks, Lisa Campbell, for your support and love.”-Michael Jackson, From “HIStory” Liner Notes
Raven: I will be honest with you. One of the reasons this interview has taken so long (I first contacted you in December, I believe) is the sheer size and scope of this book, which ended up taking me a lot longer to read than I had anticipated. But such is the nature of this subject’s life-and only a very big and epic book could ever do it total justice. Most authors would be intimidated with the prospect of writing just ONE definitive MJ biography. But you have written no less than three, including this last which in my opinion should stand as the definitive story of Michael’s life for those who are only interested in the facts. How intimidating is Michael Jackson’s life as a subject to write about? I know you are very passionate about him as a subject, but do you ever get frustrated/intimidated by the sheer prospect of tackling his life? Do you ever get writer’s block, or sometimes find yourself hitting a brick wall? If you had moments like that in the writing of this book, how did you get past them? What kept you focused, ultimately?
Lisa:First of all, thank you very much for the compliment, to quote our mutual hero, “I am very honored”. I honestly did not find the prospect of the project intimidating. His life is a subject I have followed and researched for decades now and I guess I just feel comfortable with it. Even though there has been a long period of time between my last book and this new one, I have never stopped following him, collecting information and researching, so I actually had much of the material readily available. After the first two books, and following the enormity of his loss, I just felt compelled to finish the story. I felt I almost owed it to him and his memory. There were a few times when I was undecided on the best way to present a subject (how much of the ugly details of Chandler’s accusations do I include, or those from his trial?) I would put it temporarily on the back burner and think about it while I worked on another area. Ultimately it was my passion for my subject that kept me on track and my personal commitment to his story. Researching MJ is a full time job and in my spare time, it is my hobby! It is a long volume, but I tried to make it fast reading and not an arduous task to get through. I actually had to edit it down. I had nearly 1000 pages before I tackled Dr. Murray’s trial. It is not titled “The Complete Story” for nothing!
Raven: One thing I was very impressed with as a reader is your attention to detail. I love the way you can recount every single chart position of every song/album, or how in describing an awards show or event Michael attended, how you could describe to the most minute detail every outfit he wore. I was impressed with how you managed to catalog this sheer volume of information. I would assume most of it just comes with the knowledge obtained from having followed his career for so long. I, too, have a pretty extensive and detailed knowledge of all of his music’s chart performances, awards won, etc, but I don’t have a photographic memory so I find myself constantly double checking to ensure I have my facts correct. I guess my question to you is: Are you just a walking encyclopedia of compiled MJ trivia (LOL) or do you find yourself, like me, constantly sweating the small stuff and fact checking to make sure your all your i’s are dotted, every “t” crossed, and every p and q accounted for? What tools of reference do you keep ever ready and close by when you are writing on Michael?
Lisa:I do not have a photographic memory either, but I do have a massive video and print library and I have watched all of my tapes of performances, short films, award shows, etc a lot! Everything is labeled, categorized and stored chronologically for easy retrieval. Having done this for so long, I have also built up a pretty good mental catalog of a huge amount of details. Dates of significance tend to stick in my mind too. My friends and family would undoubtedly say I am a walking MJ encyclopedia. I have watched and re-watched his award show appearances to transcribe his words. (To this day I can recite, verbatim and with all of his pauses, his acceptance remarks from the 1986 Grammys for the win for Song of the Year for “We Are the World”.) I am also really good at playing “Six Degrees of Michael Jackson”! I do go back and double check details often to ensure accuracy. I have referred to Adrian Grant’s A Visual Documentary at times just to confirm some timeframes. I served as a researcher for his project and find it a convenient way sometimes to confirm a date. I worked to include as detailed a description as possible of award show appearance, performances, etc, because those are details I would want to know. If I read he was presented with an award somewhere I wanted to know what he was wearing? Did he have his shades on? A fedora? What did he say? So I included those kinds of details.
Raven: Back when you did Catherine Gross’s blogtalk radio program in December, I called in and asked you a question regarding Michael’s relationship with LaToya. I was intrigued by something I had read in your first book-a bit of info I had not seen anywhere else-in which you mentioned that there had been a dispute between Michael and LaToya in the early 90’s regarding the deed to Hayvenhurst. This would have been at or near the same time as the infamous Tel Aviv press conference. LaToya, as you know, has been in the news again quite a bit with her upcoming reality show and involvement in the careers of Michael’s children, so this seems like a good time to address the unusual brother/sister dynamic that she and Michael had. For the benefit of those readers who did not hear the blogtalk radio broadcast, could you tell us again some of your thoughts on LaToya and why she turned on Michael at that time? Do you think this dispute they were having over the deed could have fueled that Tel Aviv press conference, at least in part?
