•
Since tabloid assassin and media mercenary Martin Bashir is in the news again, it seems timely to go into a little more background on this criminal and his cozy ties and allegiances with (MS)NBC, not to mention the similarities in the way these two entities (MSNBC and Bashir) operate.
Why spend so much time on this jerk? Well, this jerk was one of the big boots in Michael’s backside that helped send him careening into an early grave, that’s why. That Martin Bashir is a major part of the destruction and subsequent premature death of an innocent man is indisputable. The truth needs to be thoroughly and repeatedly exposed. Because truth is justice. Like Elvis once said: ”Truth is like the sun. You can shut it out for a time, but it ain’t goin’ away.”
Martin Bashir being his pretentious, backstabbing, pushy self as he lynches an unsuspecting Michael Jackson
I’ve mentioned before that after Bashir’s crock-umentary ‘Living With Michael Jackson‘ aired, NBC jerked Michael around about airing his rebuttal video: ‘Take Two: The Footage You Weren’t Meant to See‘, offering Michael $5 million to air the show and offering to cancel a scathing Dateline segment if Michael agreed. Michael refused and went with Fox to air his rebuttal footage. In retaliation, NBC not only aired the ‘Dateline‘ footage but also extended the program to 2 hours, and included segments about his plastic surgery and ties to gay porn producer Marc Shaffel (whom Michael fired the moment he found out what kind of films Shaffel produced).
To twist the knife further, NBC employed Victor Gutierrez as a consulting producer for the ‘Dateline‘ show. Why was this a nasty thing to do? Well, Victor was sued by Michael Jackson for $2.7 million for writing a slanderous book along with Evan Chandler called “Michael Jackson was My Lover“. Now, Michael is not a litigious person at all. He got sued more than he sued anyone and God knows Michael had lots of reasons to sue lots of people but he rarely did. So this book was obviously seen by Michael and obviously Michael deemed it enough of a threat to his image (serious defamation of character) that he felt he needed to sue. And, for once, the damn justice system worked and a judge agreed, awarding Michael the damages. However, Gutierrez never paid one red cent of it. Instead, he skipped the country and went to live in Brazil, where US authorities can’t make him pay it. Not that Michael needed the money, but it was about justice and vindication, not the money.
Think about this: Victor Gutierrez is the guy (MS)NBC got to produce their ‘Dateline‘ retaliatory hit piece on Michael. What does that tell you about the (non-existent) ethics of (MS)NBC? It tells me that they are very similar to Martin Bashir’s “ethics“. No surprise then, that the two will now share a bed in the media landscape, is it?
To help you learn more about MSNBC and Martin Bashir, here is Part I of researcher David Edwards’ own write-up on this subject:
The Connection Between Martin Bashir and (MS)NBC (Part I) by David Edwards
It seems that Martin Bashir is finally leaving ABC News after almost six years of “reporting” for their 20/20 and Nightline telecasts. Last week, it was revealed that Bashir will be joining NBC/MSNBC as a contributor to Dateline, and as a daily afternoon anchorman, respectively.
Bashir will likely replace David Shuster, who was suspended indefinitely in April 2010 for inappropriate behavior, and whose contract expires later this year.
While it may seem like Bashir voluntarily left ABC News, in all likelihood ABC News refused to renew his contract, but as a sign of professional courtesy they allowed Bashir to obtain another job first, and then let him spin the story to appear as if he left on his own terms. Similarly, Evan Chandler fired Gloria Allred for wanting to prosecute MJ in 1993. He had Larry Feldman break the news to her, and then she announced to the press that she was leaving on her own terms. In a statement, MSNBC President Phil Griffin called Bashir’s work “smart, original and thoughtful,” adding that he “couldn’t be happier to bring someone of his caliber to the network.”
I guess we could agree that Bashir’s work is pretty original. After all, can you name another journalist who has befriended not one, but two pop culture icons, lulled them into a sense of trust and security, only to take advantage of them and portray them in the worst possible light?
