BPX037: Jackson's HIStory

[Asura]

Well, that's every piece of media. Everything is selectively edited. Actually altering the footage would be a very big deal.

Maybe, but as I'm sure you appreciate, there's selective editing to summarise, and selective editing to deliberately mislead.

Like when Matthew Kelly was wrongly accused of impropriety, and the papers ran with photos of him where they'd searched a video of him frame-by-frame to find the sole one where his eye was turned, nostrils flared and he looked deranged.

[Dogg Thang]

Maybe, but as I'm sure you appreciate, there's selective editing to summarise, and selective editing to deliberately mislead.

Like when Matthew Kelly was wrongly accused of impropriety, and the papers ran with photos of him where they'd searched a video of him frame-by-frame to find the sole one where his eye was turned, nostrils flared and he looked deranged.

I refer back to my previous post in this thread:

Maybe they are but people are unfortunately making judgements based on a documentary television event. And this isn't the only one. I'm seeing a bunch of people talking about various "what REALLY happened" type shows and there are a whole rake of them on Netflix and people all over are showing a startling lack of media literacy when it comes to these shows. Documentaries can be informative and they can certainly be interesting but they usually have a singular point of view, are far from unbiased and use all the media tools at their disposal to make a case without a counter-case being made. This is how they work. Given we have generations growing up with such vast and varied media exposure, it's a sad state we're in that people can't make these distinctions. Worse still, I see it from people in the media - people who themselves use these same storytelling tools to do the same thing on a daily basis, as if they don't know that others are using those same tools. It's bananas.

Every single piece of media is edited. Every piece with a view it is trying to get across. And with what are pitched as exposes or sensational interviews or even now pretty much every documentary, if you do not go in with a very clear understanding of what you are watching, that's seriously naive. But it's also not "doctoring footage". But then Cassius Smoke hasn't weighed back in so we could be discussing something that isn't relevant because he may actually have meant that footage was doctored.

Edit: everyone who has seen the Rowdy Roddy Peeper episode of the Simpsons should know how this works.

[Neon Ignition]

Was trying to remember what the Bashir-Jackson case point was so checked Wiki and this came up:

However, Bashir's colleagues have claimed that he only landed the Jackson interview after promising him they would plan a trip for Jackson to Africa to visit children with AIDS, accompanied by Kofi Annan, the then UN Secretary-General; when this was put to Bashir, while under oathin a California court, he refused to answer.

Following the broadcast, viewed by 14 million in the UK and 38 million in the US, Jackson complained to the Independent Television Commission and the Broadcasting Standards Commission, accusing Bashir of yellow journalism. In response, Jackson and his personal cameraman released a rebuttal interview, which showed Bashir complimenting Jackson for the "spiritual" quality of the Neverland Ranch. After Jackson's death in 2009, Dieter Wiesner, the pop star's manager from 1996 to 2003, said of Jackson's response to Bashir's documentary:

It broke him. It killed him. He took a long time to die, but it started that night. Previously the drugs were a crutch, but after that they became a necessity.^[44]

Bashir later said during ABC's coverage of Jackson's death:

I think it's worth remembering he was probably, singly, the greatest dancer and musician the world has ever seen. Certainly, when I made the documentary, there was a small part of that which contained a controversy concerning his relationship with other young people. But the truth is that he was never convicted of any crime, I never saw any wrongdoing myself and whilst his lifestyle may have been a bit unorthodox, I don't believe it was criminal and I think the world has now lost the greatest entertainer it's probably ever known.^[45]

[Cassius_Smoke]

I refer back to my previous post in this thread:



Every single piece of media is edited. Every piece with a view it is trying to get across. And with what are pitched as exposes or sensational interviews or even now pretty much every documentary, if you do not go in with a very clear understanding of what you are watching, that's seriously naive. But it's also not "doctoring footage". But then Cassius Smoke hasn't weighed back in so we could be discussing something that isn't relevant because he may actually have meant that footage was doctored.

Edit: everyone who has seen the Rowdy Roddy Peeper episode of the Simpsons should know how this works.

Others will know more then I do, but as I understand he edited the footage to show different replys to questions he was asked. Probably to make him seem crazy.
Doctoring might have been a strong word for it, but it seems it was more then just editing.

[Dogg Thang]

Others will know more then I do, but as I understand he edited the footage to show different replys to questions he was asked. Probably to make him seem crazy.
Doctoring might have been a strong word for it, but it seems it was more then just editing.

Absolutely. I get you. If he is editing to make it look like an answer was matching a different question and so completely altering the meaning of the answer, that's a problem (I mean, personally I think all that misleading editing is a problem). Doesn't sound like integrity is his strong point.

[Cassius_Smoke]

Found an article that goes in to some detail of the bull**** Bashir was pulling.

https://medium.com/@idfcsabby/the-cruelty-of-martin-bashir-how-he-deceived-michael-jackson-b2bdadffd4d

[Brad]

Was the Jackson documentary criticised at the time and if so was the uncut footage made available at the time? I don’t remember much about it to be honest but I’m wondering if the bbc protected their reputation at the expense of journalistic integrity. I don’t want to pile on them if they were unaware but if they were aware then this is just a bit too much really and something needs doing.

[Neon Ignition]

Jackson released some rebuttal footage not long after the airing of the documentary, the media though was all over the place and back then there was much less reason to question Bashir's footage when what people saw of Jackson seemed so wrong. The reason I suspect things are so quiet on the Jackson documentary at the moment though is that it was made for ITV who had poached Bashir. Given what we now know of Bashir I wouldn't be surprised if ITV knew and if the claims about him doing the same here aren't also true and they don't want to get caught up in the same furore as the BBC is now. Apparently though, following the Diane report outcome, feeling a tad vindicated Jackson's estate plan to sue and re-pursue a similar push against Bashir.

Even to this day there's an immense amount of misinformation in the public sphere that sources back to the 90's newspaper etc reports off the back of this interview. You see the likes of Saville all the way through to that Noel Clarke instance of abuse and they're able to unearth modern or historical cases big and small and a sense of guilt is quick and usually easy to accept. With Jackson though there's so little concrete to actually pin him and not a single credible accuser which shouldn't be that hard to source given the amount of people around him and years he was supposedly actively abusing etc. Instead that most recent documentary showed an almost sickly obsession many have to a lynch mob mentality - not remotely interested in questioning clearly one sided and inconsistent information through sheer bias.

[Neon Ignition]

Lawsuits from two Michael Jackson accusers can move to trial, court rules | Michael Jackson | The Guardian
Here we go again

Will be interesting to see how ths pans out given the... whatever it was as it wasn't a documentary, contained several known events that didnt' happen

[Baseley09]

Pair of bullsh!tters imo. Stories as leaky as a seive.

[Wools]

There's no question Jackson was a troubled man and some of his behaviour was very questionable but I don't believe he's ever done anything wrong in the eyes of the law.

Obviously, unless any new evidence comes to light, and not just some blokes who say otherwise, we'll never know what really happened.

[Neon Ignition]

Given how poorly all their prior court efforts have gone it's hard to imagine much different will happen this time either. Presumably all the recorded footage will be called as well from the programme and if the final aired product was anything to go by then I could easily imagine it will work against them.

It's like we've discussed before, there's loads to dissect and disagree with when it comes to Jackson but there's loads of evidence he didn't do stuff and nothing to support he did and unlike in other instances where someone appears questionable Jackson has been extensively investigated. I remember the original documentary that sparked all of this and I've swayed from the original suspicions to be on the fence and as more years and information passes find myself tipping more in his favour, I feel like when it comes to Jackson the truth holds less value to most than the sensationalism