Lisa:It seems to me to be quite a brutal way to retaliate for such a dispute though it is difficult to put much of anything beyond some of the family members. Her press conference in Tel Aviv seems to me to be the ultimate betrayal. While LaToya claims Michael later forgave her completely, others say he wanted very little to do with her after that. I tend to give more credence to the latter. Of course now she has revealed that her actions at this time were all due to the control her manager/husband Jack Gordon had over her and he threatened harm to her and/or Michael if she did not comply. Only when faced with the prospect of doing something she found exceedingly distasteful (turning on her brother at his very darkest hour didn’t somehow qualify) did she finally find the courage to break free from him. Overall, I think she tends to exaggerate how “close” she and Michael were. While she admits to not being in contact with him over a couple of periods each several years long, they were supposedly two of the closest of the siblings? I was prone to give her some credit recently for at least trying to pursue some efforts on her own and almost seemed to distance herself from the ongoing drama within the family. Her new role as agent or whatever for Michael’s children and being responsible to some degree for Prince’s debut as a correspondent on ET is questionable to say the least. While Prince has voiced an interest in show business as a filmmaker, I think it is pretty clear this is not what Michael wanted for his kids at this young age.
Raven: In the book, you mention how Michael referred to Diana Ross as both his “lover and mother.” I, too, was struck by that rather odd statement in Moonwalk and have often wondered about it. I am sure you know that there has been much speculation regarding the true nature of his relationship with Diana Ross. He certainly seemed genuinely smitten with her, and this was a constant throughout his life. (It can also help put to rest the speculation I’ve heard in some circles that his only sexual interest was in white women! Certainly there is more than ample evidence to the contrary!). With that being said, one can’t discuss the possibility of any hint of an intimate relationship between Michael and Diana Ross without also inviting another controversy, because obviously any such relationship would have been occurring when Michael was still very much a minor. What do you make of some of these long-standing stories/rumors regarding Michael and Diana Ross?
Lisa:I agree there is ample evidence that he had no clear preference as to race in regards to the women in his life. I think the speculation rises in part from the fact both of his wives were white. However he was also romantically linked to a number of African American women. I tend to not put much stock in the notion there was an actual romance between him and Diana when he was very young. He certainly had a very strong motherly bond with her as a youngster and it grew to perhaps a more romantic feeling later, but it is doubtful to me that he acted upon it. He was so timid, and especially in regards to sexual matters, it is hard to believe there was a physical relationship at that time. He was probably deliberately vague about this and his other relationships in Moonwalk as he was a very private person and wanted to keep some aspects of his life a little more mysterious and I think he just found it distasteful – and ungentlemanly – to publically address such things. There is of course ample evidence to support that Michael long held Diana Ross in high regard. Obviously naming her as the contingent guardian of his beloved children bears that out.
Raven: Speaking on the subject of Michael and relationships, you also mention quite definitively in the book that Michael did have a year-long fling with Tatiana Thumptzen. I know there have been rumors, speculation, etc. Some believe that Tatiana basically just concocted a fantasy that she wanted to believe. But you seem quite confident with this info, so I am wondering what was your source for this particular info and why do you feel so confidently that they did, in fact, have a year-long physical affair?
Lisa: Tatiana did make this claim – though I am not sure there has been much if any corroboration. It may be more wishful thinking on her part. She has continued to speak very highly of him and has called him “the love of her life”. She obviously felt a strong bond with him. My intent was to present her assertion as a fact, just as she did. She stated the claim in an interview and I relayed that.
Raven: One thing I absolutely love about your books is that I always discover interesting little facts and bits of trivia that I have never heard anywhere else. For example, I had no idea that it was Michael who actually suggested to Freddie Mercury that “Another One Bites The Dust” should be released as a single! Michael seemed to have a very good intuitive sense of what would make a great “hit” song, and in fact, it seemed that when Sony stopped listening to his input is when some of his commercial impact started to erode a bit (for example, Michael wanted “Unbreakable” released as the first single from Invincible, not You Rock My World, and again, the chart performance proved that his instincts were probably right!). You make an interesting point in the book that, although Dangerous was a hugely successful album, that era also marked the first time that some of the singles released failed to make the Top 10 (both “Jam” and “Heal The World” stalled at #26 and #27, respectively, on the US pop charts, though HTW as you pointed out did much better overseas). Also, Dangerous became the first album of his adult solo career that managed to produce only one #1 single on the pop chart, even if albeit that one #1 was the phenomenally successful “Black or White.” What factors do you think may have contributed to this? Shifting musical tastes in the early 90’s? Michael Jackson overload? The management of Epic/Sony? The absence of Quincy Jones at the helm? Or just the inevitable inability to maintain the sort of phenomenal momentum established by OTW, Thriller, and Bad?
Lisa:Most likely a number of elements were at play. Not having Quincy Jones involved in the project may have played a role. They just formed such a cohesive team, a seemingly unbeatable pair. It would be fascinating to see how differently the album would have been had he continued to work with Quincy Jones. As for Michael Jackson overload – those words do not register with me! With up to four and five years between album releases, I was always starved for more MJ! I always saw Michael as setting the musical trends, not following them, but the rise in grunge music at this time – most notably Nirvana – may have played a role in Dangerous not matching the sales figures of Bad and of course, Thriller. For my money, Dangerous measures up with its predecessors quite well, “Keep the Faith” being one of my personal favorites of his whole catalog. Every time I hear it, I get goosebumps.
