•
'Birds' of a Feather Bed Together
As promised, here is Part II of David Edwards’ research and write-up on the connection between Martin Bashir and (MS)NBC: the background and history of that network’s and Martin Bashir’s backstabbing, mercenary-like media and “journalism” techniques. Given both of their modus operandi, it’s not surprising that they will now bed together at (MS)NBC. Part I of the piece was presented on MJJ-777 yesterday.
The Connection Between Martin Bashir and (MS)NBC (Part II) by David Edwards
After the filming of “Living With Michael Jackson”
When the documentary aired in February 2003, there was an immediate backlash against Michael. Judging by the press reaction, you would think that the only thing that Michael did was talk about sharing his bed with children. Shortly after it aired, Prevent Child Abuse America, the largest nationwide organization devoted to child abuse prevention, asked Santa Barbara authorities to investigate Michael, and Sneddon giddily complied. In my opinion, this was a perfectly fair request. This is a legitimate organization that is passionate about their cause, and they erred on the side of caution with Michael. They didn’t try to capitalize off Michael by using him as a fundraising tool, or to gain attention for themselves, unlike some other child abuse prevention organizations like Road To Recovery and Stop It Now, which have received backlash from Michael Jackson fans for exploiting his name.
So after the investigation was completed by the Department of Family and Children’s Services on February 27th, 2003, they issued their report and noted that charges of molestation were “unfounded”. Notice how Janet Arvizo says that the media had “taken everything out of context.”
During the height of the controversy, Bashir was interviewed by ABC News’ Chris Wallace, and defended his hit piece. At the 5:15 mark, Wallace asked Bashir if Michael did anything to try to stop the broadcast, and Bashir gleefully answers that Michael’s legal team “didn’t have a leg to stand on”. This is because the contract was so poorly written that it didn’t specifically prevent the airing of the documentary without Michael’s approval, so Michael’s only course of action was to sue Bashir for breach of contract. If he had any integrity he would have let Michael vet the program with or without it being explicitly stated in the contract. It’s too bad that Wallace didn’t ask Bashir why he didn’t allow Michael to vet the program before it aired! I would have loved to hear his answer!
In this article, published shortly after the documentary aired, Bashir expressed no remorse whatsoever for what he’d done. He had the audacity to say that he hopes the negative publicity “makes Michael more careful” with the way he interacts with children. He also lied and said that Michael and Gavin “volunteered” their bed sharing, when in reality Bashir forced them into that topic! Michael and Gavin thought they were being interviewed to discuss Gavin’s victory over cancer! He also said that his documentary was “fair to his musical achievement” and believe it or not that’s true. Bashir didn’t dare meddle Michael’s record of musical talent and achievements, but the deftly edited hit piece wasn’t fair to Michael as a human being. He admits to shooting 10 hours of footage over the 8 months he was with Michael (but refused to answer this question under oath). Perhaps one day Bashir will change of heart, and present the remaining footage in an honest & fair documentary, but I’m not holding my breath for it!
And if you think that Bashir stopped bashing Michael after “Living With Michael Jackson”, think again! In February 2005, just in time for the ratings sweeps, he produced “Michael Jackson’s Secret World”. The program focused on all of his “special friends” like Macaulay Culkin, Jimmy Safechuck, and Corey Feldman. Of course, Bashir called on his partners in crime Raymond Chandler, Diane Dimond, Wendy Murphy, and Maureen Orth for their worthless opinions. But to be fair and balanced, he also included LaToya Jackson and J. Randy Taraborrelli to defend Michael. Here is an excerpt from an article which that sums up the intentions that Bashir and ABC News had for the documentary:
British television interviewer Martin Bashir, whose documentary “Living With Michael Jackson” led to the current molestation charges against the entertainer, is putting the finishing touches to another film which is reported to be equally damaging to Jackson.