You would think that with that kind of resume, Bashir would be completely blacklisted within the news industry, right? Well, it seems that he’s being rewarded for his dirty deeds instead! But when you think about it, it’s only fitting that NBC would hire Bashir, because they have a horrible track record when it comes to bashing and trashing MJ! Here are a few examples:
After the Bashir crock-umentary aired in February 2003, MJ decided to air his rebuttal video “Take Two: The Footage You Weren’t Meant To See”, and since it was to be aired in time for February sweeps, all of the major networks were locked in a bidding war to get the footage. (Ratings sweeps occurs each February, May, July, and November, and this viewing information provides a basis the networks to set advertising rates. The higher the ratings, the higher the revenues! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nielsen_ratings#Sweeps). NBC offered MJ $5 million dollars to air the show, and in addition, they blackmailed MJ by offering to cancel a one-hour episode of “Dateline NBC” that would “investigate” the 1993 allegations. MJ went with Fox instead, and not only did NBC air the Dateline special, but they expanded it to two hours by adding in stories about MJ’s plastic surgery, and his ties to gay porn producer Marc Schaffel. http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/21/arts/television/21NBC.html
To add insult to injury, they hired Victor Gutierrez as a consulting producer for this episode as well. (http://site2.mjeol.com/mjeol-bullet/part2-more-lies-from-dateline-mjeol-bullet-192-b.html) This is the scumbag who teamed up with Evan Chandler to write the science fiction novel “Michael Jackson Was My Lover”. We call it science fiction because it came straight from Evan’s imagination. How could an organization that prides itself as a credible journalistic outlet hire one of MJ’s sworn enemies, who was ordered to pay him $2.7 million dollars being successfully sued for slander, to be associated with this Dateline episode? More information on this can be found in this blog post http://www.mj-777.com/?p=4290.
Another example of NBC trying to sully MJ’s reputation is the fact that one of their top correspondents, Rita Cosby, was the first to “break” the story that jurors Ray Hultman and Eleanor Cook were writing their “tell-all” book about MJ being guilty. Her new primetime TV show premiered in August 2005, and those two jurors were her first guests. She was roundly criticized by her colleagues in the media for being so gullible to even believe their stories, especially in light of the fact that two months earlier, they both unanimously agreed that MJ was innocent! As a matter of fact, she practically mocked Sneddon when she interviewed him and sarcastically asked him if he still believed MJ was guilty.
But can anyone blame her? After all, she was an up and coming reporter, and she needed a “big story” to lure in viewers and boost her ratings. And she has a history of trying to spread rumors about MJ in order to boost her career. (Gee, does that sound familiar?) For example, she erroneously reported that MJ converted to Islam after he hired members of the Nation of Islam as bodyguards. She has also used her show to give Jackson family “spokesmen” a platform to spew their worthless opinions about the case: http://site2.mjeol.com/mjeol-bullet/rita-cosby-out-after-jackson-coated-start-at-msnbc-%C2%96-minibullet-32.html
The Veritas Project, an explosive 95 page expose on the connection between the 1993 and 2005 allegations, includes an amazing flowchart that shows that many of the major players are involved in both cases, and how different media outlets (NBC included) are connected to those players. In addition to hiring Victor Guiterrez as a consultant to that Dateline episode, they also hired Diane Dimond for the Today Show, and Sherriff Jim Thomas as a consultant to the Jackson case. Maureen Orth was married to the late Tim Russert, who hosted “Meet The Press”, and was highly influential at NBC, so it wouldn’t surprise me if Orth used some of her clout to dictate how MJ would be portrayed. That outline is detailed here: http://vindicatemj.wordpress.com/veritas-project/
The filming of “Living With Michael Jackson”
Now, let’s discuss the chain of events that led up to Martin Bashir conning MJ to do the documentary. We’ll do a full “background check” on Bashir (something that MJ didn’t do, unfortunately), and discuss all of the events that happened before, during, and after the filming of “LYING To…..”, errrr, I mean, “Living With Michael Jackson”.
Before the filming of “Living With Michael Jackson”
In 2002, Michael Jackson was going through some hard times. His latest album “Invincible”, was a commercial flop (by his standards. It only sold 10 million copies worldwide, including 2 million in the USA). Due to disagreements with Sony Records, promotion of the album was severely limited. There were only two videos released (and MJ only appeared in one of them), and due to the September 11th attacks, any chance of a world tour was out of the question for security reasons. At that time, virtually all artists either cancelled or scaled back their tours. MJ felt that his album was sabotaged by Sony in order to ruin him financially, and force him to have to sell them his remaining 50% of the highly profitable Sony/ATV music catalogue. That conspiracy is discussed in detail in this article: http://mjthekingofpop.wordpress.com/2009/07/01/back-in-2002-why-invincible-became-invisible. So he went on a rampage against Sony, publicly denouncing CEO Tommy Mottola as a “racist” and “devilish” for conspiring against and taking advantage of his artists, primarily black artists like James Brown and Sammy Davis Jr.
MJ’s public perception was at an all time low, and he needed a way to improve his image and make himself more appealing to the younger generation, to whom the name “Michael Jackson” was usually only heard as the punch line of a joke. Martin Bashir, who had been wanting to interview MJ for years (just like every other journalist on the face of the earth), decided that he would contact MJ’s close friend, Uri Geller, and try to convince him (or pay him) to talk to MJ about the possibility of letting him do a “fair and positive” documentary. So Gellar recommended Bashir to MJ, and stressed the fact that Bashir was able to improve Princess Diana’s image after their 1995 interview. This was enough to convince MJ that Bashir could be trusted, so he agreed to the interview. In addition to improving MJ’s image, Bashir was also going to introduce MJ to Kofi Annan, the Secretary General of the United Nations at that time, in order to discuss ways to help disadvantaged children around the world, while all of the profits of the documentary would be given to charity.