I am pleased there were new tidbits of trivia for even hard core MJ experts. I always love learning anything new about him, however trivial – habits (smacking his Bazooka bubble gum), hidden talents (making the world’s best French toast!) or his non-musical interests (reading about history and his knowledge of historical figures).
I do agree that “You Rock My World” may not have been the best choice as the first single from Invincible. It is just not the strongest track on the album, and “Unbreakable” would have been a better choice. The war with Sony certainly hurt Invincible’s performance. Can you imagine if “Cry” had a performance video in the vein of the ’88 Grammy performance of “Man in the Mirror”? That would have been a powerful tool to promote the album. The album also has other great tracks that are largely overlooked, like “Whatever Happens”, “Heaven Can Wait”, “2000 Watts”; and “Threatened”. I love how he later melded “Threatened” in with “Thriller” in performance. It works very well. He was also planning on performing “Whatever Happens” with Carlos Santana at the Grammys, a very considerable loss! It pains me to think of the projects that never came to be, that we do not have these treasures to enjoy now.
Raven: While I am looking at that particular section of the book (Dangerous era) I found an interesting comment you made. “He literally lets his hair down for ‘Black or White.’ Something about that number dictated that his hair not be pulled back in his customary ponytail.” Again, your keen eye for this kind of detail is very interesting. I, too, have noted that Michael had a tendency to adopt certain looks, hairstyles, and modes of dress for certain performances. For some songs, the look would be very militaristic; others might require the cool gangster/Fedora image. But for Black or White, everything about his persona became very open, soft, and flowing (same for Will You Be There, for which he also maintained the loose hair and flowing, white shirt). In the book, you mention this but it is sort of just left for the reader to interpret as they will. I was wondering if you have any theories on why this particular look was so important to that number?
Lisa:That is an interesting question. Certain costumes or looks lent the appropriate tone or mood to his performances and he wanted certain elements to be instantly recognizable – always wearing the red leather zipper jacket for “Beat It” (with the sole exception of the black version of the jacket worn for his 30th Anniversary concert), the blue shirt and white belt for “The Way You Make Me Feel”, etc. The flowing white shirt for “Black or White” and “Will You Be There “ do seem to further his message of openness and lends a tone of softness. The flowing hair and shirts also work well with the fans that were used in the “Black and White” performances. He also adopted the white flowing shirt and loose hair for “Dirty Diana” which utilized the fans as well. As Michael Bush noted in his book, Michael exchanged a leather jacket for the flowing shirt (Michael Bush’s own shirt!) as it worked better with the fans being used. I think over time his short films and performances became so ingrained in people’s minds that he wanted to preserve that image. Can you imagine him performing “Billie Jean” in anything other than the black beaded jacket and glove? It just wouldn’t be right! He seemed to carry this notion from his J5 days when he suggested he wear in concert the same purple hat fans had seen him wear in their Ed Sullivan Show appearance. He knew the familiarity of the hat would bring screams from the audience, and he was right. The best illustration of this is in his HIStory Tour and 30th Anniversary concert (and also planned for This is It) introduction to “Billie Jean” when he very methodically removed his black fedora, glove and black jacket from the suitcase to gear up for the performance. Priceless!
One costuming question I have long had trouble satisfying is, “What is the purpose of the wind coat for “Beat It” and “Earth Song” when he is in the cherry picker? Did he just think it was cool? To work with the fan beneath him? Some sort of safety measure?
[To be honest, I would have to say I don’t know, but my best guess is that the former is the more likely explanation, lol].
Raven: Also in this section you mention the Oprah interview. As you know, Oprah has taken quite a bit of heat through the years from MJ fans because of some of the questions she asked in that interview. Yet, as you point out here, Michael went into this interview with full knowledge of the questions that would be asked, and had agreed in advance to “answer anything.” Given that Michael agreed to do the interview and to answer anything, do you think Oprah has been unfairly bashed in some circles? Granted, the “Are you a virgin?” question just seemed totally out of left field, and ridiculous. I would be interested to know some of your thoughts on this interview, and how it was handled overall.
Lisa:It seemed to me that the virgin question was asked to appeal to those who thought of him as strange and not as a real human being. I do think Michael was caught off guard by the question and was quite taken aback that she would ask such a thing. I applaud his response, “I am a gentleman” and thought he handled it like a pro. I am not sure Oprah asked the most thoughtful questions, pandering to tabloid rumors and such, but Michael was his usual intriguing self. Faced with a situation he was not comfortable with and generally despised, he was warm and generally very open and honest. He was hoping to present himself as a real life person and change the perception of him that he was weird. People in general at this time seemed convinced he was very strange – having seen endless tabloid headlines telling them so (and note this was before the Chandler accusations had been made). I have encountered many who had this perception of him, as a weirdo, but when I would ask “why” they usually had no answer, or something terribly trite like “well, he takes that monkey everywhere with him”. Michael’s efforts to turn this around were highly successful. As I note in the book, the public response to the interview was overwhelmingly positive. The special aired to a record setting audience and sent his Dangerous album and singles back up the record charts. I also especially loved the glimpse at his songwriting techniques – signing the parts of the instruments. That few minutes gave a never before seen look at this talents that were largely transparent to the public.