The following videos from the excellent YouTube series “What Did Happen To Michael Jackson” by LunaJo67 contain some clips from the special. At the 7:00 minute mark in Part 39, Bashir talks about Michael’s relationship with Corey Feldman. He brings up the time when Feldman was at Michael’s apartment, and Michael showed him the book with nude photos of men & women with STD’s. But what Bashir doesn’t tell you is that it was Feldman who initiated the conversation by first noticing the book on Michael’s coffee table, and then ASKING Michael to tell him about the book. By leaving out that important piece of info, Bashir implies that Michael took the initiative to show Feldman these photos for his own devious reasons and of course that is far from the truth.
What Did Happen to Michael Jackson, Part 39
I found an article that proves that Corey Feldman is a two-faced hypocrite. He complained that Michael acted inappropriately by showing him that book at such a young age, but in this interview he brags about hanging out at the Playboy Mansion as a teen! I wonder if he’d beat up Hugh Hefner if his own son was allowed in there, the same way he threatened to beat up Michael if he showed his son a health book.
In part 40 o JunaLo’s video series, Bashir lied and said Michael’s settlement was $25 million, which is waaayyy overblown! And at the 6:00 mark, he brings up Gavin’s accusations. You’ll see quack psychologist Carole Lieberman talking about how seeing Gavin resting his head on Michael’s shoulder sent “chills up her spine” (which is exactly the reaction Bashir was hoping for when he told Gavin to place his head there prior to the start of the interview).
Fortunately LunaJo67 immediately shows the portion of the rebuttal tape where Gavin and Janet openly mock that scene!
What Did Happen to Michael Jackson, Part 40
Now, during the trial some of Michael’s lawyers testified about the legal steps they tried to take to stop the documentary from airing, and how Bashir & Co. refused to abide by Michael’s request to not air it, but they nicely “conceded” that they wouldn’t sell it on DVD, and they would obscure the faces of Michael’s kids. This leads me to believe that if Michael had not taken any legal action, Bashir was prepared to fully reneg on his promise to avoid showing their faces, and he would have exposed their identities to the world for the first time much against Michael’s wishes. Martin Bashir is obviously quite a backstabber, if you hadn’t noticed!
During the trial, Bashir was one of the very first witnesses called by Sneddon, and he truly acted like the coward that he is. He barely spoke above a whisper so that Michael himself had to tell him to speak up. He hid behind a California Journalist Shield Law that allows journalists to not reveal their sources or methods of investigating news stories under oath, and he was nearly held in contempt of court for not answering all of the questions that Mesereau threw at him. To say that Martin Bashir is a snake is too complimentary.
Below is a partial transcript of all of Bashir’s testimony. After skimming through it, I can clearly see how the slithering, cowardly Bashir hid behind the shield law in order to avoid answering even the most basic of questions. Here is Mesereau’s cross examination:
This is a good website because it has the transcripts of virtually everyone who testified. There are also links to a Jordan Chandler & Conrad Murray website as well.)
Q. At some point in time, you made an effort to
13 contact Mr. Jackson about doing this show, correct.
14 A. That is correct.
15 Q. And approximately when was that.
16 A. I think it was around April 2002.
17 Q. And you contacted someone named Uri Geller,
18 correct.
MR. MESEREAU: Your Honor, I would move for
24 sanctions against the witness. Or I would move to
25 strike all of his testimony, including the
26 prosecution’s playing of this tape, if he refuses to
27 be cross-examined.
28 THE COURT: The way I would like to proceed (233)
1 with this is that he — he does have some protection
2 under the shield law that his counsel has been
3 pointing out. That protection is against contempt
4 of court.
5 What I think I’ll do is let you ask him the
6 questions, let his attorney make the objections, let
7 him decide whether he’s going to answer. And then
8 I’ll make a record — we have a record of those
9 questions, and then I’ll review them later to
10 determine whether or not I feel a contempt charge
11 should be issued. It’s really a ticklish area of
12 the law.
13 MR. MESEREAU: Thank you, Your Honor.
14 Q. Mr. Bashir, you outlined some qualifications
15 you have in the world of journalism, correct.
16 A. I didn’t outline any qualifications, sir. I
17 just referred to the chronology of my career.
18 Q. Did you mean, when you did that, to explain
19 that you’re a qualified professional journalist.
20 A. I meant simply to explain my career
21 chronologically, sir.
22 Q. Do you consider yourself as a professional
23 journalist.