However, there is some controversy as to whether Geller was truly objective when he recommended Bashir to MJ. According to Wikipedia, Geller allegedly turned down another bid to do the documentary from Louis Theroux, another British Journalist. It seems that Michael’s life was up for auction. Last July, MJ’s longtime dermatologist and professional backstabber Dr. Arnold Klein was interviewed by Larry King, and he said that Bashir (or ITV, his employer) paid $200k to Geller to convince Michael to let Bashir do the documentary. In January 2010, Geller filed a slander lawsuit against CNN after they refused to apologize to him for letting Klein imply that he sold Michael out. That lawsuit is still pending.
So what really happened? Were there any other journalists who were even considered? And why didn’t Michael do a complete background check on Bashir before he agreed to do the interview? If he had, he would have known that Bashir had been officially reprimanded for unfair journalistic practices. In 2000, there was a girl who went missing in England, and was later found. But before she was reunited with her family, Bashir managed to get the very first interview with her father, which was shot before the reunion. After it aired, the father filed a complaint that guess what Bashir misled him by promising to give him info about the whereabouts of his daughter in return for conducting the interview and (as a prelude of things to come) that he had been denied a chance to approve the program before it aired. Not surprisingly, the same M.O. of manipulations that Bashir pulled with Michael Jackson. The Broadcasting Standards Commission ruled that Bashir “misled the father about the nature of the program so that he would agree to be interviewed”. Again, sound familiar? I’m sure Michael would have immediately rejected Bashir if he had researched this.
There also seems to be some controversy as to how Bashir was able to get the Diana interview. This article mentions how Bashir hired a graphic artist to falsify the bank statements of Diana’s brother’s head of security in order to blackmail her into doing the interview. Bashir acknowledged their existence but insisted that they had never been used, and the disk that they were saved on just “disappeared”. Bashir also questioned Diana about a rumored affair that she was having with her horse riding instructor James Hewitt. When she casually admitted that she “loved him”, it implied that she was indeed having an affair, and she also implied that Prince Charles could be cheating as well, and they subsequently divorced in December 1995. I guess Bashir just has a habit of ruining people’s lives.
Apparently, I’m not the only person who thinks Bashir ruins lives. Princess Fergie, the Duchess of York, claims that Bashir tricked Diana into doing that interview. He followed the same M.O. he did with Michael: he lured her into a comfort zone, and then got her to expose her deepest secrets about her marriage. She also blasted Bashir for his deceptive interview with Michael, and for not showing all of the footage. And most recently, Bashir tricked P. Diddy into doing an interview last week as well, where he was extremely condescending to Diddy.
Another interesting point is that Bashir spent 5 years trying to interview Michael, which probably means he started courting him around 1996-97. And not only did he refuse to give MJ final approval of the documentary, he also reneged on a promise to not show his children at all. This is a very important revelation. Remember, Bashir was with Michael during the “baby dangling” incident, and the second most disturbing part of the documentary (besides MJ & Gavin holding hands – which was suggested by Bashir and not Michal’s idea) is watching Michael nervously bottle feed Blanket after he dangled him. He was shaking and fidgeting, and MJ haters such as Gloria Allred and Carole Lieberman (who tried to use “phantom victim” Daniel Kapon to sue Michael for millions) have used that scene to paint MJ as an unfit father who can’t even properly feed his infant son. These women insisted that Michael should therefore lose custody of his kids.
Notice the complaints against Bashir made by George Best & Max Clifford in this article. With such a terrible reputation, it’s no wonder the article stated that when Bashir receives industry awards, there is barely a ripple of applause from his peers. Lastly, according the MJ attorney David LeGrand (whose testimony is included later on in this piece), Michael signed two, one paragraph contracts that were neither specific nor detailed, as such contracts usually are. If Bashir had any integrity, he would have at least drawn up a more professional contract. Those contracts should have been at least 10 pages long, and should have been thoroughly reviewed by Michael’s legal team! Of course, the MJEOL fansite had a lot to say about Bashir after he was hired by ABC to host Nightline
During the filming of “Living With Michael Jackson”
Now, for Bashir’s actions during he filming of the documentary, Aphrodite Jones stated in a radio interview that it was Martin Bashir’s idea to have Gavin lay his head on Michael’s shoulder and hold Michael’s hand during the filming, while Michael talked about sharing his bedroom with children. Unbeknownst to Michael at the time, Bashir asked Gavin prior to the interview to do that to further give the impression of something untoward going on. Aphrodite Jones reveals this while giving an interview promoting her Michael Jackson special on ID (Investigation Discovery). This interview is around 35 minutes long, and at the 19 minute mark, Aphrodite talks about how Bashir told Gavin to lean his head on MJ’s shoulder. At the 23:30 mark, she talks about how Bashir told Gavin to hold MJ’s hand, in order to insinuate that something improper was going on. She discusses this in more detail in this interview as well, starting at the 1 hour 07 minute mark.