Raven: In your own business dealings with Michael with issues related to the second book, I understand you corresponded quite a bit with Bob Jones as a go-between. You mention, for example, that it was Jones’s “suggestion” to include the “King of Pop” title as part of the title for your second book, which was originally to have been titled simply “Michael Jackson: His Darkest Hour.” As you know, Jones would later turn very vindictive and became quite a controversial figure in Michael’s life (though he would hardly be the last in a long line of similar traitors!). What was your impression of Bob Jones during the time you were corresponding with him?
Lisa:During the time my first two books were published, I did correspond with Bob Jones quite frequently. At that time he was extremely friendly, thoughtful and generous with his time. He always spoke very highly of Michael and always seemed to have his best interest at heart. His later betrayal of Michael, in response to his firing, was shattering. Showing up as a witness for the prosecution in Michael’s trial was perhaps the lowest – albeit his testimony went a long way toward discrediting the claims of improper behavior by Michael that Jones had made in his book. He had to admit he was unable to “recall no head lickin'”. It was certainly sad to see this long term friendship and association end. Jones wrote the Foreword for my second book which focuses on the Chandler accusations – in which he categorizes the allegations as “cruel and false”. His later about face later ranks up there in my mind with the Arvizo family and LaToya.
Raven: While on this topic, you mention several other relationships-be they friends, business associates or others-whom Michael often had very precarious, rollercoaster relationships with. I was somewhat surprised-though not totally shocked-to find Elizabeth Taylor’s name included in that list. For the most part, we have been led to believe that theirs’ was an undying, unconditional true friendship. Michael himself said he could count his true friends on one hand-and counted Liz Taylor among them. I know that certainly among fans, there is a genuine desire to believe that he did, at least, have one true friend in his life that he could always count on. Yet I know there were some incidents that Frank Cascio related in his book that were a bit startling concerning Michael and Liz (apparently, for starters, they had an argument over a diamond necklace he had promised to give her as a kind of “incentive” for attending his 2001 New York concert with him) and there was also a disturbing quote I recall from Theresa Gonsalves’ book “Remember The Time” which seemed to indicate that certainly not all was rosy or as it always appeared to be with this friendship. I was wondering if you would be willing to provide a little more insight into what you may have heard regarding his relationship with Liz? (For the record, I do believe they were true friends to the end and that she genuinely cared about him, but perhaps as with all long-term relationships, they had their up’s and down’s).
Lisa: I agree that his relationship with Elizabeth Taylor was one of the closest in his life, and they held great affection for each other. That said, Michael did seem to have a tendency to sort of turn on people in his life at certain times though this was usually among the assorted managers and advisors around him. I have not heard of any big blow ups between them, but a sense of paranoia would overcome him and affect his mood. I think his loss completely devastated her. Just as with anyone, long term relationships can be a bit bumpy. I hate to think he needed to bribe his closest friend with jewels to attend his show. (I would have gone for free!) I also think that Elizabeth Taylor may have been one of very few people who could have possibly gotten through to him and helped him had she known what was going on with his extreme measures to solve his insomnia. Her influence certainly had a very strong positive effect on him when she stepped in to help him into rehab in 1993.
Raven: You mentioned there was a rumor that, after Moonwalk, Michael had planned to write a second book that would have been much more revealing-and scathing-concerning his relationship with his father-a book so revealing and honest, in fact, that Michael had agreed only to do it after his father’s death. Of course, sadly, Michael did not outlive his father, and obviously, this proposed book never came to be. First of all, I wanted to ask where/how you came to know about this proposed second book, and secondly, do you think parts of it may comprise the rumored manuscript that has been spoken of recently, which is said to be a 600-page memoir Michael was allegedly writing after his trial?
Lisa:I hope such a manuscript does exist and is published. I have been told by the estate that a book is planned, and I certainly hope this memoir is it. Talk about a must read! It will certainly be fascinating to see if it does in fact include a more in-depth look at the treatment he received at the hands of his father in his childhood and their resulting “strained” relationship. It would go a long way to understand further how that impacted the rest of his life. Any insight into his life, his state of mind following his trial, perhaps a peak at his life with his children, will be interesting to say the least. I have an insatiable thirst for new tidbits about him and especially anything coming from Michael himself.
Raven: For all that you manage to maintain a neutral perspective throughout most of the book, I couldn’t help but notice that you took quite a few potshots at Jermaine (some of them quite funny, actually). In general, what is your take on the brother dynamic between Michael and Jermaine? Why do you think there always seemed to be more friction between them than with Michael and his other brothers?