24 A. I do, sir.
25 Q. Do you consider yourself a professional
26 journalist because you’ve had certain experience in
27 journalism.
28 A. I do, sir. (234)
1 Q. Do you consider yourself to be a
2 professional journalist because you’re educated in
3 the world of journalism.
4 A. My academic studies were not in journalism.
5 They were in the arts and humanities. So I don’t
6 have a formal qualification, if that’s what you’re
7 asking, sir, but I have the experience that comes
8 with working in the profession.
9 Q. Now, as a journalist in England, you are
10 regulated by a certain administrative agency,
11 correct.
12 A. Could you repeat the question.
13 Q. Sure. Is there an organization or an
14 administrative agency that goes by a title somewhat
15 like British Broadcasting Standards Board.
16 A. There is an organization called the
17 Broadcasting Complaints Commission. Would you be
18 referring to that.
19 Q. I think I am. Do you work with that
20 organization in any capacity.
21 A. That organization doesn’t employ
22 journalists.
23 Q. Have you been sanctioned by that
24 organization.
25 A. Could you repeat the question.
26 Q. Have you been sanctioned by that
27 organization.
28 A. By the Broadcasting Complaints Commission. (235)
1 Q. Yes.
2 A. The answer to that question is, three
3 complaints were made against me. Two of the key
4 complaints were entirely rejected, and they were to
5 do with balance and fairness. One of the three was
6 upheld. This is — sir, just so I can explain so
7 people understand, because they –
8 Q. Certainly.
9 A. — because they may not understand.
10 The Broadcasting Standards Commission is not
11 a legal body, and it has no particular merit in a
12 legal setting.
13 Q. Nevertheless, a complaint against you as a
14 journalist was upheld, true.
15 A. As I said, sir, three complaints were made.
16 The two key complaints were entirely rejected. One
17 complaint was upheld of the three.
18 Q. Let’s talk about the one that was upheld,
19 sir. There was a complaint against you that was
20 upheld by that agency, correct.
21 A. There was, sir, yes.
22 Q. And what did they complain about, Mr.
23 Bashir.
24 A. The complaint related to — to what — to
25 what — to how I described what I was doing with the
26 story that I was working on.
27 Q. And what were you doing, Mr. Bashir.
28 A. I was doing journalism.
Q. Please describe for the jury the subject
18 matter of the complaint you just identified, Mr.
19 Bashir.
20 A. The story was about a teenaged prodigy, a
21 mathematics genius, who had run away from
22 university, had legally emancipated herself from her
23 family. And the story was to describe what had
24 happened from both sides.
25 Q. You were accused of misrepresentations,
26 true.
27 A. No, that’s incorrect.
28 Q. You were not accused of misrepresenting (237)
1 anything in that complaint.
2 A. I was accused of unfairness, which was
3 entirely rejected. I was accused of breaching an
4 agreement, which was entirely rejected. I was
5 accused of not representing the entirety of what I
6 was doing with that broadcast to one of the
7 individuals.
8 Q. Kind of what you’ve been accused of here,
9 right.
10 MR. BOUTROUS: Objection.
11 MR. SNEDDON: Argumentative, Your Honor.
12 THE COURT: Sustained.
Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Mr. Bashir, you wrote to
18 Mr. Jackson’s assistant and said you would very much
19 like to feature Michael with a large group of
20 children, around 50, welcoming them and sharing with
21 them his extraordinary home so that, for one day,
22 their lives can be enriched, correct.
23 MR. BOUTROUS: Same objection, Your Honor.
24 THE COURT: Do you wish to –
25 MR. SNEDDON: Your Honor — excuse me.
26 Could I add an objection to that also.
27 Beyond the scope of direct examination.
28 THE COURT: Sustained as to beyond the scope (240)
1 of the direct examination.
2 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Mr. Bashir, you
3 interviewed Mr. Jackson and repeatedly asked him
4 questions about his desire for an international
5 children’s holiday, correct.
6 MR. BOUTROUS: Same objection, Your Honor,
7 in that would seem to be beyond the scope of the
8 direct examination as well.