Bashir also suggested that MJ invite a group of kids to Neverland in order to give viewers the impression that Neverland was a very fun and safe place for them to go and hang out at, but when the documentary aired, Bashir deceptively narrates that “Neverland is a dangerous place for vulnerable children” while showing the children who were invited. And if that wasn’t bad enough, there was the scene in Germany where MJ tried to take his children to a local zoo to learn about nature, and give them a chance to get out of their hotel room. Prior to going to the zoo, MJ’s team notified the zoo that he would be visiting, and they requested that the zoo be closed to the public so that MJ and his kids could have privacy, and they agreed. When MJ finally made it to the zoo, they had not closed it to the public as had been agreed, and he was absolutely mobbed by fans while his kids nervously held his hand.
It was a misunderstanding between MJ and the zoo as to when the zoo would actually close. The press was tipped off about MJ’s appearance, and it wouldn’t surprise me if Bashir himself was responsible for the leak. When MJ aired his rebuttal video, you can see clearly that MJ did indeed request that the zoo be closed down, and Bashir was fully aware of this but conveniently chose to ignore it, and instead give his insidious commentary about MJ not being aware of the “danger” his children were in.
(Zoo visit @ 6:45)
(MJ’s zoo rebuttal begins @ 4:00)
Keep an eye on this space. Part II to follow this weekend!
_ _ _
{ Thanks to David Edwards for this great piece of research. -Seven }
July 30th, 2010 4:30 am
I think I watched this several dozens of times, and every time, you feel the evil twisted betrayal of Bashir. Unbelievable!! How could this man live with himself? If he had any dignity at all, he should remove himself from public view. Thank you Seven for this work. Our love for Michael just grows day by day.
July 30th, 2010 4:32 am
Thanks Seven,
I had already read this on David Edwards’ blog and it’s just brilliant, a must-read for everyone. Of course it leaves you in need of an antacid (at the very least) afterwards, because, frankly, anything about Mr. Bashit is just simply disturbing.
As outraged and disgusted and grieving as I am, I like to recall one of Michael’s CUTEST ever moments imho, which was just in the middle of the crockumentary ….. Michael, incredulous and quite adorable: “You DON’T climb trees?” and Bashir goes “No”, very condescending and pompous as if he’s dealing with this dumb kid.
Michael, totally matter-of-factly: “YOU’ RE MISSING OUT”.
For some reason this exchange of opinions soothes my heart – but at the same time it is devastatingly revealing of the truth about the two persons – one is an Angel, the other is a pathetic excuse for a man.
Sometimes this world is hard to live in, is all I’m saying. Things just don’t go the way they should.
July 30th, 2010 4:42 am
Simona,
It is definitely a must-read and we should thank David for his work in researching and writing it (tho I wrote the intro and did some editing). We appreciate him sharing the piece and allowing us to share it on our blogs as well! The more it’s out there the better. AllForLoveBlog has it too. http://allforloveblog.com/?p=3208
July 30th, 2010 7:57 am
I think the child inside Martin Bashir is either hurt or wasn’t growing up in a good place!
Anyways, this is very very sad and disgusting. i know if I had done that intentionally or unintentionally, i would be so gripped up by the guilt that I would cut my wrists and die :/ This was bad, and for a man like Michael, this was very very very very sad. I know he got his heart broken once and again and again and again. Lord please help them!!!Open their eyes….
Thank you Seven and Edwards too…:)
July 30th, 2010 9:16 am
The glaring TRUTH is that Bashir’s end product publicly divulges more about Bashir himself, the demon, than anything else.
July 30th, 2010 9:20 am
As more people are becoming aware, the glaring TRUTH comes to light that Bashir’s end product publicly divulges more about Bashir himself, the demon, than anything else.
July 30th, 2010 9:24 am
Seven, this man makes me want to puke. Quite simply his tactics and deceit are so low that he has actually instilled hatred in so many of Michael’s outraged admirers. NBC will learn in time that this manipulative creep brings with him a whole host of baggage. He can’t escape his destiny because he is its architect. Wherever he goes there will be complaints and boycotts of the network. Sponsors of his shows will lose sales.
The day that Michael died was the day that Bashir’s career died. I hope that networks are hounded wherever he goes and reminded that he is a huge liability. Even an unethical one such as NBC still likes ratings and revenue. He set into action a chain of events that destroyed Michael and brought him unbelievable agony. How does this sociopath live with himself?