Lisa:The additional friction between Michael and Jermaine seems to stem at least in part from a place of bitter jealously on Jermaine’s part. He has said that he believes Michael’s meteoric rise to superstardom was due in large part to luck and timing – and could have just as easily been him! Does anyone anywhere really believe that?? He also seems to be the sibling (in addition to LaToya) who likes to pretend they were BFF’s with Michael when in fact Michael very purposely put distance between himself and his family especially later in his life. And don’t get me started on Jermaine’s “Word to the Badd”! When he couldn’t get Michael’s attention, he struck out at him in a very public, deliberate and hurtful way. Jermaine was also good at trying to drag Michael back into performing with the brothers for their sake. He seemed to believe if he made a public announcement of an album or tour, Michael would be somehow forced to participate. In early 2007 there was a statement made by Jermaine of yet another Jackson tour that would include Michael. Michael had to make a public statement to the contrary.
I think Michael and Jermaine were perhaps very close in the early days of the Jackson 5 and Jermaine likes to pretend that relationship endured into their adult years. When push comes to shove, I think they are all basically supportive of each other (if not for the sake of the cameras)– they showed that during his trial – but a struggle to get Michael’s attention – and financial support – always seemed to distance Michael from his siblings and especially so with Jermaine.
Raven: Another quality your book has been praised for is its no-nonsense approach to breaking down the Chandler and Arvizo cases. Again, while presenting “just the facts” with no embellishment, your book makes a strong and persuasive case for Michael’s innocence. The figure for the Chandler settlement, which you quote in the book as having come from “the most reliable sources” states the exact sum of the settlement as 22 million. This figure seems to make sense to me, given what we know of the settlement’s ballpark figure and how it was broken down. I have heard-as I know you have as well-of some ridiculous inflations of that figure. How did you come to the conclusion that it was 22 million?
Lisa:Presenting “just the facts” in both the Chandler and Arvizo cases leads the reader to the logical conclusion that there was absolutely no evidence and no corroboration (even within the Arvizo family) pointing toward the guilt of Michael Jackson. It shines a spotlight on how drastically different the actual facts of each case were from those presented by the media. I think it is probably very easy for the common observer to conclude he must have been guilty of something given all the negative coverage. In researching details of the settlement, sources that proved to be reliable in other areas were given more credibility over more sensational, tabloid sources. At the time of the settlement, I think you could literally read ten articles and get ten different figures. The most reliable pegged the dollar amount at $22 million with a breakdown of the amounts paid to each of the parents, and an amount put in a trust for Jordie. I think many other sources tend to round off to the amount paid to Jordie, the commonly heard $20 million figure.
Raven: You state something in the book that I have always believed as well, which is that while many believed Michael’s superstar status “got him off easy” of those charges, that actually just the opposite was true—it was his superstar status that made him a target, and subject to such intense scrutiny. For sure, the public lynching that resulted in the media was a direct result of his celebrity status. I also believe it is a given that the Chandler accusation, and subsequent settlement, is what set him up for the Arvizo’s accusations much later. Much has been written and speculated as to why the media was so quick to turn on Michael, and why the public campaign against him was so especially brutal, sadistic even. After all, there was a time when the public reaction to a beloved superstar being accused of such a heinous crime would have been much different. The media and the public would have wanted to believe only the best about this person, and would want to think that his accusers were lying. At the very least, I think there was a time when the media and the public would have been much more prone to practice “innocent until proven guilty” and to extend the benefit of doubt. What combination of factors do you attribute to the especially vindictive nature of Michael’s public lynching?
Lisa:Initially, with the Chandler case, the response of the public and the media was one of disbelief and the counter claims of extortion by Michael Jackson seemed to be given more credibility. This came to a quick halt– probably fueled by the blood thirsty and power hungry law enforcement officials handling the case. One of the primary factors contributing to the media’s lynching of Michael Jackson has to be the very nature of the accusations. Just being accused of such a heinous act somehow confirms guilt in some people’s minds. Why would anyone bring such charges if they weren’t true? Also, his well-known deep connection to children seemed to play against him here. It was suddenly seen in a new, reprehensible light. His Neverland Valley Ranch now seen not as an oasis for sick and deprived children, but a way to actually lure children. Many non-professionals, seemed to suddenly gain some clear insight that showed he “fit the profile” of a predator, a pedophile. It was sickening. If he had been accused of embezzlement from one of his charities, tax evasion, or even sexual misconduct with an adult female, the public and the media may have been more likely to take a different stance, one more of innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. With the Arvizo case, there was the added element of this being the second time he had been accused of such a heinous act. This combined with the memory that he settled the earlier case help support a stance that he must be guilty. Of course the core of hunt for Michael Jackson was the almighty dollar. Media outlets drooled over the prospect of covering the scandal, the trial and his predicted life in prison. There is some sort of fascination with seeing a highly public figure torn down, sort of like looking at a train wreck. And this sells, so the media sold it. As is borne out in the book, truth and facts played no role in the media’s coverage of this story. They were only out to continually build it into a bigger and bigger scandal to draw more viewers and readers.