9 THE COURT: Sustained as to beyond the scope.
10 MR. MESEREAU: Your Honor, will the Court
11 permit me to ask questions about what’s actually on
12 the tape.
13 THE COURT: No, because the tape’s being
14 introduced not for the truth of the matter asserted,
15 but for a different purpose. There are some areas,
16 however, that I didn’t instruct the jury on about
17 the assertions that they wish to have considered for
18 the truth of the matter. And those would not be out
19 of bounds, because — well, let me ask the District
20 Attorney.
Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Mr. Bashir, you had
22 Michael Jackson sign an agreement without a lawyer
23 present, true.
24 MR. BOUTROUS: Again, Your Honor, beyond the
25 scope of the direct and covered by the shield law.
26 THE COURT: I’d overrule that objection.
27 Will you answer that question.
28 THE WITNESS: Mr. Jackson signed two (242)
1 agreements in which he asked for no conditions
2 whatsoever and agreed that I was free to make the
3 film with him. And the first of those agreements
4 was signed in November 2002, and the second
5 agreement was signed in January 2003, just about two
6 weeks prior to broadcast of the British version of
7 the film that you’ve just seen.
8 MR. MESEREAU: Your Honor, I would move to
9 strike the answer and request that the Court order
10 the witness to answer the question.
11 THE COURT: All right. It’s stricken. And
12 I’ll ask the court reporter to read back the
13 question so that you understand the question.
14 (Record read.)
15 MR. BOUTROUS: I renew my objection, Your
16 Honor. That goes to news gathering and relates to
17 information prepared in connection with news
18 gathering.
19 THE COURT: The objection is overruled.
20 Do you wish to answer that.
21 THE WITNESS: I think I agree with my
22 attorney that I have protections under the shield
23 law, Your Honor.
24 THE COURT: All right.
25 MR. MESEREAU: Same objection would be
26 noted, Your Honor.
27 MR. SANGER: I’m sorry, Your Honor, it’s
28 hard for Mr. Jackson and for us to hear the witness. (243)
1 THE WITNESS: I apologize. It’s my fault.
2 Sorry. I’m sorry.
3 THE DEFENDANT: Speak up.
4 THE COURT: And, yes, you don’t need to. I’m
5 going to review all of the questions.
6 MR. MESEREAU: Thank you, Your Honor.
7 Q. Mr. Bashir –
8 THE COURT: If you want to, you can.
9 MR. MESEREAU: Okay.
10 Q. Mr. Bashir, you have been accused in England
11 of forging signatures, correct.
12 A. Incorrect.
13 Q. No one has ever made that accusation, sir.
14 MR. BOUTROUS: I’m going to object, Your
15 Honor. Hearsay; lack of foundation; beyond the
16 scope of direct examination.
17 THE COURT: Sustained on beyond the scope of
18 direct.
19 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Mr. Bashir, to qualify as
20 a professional journalist, do you have to fulfill
21 any particular educational program.
22 A. In the United States or in the United
23 Kingdom, sir.
24 Q. Anywhere.
25 A. I’m frankly unsure about how that applies in
26 the United States. And in the United Kingdom, there
27 would be different ways of progressing your career.
28 Some people would do it through the route of (244)
1 experience. And others would do it through some
2 kind of academic qualification. I think others will
3 have a mix of the two.
Q. How did you do it.
5 A. A mix of the two.
6 Q. Could you please explain that.
7 A. I was given training during my employment at
8 the BBC. And I also took opportunities to work in
9 print and radio journalism, so I combined the
10 experience part with the training.
Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Mr. Bashir, if you look at
7 the two documents you referred to that you say Mr.
8 Jackson signed, his signature appears to be
9 different from document to document, correct.
10 MR. BOUTROUS: Same objection, Your Honor.
11 And — same objection on the shield law, Your Honor;
12 and beyond the scope of direct.
13 THE COURT: Sustained; beyond the scope.
14 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Mr. Bashir, did you
15 request that Michael Jackson bring Macauley Culkin
16 so you could film him at Neverland.
17 MR. BOUTROUS: Same objection under the
18 shield law and the First Amendment, Your Honor. And
19 beyond the scope of direct.