July 30th, 2010 1:07 pm
Bashier is very, very evil, Seven. In the first interview, that in which Michael was with his green shirt, blue shirt, I don’t know, Bashier pretended to be so kind, so sensitive to Michael’s love for children. He even said that he had no words to describe Neverland and everything, and that it was wonderful to see Michael with Prince and Paris. Of course, in the first interview, He had to seduce Michael. Then, in the last interview he is very, very rude to Michael and kept talking only about things that Michael didn’t like to talk about (plastic surgery and the 93 allegations, etc). What he did to Michael is unforgiveble! I’m not surprise that Michael trusted him, he is very smart, he lies and knows how to deceive. He started killing Michael, Seven, because, in my opinion, that trial was the most difficult time in Michael’s life. I remember, he was almost always smiling, but we could see that he was hurt inside. And then I remember that interview he gave to 60 minutes in 2003. It broke my heart to see him so sad, so frightened. Bashier is one of the most evil people I’ve ever seen. He should regret for what he did, if he had conscience, but I think he doesn’t.God bless you, Seven, for you are always telling the truth about our Michael and especially about the vultures in his life.
July 30th, 2010 3:19 pm
Bashir is no journalist – he’s just a SCUMBAG masquerading as one.
July 30th, 2010 7:55 pm
According to 2 interesting linked articles about bashir and diana, bashir spent some months trying to persuade Diana to give him an interview, and it was at a time when she was in a very emotional and distressed state. it sounds as if it was bashir driving it not Diana, despite it being mainly reported she wanted to retaliate against charles.
the second article from royal anecdotes suggests that bashir was also involved in the campaign to make her more insecure and destabilise her, by malicious whispering about conspiracies against her and charles’s affairs. i don’t know if thats true obviously but its interesting this was said, because its not by anyone with any known allegiance to Michael.
Daily mail article by Richard Kay and Geoffrey Levy, 4th October 2007
and
http://www.royalanecdotes.com/2007/10/04was-diana-spooked-by-bashir
(sorry, i don’t know how to post a link)
in my searching i also came across info that Sarah Ferguson, duchess of york, gave an interview to ABC ! a years ago, about 1996 i think, in which she said that Diana would never had said many of the things she did if bashir hadn’t tricked her.
so in media circles it was well known long before LWMJ and long before that 2000 complaint and reprimand by press complaints that bashir was a snake, so the producers must have known what bashir would give them on Michael before it ever happened, did they even tell him what story to get on Michael?? they certainly chose him for it, and if not they would surely have known what he was working on getting long before it happened.
i wonder what he’s promised to MSNBC? who else’s downfall is he plotting for megabucks?
July 31st, 2010 12:21 am
How was Bashir to top the Diana interview? How was he going prove he hadn’t just got lucky? An interview with Michael Jackson would put to rest these questions.
But hanging out with Mike and seeing he was at heart a simple soul and (when you factor in his incredible fame and fortune) into relatively boring, everyday things, this wasn’t going to make much of an impact for his documentary. His pursuit of Mike for 5 years and months of following him around the globe couldn’t amount to a ‘puff piece’; his reputation would take a dive.
I suspect Bashir may even have been envious of the love and deference Mike was shown wherever he went. He may have coveted his professional success and the wealth Mike could generate at will. He may even have looked at his own nose and skin colour and thought it was of the type Mike somehow rejected. Mike had a huge family and grew up around talent and success while Bashir’s upbringing was relatively poor, his own work went unrecognised until the Diana interview and his brother was suffering and wasting away before them for years. Mike’s generosity and deep valuing of others and aspects of life others take for granted or reject, would have threatened his own sense of being on a deep level.
Maybe it was just pure ambition and unprecedented opportunism that made Bashir and James Goldston (the editor) decide to exploit Mike’s vulnerability and trust. After all, it was going to be so easy. He was practically begging them to do it, wasn’t he? No serious journalist would give up that opportunity would they? I’ve read that he even cavalierly said that Mike knew what he was getting into when he signed the agreements.
When the fallout began from LWMJ he was nowhere to be seen. He must have been approached for interviews but that might mean being exposed for the cretin he was and he was being pursued for breaching many aspects of the agreement which he would not want to bring attention to. Besides, LWMJ’s incredible ratings afforded him and Goldston to leave Britain where he’d come to be despised and break into the American TV market.
When called as a witness in the trial he hid behind Shield Law and a gaggle of lawyers. Since Michael’s death he’s had the temerity to comment on Mike as though it was the most natural thing in the world for him to be doing so and as though his hands were clean.
Martin Bashir and James Goldston, a package deal ABC, are parting ways now it seems, however both these men are aberrations to journalistic integrity and should be, at last, put under the spotlight. In my opinion they have greatly contributed to the damaging, entertainment style of news that now pervades the industry and need to be held accountable for their actions. Even the This Is It movie is yet another snow-job in the Bashir/Goldston tradition. And why not, eh? It worked before, didn’t it?