Public support for Michael actually soared after his 1993 telecast in which he openly proclaimed his innocence; Campbell believes the turnabout had more to do with the “blood thirsty and power hungry law enforcement officials handling the case”:
Raven: For all of this, you also do an excellent job of pointing out in the book how public support for Michael-especially after his December 1993 telecast proclaiming his innocence-remained relatively strong and unshaken, with the People article you quote being especially revealing. This is interesting, since there are many cynics and doubters today who will say they agree the Arvizo case was a sham, but that their doubts stem from the somewhat murkier aspects of the Chandler case. But the public reaction at the time goes to prove something I have always felt, which was that it was the very public spectacle of the Arvizo case- that whole sordid trial, and the fact that it was a second set of allegations-that really cemented the notion of him as “guilty” for many. I know this was true of myself until I began to research the cases, and I am sure many felt the same way. I think what people saw in 1993/’94 was the very obvious anger and desire to fight that he had, whereas by the time of the Arvizo trial he had an air of seeming very defeated and beaten down-an easy mark. In your opinion, what do you make of the two cases when comparing them, and how each affected Michael insofar as: 1. His public image, and 2: His own personal health and overall well-being?
Lisa:I think this could be a great topic of a much more detailed analysis. As each case progressed, Michael seemed confident and ready to fight. During the trial however you can see him being steadily worn down. In the Chandler case, after authorities questioned young kids who visited the ranch, their family members, school mates, counselors, teachers and every name in an address book found in the raid on Neverland, they found nothing to substantiate the claims made by Jordie Chandler. There was NO evidence and NO corroborating witnesses. And this was the stronger of the two cases! I review the pros and cons of the settlement – at that time in Michael Jackson’s world- $22 million was a relatively small sum if he could put the ugly mess behind him and resume his career. His earning power exceeding the gross national product of some countries! However, the decision to settle this case certainly cemented the notation for some that he was guilty and very obviously more than tarnished his image. Given that, and given what would follow ten years later, it was clearly a mistake to settle. He always maintained that these allegations stemmed from the father, Evan Chandler, and did not want the experience to change his relationship with children, something he cherished. He was determined to not allow it to change him. This was another mistake as these circumstances clearly fed the Arvizo case when he would be betrayed by the very young man he had helped heal. The Chandler case took a toll on him physically and emotionally – increasing and strengthening his dependency on painkillers. In most respects, he did recover from the ordeal, and got on with his life – something that was less obvious following his trial. His public image was clearly tarnished following the Chandler debacle – some being convinced of his guilt, that he paid his way out of going to jail and they were unwillingly to educate themselves as to the facts of the case, instead joining in on making him into a punch line. The Arvizo case was in many respects much more serious than the Chandler case –even though the facts of the case were actually much weaker. This time charges were filed, he stood trial, and now had the futures of not only himself, but his three young children at risk. At the start of the proceedings, he seemed confident and appreciative of the support of his family and fans. As the trial dragged on, and more disgusting details were made public, he began to steadily weaken and you could see him dropping weight. It was heartbreaking to see him walk into court each day looking wounded and lost. The day of the verdicts he looked completely vacant and broken despite being fully acquitted. His life and those of his children were saved, albeit temporarily. I would like to think his time away from the U.S. with his children and his return to recording again and begin new projects breathed new life into him and that his last days on this earth were happy and peaceful. There is little question that if the Arvizo case never happened, circumstances of his life would have been dramatically different and he would still be here with us today.
Raven: One of the things I also enjoyed about your book is that you sometimes pull no punches being critical of Michael. The Diane Sawyer interview is a good case in point, where you are quite critical of some of the responses he gave. I know from my own experience as an MJ blogger that this kind of honesty is never really easy, as it involves a kind of detachment from the subject. As fans, we sometimes nevertheless have to distance ourselves and view certain aspects of Michael more critically and objectively, to understand things from a non-fan’s perspective. How difficult is that process for you, as someone who is both a fan and, by necessity, an objective biographer? What advice would you give to other wannabe MJ biographers who may find themselves straddling that difficult fence between admiration and objectivity?
Lisa:I don’t really see a fence between admiration and objectivity. I fully admit I love Michael and have admired him for decades. That doesn’t mean I can’t recognize when he made a blunder. His responses to Diane Sawyer’s questions were at times exasperating! During the “Living with Michael Jackson” special – when he was speaking of sharing his bed with others, I found myself shouting at my TV – “Stop Talking!! Stop Talking!!” It was frustrating to say the least that he hadn’t learned his lesson from the Chandler situation. However innocent and loving he knew his connection to children to be – it did not play that way in living rooms around the world.
In putting on my researcher hat (it is a black fedora!), I did have to try and take a more objective stance and concentrate on the facts. This was easier in some cases than others. But even in giving equal time to the prosecution side of the allegation cases against him, it served to show how weak each case was and how incredibly flawed and slanted the media coverage was. It helped illustrate that the information provided by the media barely resembled the real facts. I worked to keep my audience in mind and the objective of the project – to present a clear and comprehensive review of his life and career with all of the highs and the lows and the over arching indelible impression he left on this world.