20 THE COURT: Sustained on beyond the scope.
21 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: In the process of putting
22 this film together, Mr. Bashir, did you write to
23 Michael Jackson’s assistant and say you wanted to
24 film the beautiful landscape encouraging all of us
25 to become as little children again.
26 MR. SNEDDON: I’m going to object as beyond
27 the scope.
Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Mr. Bashir, did you, in
25 the process of getting — making contact with Mr.
26 Jackson so you could make this film, misrepresent
27 that you were putting together a trip to Africa for
28 Mr. Jackson to visit sick children. (247)
1 MR. BOUTROUS: Same objection, Your Honor.
2 Beyond the scope of direct; shield law; First
3 Amendment.
4 THE COURT: I’ll sustain the objection;
5 beyond the scope of direct.
6 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Mr. Bashir, did you allow
7 Mr. Jackson any editorial control over this film.
8 MR. BOUTROUS: Same objections, Your Honor.
9 THE COURT: The objection beyond the scope is
10 sustained.
Q. I’ll repeat the question, Mr. Bashir.
25 To obtain statements from Mr. Jackson, you
26 told him he was underappreciated, correct.
27 MR. BOUTROUS: Same objections, Your Honor.
28 Plus, leading question. (258)
1 THE COURT: The Court will sustain the
2 objection for ambiguity.
3 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Mr. Bashir, to obtain an
4 interview with Mr. Jackson, you told him you were a
5 friend of Princess Diana, correct.
6 MR. BOUTROUS: Same objections, Your Honor.
7 THE COURT: The objection being, when you say
8 “same objection” –
9 MR. BOUTROUS: First, impermissible leading
10 question; beyond the scope of the direct elicited by
11 the District Attorney. In addition, it seeks
12 unpublished information connected to news gathering
13 prepared and gained during news gathering.
14 Conversations with the source is news gathering. So
15 I would invoke the California shield law and the
16 First Amendment.
17 THE COURT: Here’s the problem, Mr. Mesereau:
18 You’re back to the general question on the whole
19 tape, the whole thing. And my prior statement that
20 the question was ambiguous is that he doesn’t know
21 what statements you’re talking about. So –
22 MR. MESEREAU: I will –
23 THE COURT: — if you would –
24 MR. MESEREAU: I could refer to some
25 statements, Your Honor.
26 THE COURT: All right.
27 MR. MESEREAU: Sure.
28 Q. Mr. Bashir, in the show you prepared, which (259)
1 we’ve just seen, Mr. Jackson made statements to the
2 effect that nothing sexual was going on in his bed,
3 correct.
4 A. Correct.
5 Q. To obtain the interview you had with Mr.
6 Jackson when he made that statement, you told him
7 that he was underappreciated, true.
8 MR. BOUTROUS: Objection, Your Honor, on the
9 shield law grounds and First Amendment grounds,
10 unpublished information, and the tape that the jury
11 has seen speaks for itself.
12 THE COURT: All right. The objection is
13 overruled.
14 Do you wish to answer that question.
15 THE WITNESS: I’m standing on the broadest
16 privilege and the shield law, Your Honor.
17 MR. MESEREAU: Objection noted, Your Honor.
18 THE COURT: Yes.
19 MR. MESEREAU: Thank you.
20 Q. Mr. Bashir, in the show about Michael
21 Jackson, Mr. Jackson says that nothing sexual went
22 on in his bedroom. To obtain that statement, you
23 told Mr. Jackson that your romantic development was
24 partially shaped by his records, true.
25 MR. BOUTROUS: Objection, Your Honor. Same
26 grounds. First Amendment; shield law.
27 THE COURT: Do you wish to answer that
28 question. (260)
1 THE WITNESS: No, Your Honor.
2 THE COURT: All right. The objection is
3 noted.
4 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Mr. Bashir, on the show we
5 just saw in this courtroom, Mr. Jackson says that
6 nothing sexual goes on in his bedroom.
7 To obtain that statement from Mr. Jackson,
8 you told him that when you looked at his
9 relationship with children, it almost made you weep,
10 correct.