July 31st, 2010 2:34 am
I won’t even dignify that scum by mentioning him. My concern is this: Don’t know who wrote the line about “Invincible” being a “commercial flop by MJ’s standards”,but Michael NEVER said that,and in fact,made it clear in his 2005 Geraldo Rivera interview that ALL his albums have sold well. “Invincible”,in my opinion,is brilliant,as all of MJ’s albums were. Today,people make a big deal when an “artist”(term used loosely these days) sells 2 million. As with “Off the Wall”,which sold 10 million initially,all of Michael’s albums have sold well. The idiots who keep calling “Invincible” a “commercial flop” are the ones stupid enough to compare it to the phenomenal,never-ending sales of “Thriller” -which NO ONE will ever match as long as the earth remains.
July 31st, 2010 6:06 am
Denise,
those are my sentiments EXACTLY! Invincible was nothing like a commercial flop, for goodness sake, this is just the kind of attitude that gets me MAD, it’s never ending, it’s everywhere, THEY cling to anything as long as it can cast the humptenth shadow on Michael, the’ve always had and always will, facts are nothing to these people, they have to go on and on with their sick Mantra of idiocies and inaccuracies (well, if it were simple inaccuracies….). And I only wish I was as strong as Michael was. He rose well above their shallowness…..
July 31st, 2010 6:45 am
@ Denise
I wrote the piece about Bashir, and I did include the line that Invincible “was a commercial flop”. It was not meant to be disrespectful in any way, shape, or form. But it definitely did underperform, and this was entirely due to Sony’s refusal to support and promote it. No matter how big an artist is, his albums MUST be promoted with music videos, concerts, special appearances, etc. If the “Thriller” album didn’t have the videos for Beat It, Billie Jean, and Thriller, how many copies would it have sold?
I wasn’t comparing it to “Thriller”, because no album will ever outsell it. But it sold very poorly, especially in the USA, where I believe it only went double platinum. With the right promotion, it should have sold at least 5-8 million copies in the USA, minimum! I heard that there were supposed to be videos for Butterflies, Speechless, Break of Dawn, and Unbreakable, but none of them came to fruition. And for some strange reason, he wasn’t included in the “Cry” video, and I think it could have been due to creative differences or something.
Basically, I was just trying to say that if any other “artist” sold 2 million records in the USA, and 10 million total worldwide, that would be a success, but for MJ it’s a disappointment. But I wasn’t blaming MJ, I was blaming Sony! And I think the album’s poor performance, plus his dispute with Sony and the subsequent bad publicity, made him more susceptible to Bashir’s lies about improving his public image.
July 31st, 2010 9:30 am
@ David: It would have been better to say some considered it a commercial flop and then name your sources for that information.
The point is that “Invincible” wasn’t a flop by any measure–commercial or artistic. These absurd comments will eventually stop being made by everyone. MJ was an artist whose works sold to varying degrees–all successfully–period. He said many times the numbers sold were less important than whether he felt he had challenged himself as an artist. He must have known some of his work–especially when he was being political–wouldn’t be as popular as others. It’s a critic’s job to trash/praise an artist’s work and our job to agree or not. Objective reporting wouldn’t include the world “flop” in any description of a Jackson album, though.
July 31st, 2010 3:53 pm
@ TLS
I know what you’re trying to say, and like I said I didn’t mean any disrespect when I said it was a “flop”. In retrospect, maybe that was too strong of a word to use, and I should have used the term “disappointment” instead.
But the fact of the matter is: ENTIRELY due to Sony’s refusal to support the album, it didn’t perform to expectations -neither MJ’s or Sony’s. I think this made MJ more vulnerable to Bashir’s deception. MJ agreed to let Bashir film the documentary so that Bashir could “improve his image the same way he improved Princess Diana’s image”, and increasing his record sales (and cash flow) would have been the end result of an improved public image. So the documentary was a “means to an end”.
If “Invincible” had been properly supported by Sony, and met or exceeded their expectations, then MJ wouldn’t have felt the need to hire Bashir to “improve his image”.