Raven: You make some very good observations about the HIStory album, and the reaction it received from critics, as well as its commercial performance (of course, all of your breakdowns of each album are amazing in the sheer amount of detail, both for their content and commercial performances!). Much has been written about how the music press seemed to turn on Michael as his music became angrier and more political. You mention, for example, the controversy over “They Don’t Care About Us” in the U.S. and how, as a result, the single peaked at only #30. Do you think that by this point, there was a concerted effort being made to keep Michael’s music OFF the radio and thereby to diminish its potential impact? I personally think it’s no coincidence that the songs that became HIStory’s biggest hits in the U.S. were the relatively non-controversial “You Are Not Alone” and “Scream,” which even though anti-media, most of its lyrics were buried in a catchy chorus and most of the attention was focused on the novelty of its video. But powerful songs like “Earth Song,” “Stranger In Moscow” and “They Don’t Care About Us” had to find their markets overseas. What are some of your thoughts on this?
Lisa:I think the general consensus in the US at this time was one that leaned toward an anti -Michael Jackson slant, most likely due to lasting sentiment that he was at least weird, or worse, a criminal. New releases were not automatically granted high level airplay. “Scream” was an exception as you noted, given its very high profile video and the novelty of being his first and only duet with Janet. He was regularly attacked in the press for the angry songs on HIStory which was aggravating given the songs were in large part lashing out at the media who were so hell bent on destroying him! As a result his own country seemed to a certain degree turn its back on him and we missed out on gems like “Stranger In Moscow” and “They Don’t Care About Us”. The decision not to release “Earth Song” in the U.S. remains a mystery to me. Being one of his biggest hits in other parts of the world, it could have, and should have, easily been as big here. It is another powerful message that would have truly resonated with his audience. It seemed like a bad decision on Sony’s part though it was probably a casualty of the anti- Michael Jackson sentiment at the time.
Raven: In the chapter “2 Bad” an excellent point is made, via the letter from Epic regarding the now infamous “Jarvis Cocker” incident. It has always bothered me that so many applauded Cocker’s actions, seeing it only as an artistic response against Michael’s pompousness, while ignoring the fact that in the process of pulling this utterly tasteless stunt, this sicko was exposing himself to the children who were onstage with Michael at the time. Quoting from the Epic letter, regarding Michael’s own response to the incident: “His main concern is for the people that worked for him and the fact that children should be attacked.” If Michael himself had ever pulled such a tasteless and tacky stunt (not that he would have!) there would have been no end to the vilification he would have received for it. But a punk rocker does it, and it’s cool! (Note sarcasm). This brings up a very interesting point. Michael strikes a crucifix pose as part of an artistic performance, and is roundly criticized as an egomaniac. Jarvis Cocker pulls down his pants, exposes his bum and testicles to a group of children onstage (not to mention the tastelessness of interrupting an artist’s performance) and is lauded as a hero by many. There always seems to have been this whole double standard at play when it came to Michael vs. other artists (i.e, what they could do and get away with) as opposed to Michael. Thoughts on this?
Lisa:Just the thought of Michael doing anything close to this tasteless brings a smile to my lips as it is just so unthinkable. As we know, he always conducted himself with the utmost respect for others and was the ultimate professional. I have to admit that I have given little thought to this whole ordeal because I just think so little of the person involved. There is never a reason to treat any fellow artist like this – and it is worse that he chose to do such a tasteless and offensive act with children on stage. It is of course not cool what he did and he does not deserve any further attention for it. He just doesn’t matter. You are correct though that if Michael pulled any such stunt it would have been replayed and replayed by the media forever – much like the “baby dangling” incident and showing up to court in pajama pants. Anyway this joker earned a spot on “my list” – individuals and companies I refuse to support who was ever disrespectful of Michael or those who worked to tear him down. Certainly our favorite Santa Barbara District Attorney heads the list. But it is shared by, for various, and I admit sometimes juvenile reasons, Cher (she washed her hands of Michael following the “baby dangling” incident – so I washed my hands of her), Pepsi, Jay Leno (continued to make MJ a part of his nightly monologue despite knowing personally that the Arvizo family were nothing more than money hungry conscious-free con-artists,) and anyone who spoke out against him in either the Chandler or Arvizo cases.. Michael’s capacity for forgiveness far exceeds mine, I tend to hold grudges.
Raven: Speaking of famous performances, your book also answers another burning question often asked regarding the Wembley concert and Michael’s performance of “Dirty Diana.” You mentioned that it was actually Prince Charles who had requested that the song not be performed, and that Diana secretly told him she wanted it performed “like you’ve never sung it before.” Where did you hear that this request had been made specifically by Prince Charles?
Lisa: I came across this in a couple of different sources, I also believe it was a story on an entertainment news program at the time, probably Entertainment Tonight. I love the idea of Princess Diana making this request though. She was quite a fan of his and it turns out, vise versa. Supposedly Michael had a romantic interest in the Princess following her divorce. They would have made an interesting couple! He was of course deeply affected by her tragic loss.
Raven: One very searing accusation your book makes is that Sony/Tommy Mottola deliberately sabotaged the “What More Can I Give” single, fearing its release would detract from the Invincible singles. It seems mind boggling-though certainly not shocking!-that Sony would deliberately sabotage a charity single intended to raise millions for victims of 9/11. At the same time, however, this would seem to contradict accusations that the record company was intentionally sabotaging the success of Invincible. What are your thoughts on this?