11 MR. BOUTROUS: Same objections, Your Honor.
12 California shield law and the First Amendment. And
13 I object to that question as being ambiguous as
14 well, the first phrase, “to obtain that statement.”
15 Object to that.
16 THE COURT: The objection is overruled.
17 Do you wish to answer that.
18 THE WITNESS: I don’t, Your Honor.
19 MR. MESEREAU: Objection noted, Your Honor.
20 THE COURT: Yes.
21 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Mr. Bashir, on your show,
22 Mr. Jackson says that nothing sexual ever went on in
23 his bedroom.
24 To obtain that statement from him, you told
25 him that you believe in his vision of an
26 international children’s holiday, correct.
27 MR. BOUTROUS: Same objections, Your Honor.
28 The shield law and the First Amendment. (261)
1 THE COURT: Overruled.
2 Do you wish to answer that question.
3 THE WITNESS: I don’t, Your Honor.
4 MR. MESEREAU: Objection noted, Your Honor.
5 THE COURT: Noted.
6 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Mr. Bashir, in this
7 interview you did of Michael Jackson, he says that
8 nothing sexual went on in his bedroom.
9 To obtain that statement, you told him,
10 “Neverland is an extraordinary, a breathtaking, a
11 stupendous, an exhilarating and amazing place. I
12 can’t put together words to describe Neverland.”
13 True.
14 MR. BOUTROUS: Same objections, Your Honor.
15 First Amendment and the California shield law.
16 THE COURT: Do you wish to answer that
17 question.
18 THE WITNESS: I don’t, Your Honor.
19 THE COURT: Noted; objection noted.
20 MR. MESEREAU: Thank you, Your Honor.
21 Q. Mr. Bashir, to prepare the show you’ve just
22 shown the jury where Michael Jackson says nothing
23 sexual went on in his bedroom, you told him that you
24 had an abiding sense that he is selfless and a most
25 generous person, correct.
26 MR. BOUTROUS: Same objections, Your Honor.
27 THE COURT: Do you wish to answer that
28 question. (262) . . .
As you can see from Mesereau’s line of questioning, Bashir was a professional con artist. Bashir’s absolute refusal to acknowledge his underhanded tactics is a tacit admission of his own guilt in them. If they weren’t true, then he would have denied them in the same manner in which he denied being accused of misrepresenting his British interview where and said he had been accused of unfairness. Also Bashir committed perjury in this case, because it was previously noted that Bashir in fact was accused of forging bank statements to trick Princess Diana to do the interview with him.
Another interesting piece of information learned from analyzing the above testimony is something that shouldn’t surprise anyone: Bashir is not an accredited journalist! He does not have a college degree in journalism. His degree is in the “arts and humanities”. So that confirms to us that “journalists” don’t have to have any formal education in journalism whatsoever, and that major networks such as (MS)NBC don’t mind hiring entirely unqualified “journalists” with tawdry reputations, at best. There are no professional standards in the industry.
Remember, Diane Dimond doesn’t have a journalism degree either. As a matter of fact, she doesn’t have any degree.
Below are two articles that summarize Bashir’s testimony:
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=10113351
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=10113418
Now, just imagine if you were one of Michael’s closest confidantes, and it was you who introduced Michael to Bashir, and told Michael that Bashir could be trusted. How would you feel about yourself, knowing that you set the chain of events in motion for the ruining of a music legend? Well, if you’ve ever wondered how Uri Geller felt after being conned by Bashir, and then watching Bashir con Michael, then here’s your answer! Below an excerpt from an interview Geller gave in November 2003, shortly after Michael was arrested:
I told him, “You’ll end up in jail.” Not because he’s guilty … but because this behavior of inviting children into the bedroom, the behavior is unacceptable to the outside world, to the community, to society, and society gets very, very suspicious.
Unfortunately, Geller said, his counsel wasn’t enough because he wasn’t being backed up by people in Jackson’s camp, who should have taken a harder line with the singer and not just automatically agreed to whatever Jackson wanted.
It’s just, ‘Yes, Michael,’ and he might not like to hear this, but in my opinion, Michael needs help, and I don’t mean for what he’s been accused of doing. … He needs more people who aren’t afraid to speak the truth. I have my own chutzpah, I am an Israeli and I don’t bullsh–. I couldn’t care less what people think about me. I speak the truth.