August 1st, 2010 7:18 am
David,
I agree with you in everything you said. That’s why I got very sad when I heard that Sony will now release Michael’s songs, Michael’s videos and etc. I love Michael and all his work and I’m glad to know that maybe we’ll have new songs and etc. It’s very important to continue his legacy, but what Sony did to Michael by the time of Invincible was horrible. Why didn’t they promote Invincible the same way they want to do now? Invincible has beautiful songs, but they wanted to tear Michael down…
August 2nd, 2010 9:45 pm
I’m sorry, but I’m not going to let this slide. You can state as a fact that Sony did not promote Invincible. And you can say as a fact that MJ found fault with Sony (one of the very few times he was ever critical of anyone) for not doing their job. But you cannot say for a fact that Invincible was a disappointment. Jackson was proud of it, and fans bought millions of copies. And what everyone also needs to stop saying is that Martin Bashir’s TV program was a documentary. You can say for a fact that it was a TV program, but by no stretch of any definition of the word “documentary” does that description apply. A documentary is a FACTUAL record or report. When Bashir wasn’t twisting and manipulating the truth, he was outright opining–giving his own opinions, thoughts and feelings and presenting it as a “documentary.” It’s so blatantly non-objective, Bashir should be ashamed, but one wonders if his grasp of that word is as weak as his understanding of “truth” or “facts” or “documentary.” His work is an embarrassment, period.
August 3rd, 2010 3:22 am
@ TLS
You’re right, Bashir’s work was not a documentary, it was science fiction! In no way was I trying to give it honor by referring to it as a documentary.
As for “Invincible”, I personally liked the album, and I never meant to imply that it was an artistic disappointment. I only meant that it was a commercial disappointment, meaning that it did not meet it’s sales potential, and that’s strictly due to Sony. I’m sorry if I gave you the wrong impression when I said it “flopped”, because that was too strong of a word, and it probably gave you the impression that I meant it was a bad album artistically, when that couldn’t be further from the truth.
August 3rd, 2010 11:58 am
@David
I’m sorry if I seem to be bashing you; that’s not my intent. I know your heart is in the right place and your command of the facts surrounding MJ is admirable.
I’m only asking you to consider the impact of the language you choose to convey those facts. And I guess the big question here is when we’re writing about the man’s legacy, why is there a different measure of success for Jackson than other performers? I believe this was a weapon used against him throughout his life by those wishing to undermine or profit from him. The lies and distortions surrounding MJ’s life and work exist through endless repetition. Perhaps only endless repetition of a more accurate picture will undo them. So please excuse me if my repetitiveness is tiresome; I can’t help it. Here goes:
A completely accurate description of Invincible sales would be “Despite Sony’s refusal to promote the album, it sold extremely well, earning double platinum status domestically and selling 8 more million copies worldwide.” The “commercial disappointment” statement contributes to the “washed-upped has-been” of tabloid fodder we’re all so familiar with–an image that was thoroughly discredited when millions worldwide mourned his passing. The deliberate distortion of facts caused Jackson such pain, even when it was subtle and had some element of truth, that I feel every opportunity to correct it should be seized upon. I wish I’d focussed more on this while he was alive.
Thanks for all your efforts; it’s a pleasure to read any account that attempts to correct the record.
August 3rd, 2010 6:35 pm
@ TLS
I know you’re not bashing me, and I think that we’re both right in our own way, but we’re just having a friendly disagreement on this issue. Your assessment is dead on! Invincible was a commercial success in that it sold 10 million with limited promotion. But still, what motivated MJ to feel that he had to improve his image? If he was truly satisfied with the album, would he have felt the need to hire Bashir? I’m just trying to say that there is a direct correlation between this album’s performance, and MJ’s decision to allow Bashir to film his documentary. Remember, Bashir promised (among other things) that he would repair MJ’s image the same way he repaired Princess Diana’s image.
And also, MJ said that Sony deliberately sabotaged the album in order to wreck his finances and force him to sell his remaining share in the Beatles catalogue. MJ must have thought that improving his image would lead to more record sales, which would lead to more revenue, which would improve his financial standing!
In no way, shape, or form did I mean to imply that MJ was “washed-up”. The album sold greatly, but still could have sold more if not for Sony. So from that standpoint, it was a commercial disappointment (but it was NOT a flop!).
Seven, what are your thoughts on this issue?
August 3rd, 2010 7:17 pm
Hi David and TLS,
In regards to Bash-Ear potentially improving Michael’s image (which he did the exact opposite, only damaging it further) – it could have been the prior years of negative medialoid coverage and constant ridicule and constant negative definitions of Michael from them, along with the continued aftermath from the 1993 allegations – that led Michael to allow Bash-Ear to film his hit piece (pretentiously to ‘repair’ Michael’s image). I’d think it would be that factor as much as he sales (or lack thereof) of Invincible that may have caused Michael to allow Bash-Ear to film him his lynch-piece in hopes of repairing his (MJ’s) image.
I also think you are both correct about Invincible and that TLS didn’t have a problem with what you wrote, David, but rather the way you wrote it. We all understand that Invincible was a blazing success by most ‘normal’ people’s standards, while being not so much by Michael’s standards, and that $ony is certainly to blame for that. Changing the narrative about that (which I think TLS is advocating) would mean not calling it a ‘flop’, but rather calling it what it was – a commercial success – with the caveat that it would have been moreso if $ony had not refused to promote it properly.