Lisa: Fearing the charity single may detract from Invincible could have been a convenient excuse publically for Sony. There are schools of thought that (and I am not sure I fully buy this) that at this time the war between Sony and Michael was heating up to a degree whereby they were willing to sabotage their own artist’s record sales. It is not clear to me how much of this is fact and how much may have been borne from some level of paranoia on Michael’s part. Sony paid a staggering $30 million to produce Invincible and an effort to then deliberately sabotage the record seems irrational unless you subscribe to the theory that they were working to force Michael into a financial situation whereby he would be forced to sell some or all of his remaining share of the prized ATV/Sony music catalog. Michael was said to be long fearful of losing control of the catalog. I am relieved that never came to be and it is my hope the trustees continue to hold this incredibly valuable asset in his estate. Whatever the details of the behind the scenes goings on, the losers in the whole thing were the fans. We were robbed of some great singles, short films and performances.
Raven: Something that struck me as I was finishing your book is that the entire post-mortem section alone comprises over nine chapters (excluding the afterword) and over 140 pages! I don’t know of any other celebrity whose entire post-mortem legacy and career has taken on such a enormous life all its own. Reading those particular chapters was, for me, like reliving all of the events of the past three and a half years all over again, from those early days of shock to the feverish anticipation of This Is It, from the anguish of the whole death investigation to the triumphant day the “Guilty” verdict came down for Conrad Murray, from the controversy of the “Michael” album to the glory of The Immortal World Tour, and everything that has happened in between. All of it has served to remind me that for many of Michael’s fans, our journey did not end on June 25th, 2009, but was only just beginning. As a global family and community, we have been through a lot in the last three and a half years. One of the things I truly love about your book is its full acknowledgement that Michael’s life did not end on June 25th, 2009-only the physical embodiment of it. His journey, his legacy, as well as our continued discovery of him, is perpetually ongoing. Do you think that this book will be your definitive and final say on Michael Jackson, or do you see the possibility of more books and more projects in the future?
Lisa:One of the ways in which my book is differentiated from most others is that the story does not end on June 25th 2009. I love your phrasing, “our journey did not end on June 25th 2009”. I do not feel the journey ended on that tragic day and I think fans feel the same way. Clearly his legacy will not only continue, but will grow as new generations come to know him. His incredible artistry will continue to inspire performers for years to come. He leaves this world with three children who seem committed to continuing his humanitarian and charitable efforts, and millions of fans who have been inspired to also follow in his footsteps. The efforts being undertaken in his name and in his memory are heartfelt and touching: planting a million trees in his name, and continuing efforts to one day fund and create the Michael Jackson Children’s Hospital. I have no doubt he is beaming with pride.
At this time I feel I have completed the task of chronicling the life of this incredible human being. I do have an idea for a different type of project that is slowly taking shape. I would also really, really love to be part of a Michael Jackson museum, I am very interested in being a part of efforts to honor his memory and continue his legacy and will continuously work to do so.
Raven: Lastly, what are some of your thoughts on the upcoming AEG trial? I suppose another logical question, feeding off the previous, would be do you plan any sort of revised edition of Michael Jackson: The Complete Story of the King of Pop, pending the outcome of this trial?
Lisa:The recent release of the “smoking gun” emails in the AEG case certainly make it even more interesting and I will be paying rapt attention as it progresses. There does seem to be some credence to the claims that Michael was being pressured and pushed by those around him, AEG included, to perform. Dr. Murray was perhaps subjected to similar pressure from AEG. I am not sure they had first hand knowledge of the extreme measures Dr. Murray was taking to make that happen. Nobody pushed themselves harder or put more pressure on themselves that did Michael himself. Was that already intolerable pressure put into overdrive by AEG? I think it very possible. To me, Dr. Murray is most directly responsible for Michael’s death and he has been tried and convicted. While his sentence, to me, is a cake walk, he has been convicted and hopefully, as a convicted felon, will never be able to practice medicine again. Any further culpability on the part of AEG should also be examined. I do not have plans at this time to do a revised edition of Michael Jackson: The Complete Story of the King of Pop. I feel I paid tribute to him and his legacy and the notations made regarding the suit against AEG are, for this project, sufficient. That is not to say the outcome of the trial is not significant. Any culpability on AEG’s part should result in a judgement against them. I would like to see any money paid in settlement used by his family to further one of the causes close to his heart.
Raven:Thank you, Lisa, for agreeing to do this interview, and thanks in advance for agreeing to give of your time in answering these questions. I know my readers have been looking forward to this for some time!
Lisa:Thank you for the opportunity. I am happy to be a part of your effort in paying tribute to Michael Jackson. I hope readers will enjoy it and maybe even learn a new MJ fact or two! My work has been so well received by fans and I am very appreciative of all of their support. Many have contacted me that still remember me from my first two books, that was quite a pleasant surprise. Thanks again, Lisa.