-Uri Geller
If Jackson had such a brutally honest sounding board, Geller said, perhaps someone would’ve stepped in and convinced Jackson not to do the Bashir interview after Geller had recommended it. Geller said he felt duped by Bashir, who told him he wanted to do a “very positive documentary, a really wonderful documentary … to bring justice into the man’s life.” Of course that was a boldfaced lie from Bashir.
“In short, I fell for it,” Geller said. “But I was convinced … that Michael would call his lawyers or agents or managers or whoever is advising him, his PR company, and at least let them see the agreement the TV station made him sign, or at least have some sort of power or veto in this agreement. And apparently Michael didn’t do such a thing.”
Obviously, Geller isn’t at fault, as he was duped Bashir as well, and would never have intentionally set up Michael, unless Dr. Klein is correct and Bashir outbid another journalist by $200k to get to Michael. Geller is an easy scapegoat, but he made a good point: someone in Michael’s camp should have thoroughly scrutinized this transaction before agreeing to it. A complete background check should have been performed, and the contract should have had an iron-clad, no-holds barred, unambiguous clause that the documentary could not be aired without Michael’s complete approval.
And because it was Bashir who initiated contact with Michael, that should have set up a red flag within Michael’s camp to investigate his motives. They should have looked into other journalists, just to make the approval process more fair and objective. Personally, I would have recommended Tavis Smiley, an excellent journalist who has always been fair to Michael. In fact, Black media in the USA such as Jet, Essence, and Ebony magazines have never used the “Wacko Jacko” moniker. Black Entertainment Television even banned Eminem’s “Just Lose It’ video in 2004 because it mocked Michael’s child abuse charges.
You may think that in the years following Michael’s acquittal that Bashir was up to his best behavior and was able to avoid further controversy, but unfortunately that is not the case, of course. In August 2008, Bashir made an inappropriate and unprofessional joke about “Asian babes” while at a conference celebrating diversity among journalists. How ironic is that? I won’t type it here, instead I’ll let you read it for yourself when you open the link. Bashir was reprimanded by his bosses, and he issued a short but sweet apology to all of those he offended. Yes, believe it or not, Bashir actually did apologize – after he was forced to by his bosses.
Maybe the brain tumor that he was diagnosed with two months earlier in June 2008 had an effect on his ability to use good judgment. Ironically, the tumor was found by doctors who were treating Bashir for injuries suffered while banging his head on the set of his studio.
In closing, let me point out that to the very end, Bashir never publicly apologized to Michael, or acknowledge the damage that his work did to him. It took the death of Michael to get something that even remotely resembled a defense of Michael, and it was so half-hearted that he would have been better off not even saying anything. He said that Michael “was never convicted in a court of law”, which is tantamount to saying that he may have been guilty but was too rich and famous to get convicted. He also says that he “never saw any wrongdoing”.
It’s too bad he didn’t say that under oath in 2005! And the icing on the cake is for him to say that he was “excited” about seeing Michael perform again. Well, thanks to you Martin Bashir, nobody will ever see Michael perform again, because you helped send him to an early grave!
As an extra idictment of Bashir’s continued mercenary “journalism” tactics, here is a summary of Bashir’s interview with Sean “Diddy” Combs, which aired a few weeks ago. He hasn’t changed a bit, as evidenced by his insulting, racist treatment of Diddy in this interview:
@ 1:00 Diddy greets Bashir for the interview. They hi-five and hug let they’re bests friends. This is part of Bashir’s plan to “earn” Diddy’s trust and make him feel comfortable. Sound familiar?
@ 2:00 After Diddy explains the different parts of his business empire, Bashir accuses him of being a “megalomaniac”, and condescendingly asks him if he would promote “Diddy Dog Food”. Would he say the same thing to Donald Trump? I don’t think so!
@ 4:00 Bashir asks Diddy about the murders of Biggie Smalls and 2pac, and after Diddy says he no longer speaks about the murders, Bashir continues to badger him into answering. (Similar to the way he badgered Michael about the plastic surgery).