Does that make sense? And I must say, in tandem with TLS, how much I appreciate your research and writing David! I’m so grateful that you’ve done so much work and to be able to include it here because it’s such important information – semantics aside!
August 3rd, 2010 8:33 pm
Unforgivable and never to be forgotten.
Its a misconception that Bashir did anything good for Diana’s reputation.
It was quite the opposite, he lured Diana into telling more than was good for her. Maybe she gained some sympathy, but in the long run she lost a part of the publics sympathy because of her confessions.
Cant compare Diana to Michael anyway, Diana s image problems were nowhere near Michaels.
CD sales were one of Michaels lesser worries. I think ratings would bother him less than the w**** J*** image that the media had created, and especially the suspicions about his interaction with children.
Michael was very proud of Invincible. The way he spoke about it, he saw the album as one of his best work. Dont we agree?
August 4th, 2010 5:48 am
@ Seven & TLS
Thanks for the comments! This has been a learning experience for me, and in the future I’ll be more careful with how I word my articles. I just used the wrong choice of words. And you’re right Seven, the years of “Wacko Jacko” coverage made MJ vulnerable to Bashir’s lies, and I should have included that as well.
August 4th, 2010 10:19 am
@Sina
I agree that record sales probably weren’t foremost in MJ’s mind when he agreed to the Bashir interviews. His motives can only be speculated about. However, doing interviews to boost sales doesn’t sound like him. He hadn’t done that before; using Bashir for that purpose sounds opportunistic in a way that doesn’t fit what we know about Jackson.
Again, purely speculating, I believe he’d been convinced by those he trusted, as well as by experiences that were clearly mistakes (not insisting on legal exoneration in the Chandler swindle, for example), that he finally had to let the public see his true self.
Perhaps he felt the only way that could be accomplished was to expand the interviews and increase access. (The more limited interview with Oprah did little to present the truth. He actually revealed in it that he had vitiligo, but that didn’t stop the “bleaching his skin” comments. I’m incensed that just after his death, Katie Couric repeated the lie yet again.)
That MJ so completely trusted a snake like Bashir is heartbreaking. But we can’t forget the EXTENT to which Bashir misled him. MJ wasn’t the only one who trusted him. Remember the “footage you weren’t meant to see” that included his makeup artist, Karen Faye? She’s leaning lovingly on Michael while expressing her sadness that MJ was never accurately depicted as the kind, giving person he was. Bashir seduced them both into trusting him.
The only comfort I take in any of it is that Bashir will go down in history as a Judas, when he could have been remembered forever for being the only journalist to capture the true personality of the 20th Century’s greatest performer. Whether Bashir ever acknowledges it, we all know it wasn’t worth the 30 pieces of silver he got instead.
August 5th, 2010 8:02 pm
TLS, I totally agree, despite Michaels problems with sony over Invincible, I dont believe that he would ever go as far as to allow Bashir in his personal life just for record sales. And on those conditions (that prove Michaels trust in people but also the amateurism of his PR staff.)
Michael is said to have been very sensitive to how the public saw him and at the time the media had made his name synonymous to weird, freak, and what not and the mocking was on an all time low.
So its legitimate that he would want to set the record straight and show the public who he really was.
He didnt handpick Bashir, but he trusted(again)his ‘friend’ Gellers well paid advise.
Michael had very bad advisors, financially, PR wise and on legal matters. They left behind a trail of disaster on Michaels account.
Sadly Bashir was not the last evil in the line.
Now that you mention Bashir being a Judas Im thinking maybe thats what Theroux was talking about in a phonecall he had with Michael and that he wrote an article about. I will look it up.
And Judas is exactly what Bashir will be remembered for, even by his own collegues.
August 6th, 2010 3:15 pm
Guess what guys? I found ANOTHER article on Bashir’s falsified statements that I truly wish I had found earlier while researching this piece. In this excerpt, it is confirmed that the bank statements were indeed FALSIFIED, but they were not used to help secure the interview with Diana. Whatever!
“Mr Bashir worked on the Venables programme with the same designer who claimed to have made up documents to the presenter’s orders in the run- up to the Princess of Wales interview. The BBC has admitted two bank statements were falsified. So far, it has refused to explain why they were created, except to stress they were not used to secure the interview with the Princess.”
http://community.mjeol.com/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=3332&p=61177
Seven, you should save this article for your records, and the next time you bash Bashir in a post, be sure to use it! Thanks!
August 9th, 2010 8:15 pm
Just say no to MSNBC – all of it. Don’t watch ANY programs on the station, don’t click on any links for it. Please, the only thing that matters to them is ratings. Don’t let them count you. Watch PBS and cartoons (not the Simpsons, not South Park)like Micheal did. Please resist these stations that so crucified Michael.