@ 5:45 Bashir calls Diddy a “gangsta rapper”, which is a complete insult to Diddy’s image as a mogul & entrepreneur.
@ 6:50 Bashir asks Diddy if he feels he setting a bad example by having “multiple children by multiple mothers”, thus insinuating that he’s an irresponsible father. He then asks if it was sensible to buy his son a Maybach, and Diddy answers by saying he “doesn’t owe anyone an explanation”! If only Michael had stood up to Bashir in a similar manner!
@ 9:15 Bashir & Diddy discuss how to “mindf*^k” someone, which perfectly describes what Bashir did to gain both Diddy’s and Michael’s trust!
Although Diddy is a huge Michael fan, and respects Michael’s legacy, it’s very obivous that Diddy hadn’t done any research into Michael’s molestation allegations, because if he had, he would have known to avoid Martin Bashir!
Hindsight is 20/20 as they say, and Sean “Diddy” Combs recently gave an interview, wherein he relents: “I should have never let Martin Bashir Interview Me!“.
Here is a partial transcript:
Q. What happened during the Martin Bashir interview on Nightline?
P. Diddy: There were times in the interview when I had to give him an ultimatum. The questions weren’t being handled the right way. In hindsight, when I saw him I shouldn’t have done the interview because I know the style of interview that he does . . . The whole thing about giving a Maybach to my son, that’s really like a racist question. You don’t ask White people what they buy their kids. And they buy ‘em Porsches and convertible Bentleys and it ain’t no question. It’s really a racist question and put things back in perspective with money and the way that people still look at you. And I’m not saying that consciously he’s a racist. But he probably don’t even realize that he would not ask Steve Jobs that. He would be like Steve Jobs has that money and that’s the gift his kid is supposed to get.
_ _ _
{ While I have done some editing, this piece (Parts I and II) were written and researched by David Edwards. -Seven }
July 31st, 2010 8:04 am
Thank you David Edwards, excellent job, thank you so much, and thank you Seven for sharing it here….
July 31st, 2010 9:19 am
Well, what can we say about Bashir…calling him a black hearted scoundrel seem too small for his ways. Jesus used a term, wolves in the disguise of sheep…He is SO that! he is one Judas Iscariot, who KISSED Jesus and betrayed him… The only difference is that Judas Iscariot realized his wrong and was sorry, he actually killed himself…and Mr. Bashir is not even close to an apology. but his fear of the court just shows that he is afraid of judgement and to face the music… You guys can imagine what will happen the day he faces his worst fear… I can’t understand MSNBC too. Is television rating more than the truth… those ratings took someone’s life.God…and he calls himself CHRISTIAN to some victims…
My ernest wish is that Bashir may realize his faults and be really sorry for them. He has done enough harm… made three kids orphans, made a mother cry…I dont think a parent really wants to bear the day when their own child is laid to rest right before their eyes!
I am just so sad and sorry….Thanks Seven for letting us know the truth. love you…God bless you..
July 31st, 2010 10:25 am
Thanks David for this excellent research. not looked at the other videos yet , but i looked at the first one, never seen that before – what a disgusting pathetic excuse for a human being bashir is, can’t believe anyone could sit there and be so downright nasty. he is also VERY stupid – Michael not a sexual person – COME ON!! he (bashir)know nerthing! is bashir a sexual person – i don’t think so! he is the biggest turn off i have ever seen. bashir has not a single ounce of sex appeal – so maybe he is jealous of Michael’s immense sex appeal! bashir has not an ounce of love or tenderness or understanding – compared to Michael’s oceans of all of it.
how does he f****g dare call Michael childish and undeveloped! bashir
armchair pyschology – so not only does bashir have no degree in his own field of journalism he also thinks he can pronounce psychological diagnoses on someone without any study or training in psychology either! what an idiot and a slime ball. he shows how ignorant of pyschology he is and he doesn’t even realise it.
i am surprised bashir attended a university at all for any subject, because he hasn’t learnt any skills in analysis or critical thinking.
i found an article about bashir and rugby – he loves playing rugby because it “involves technical and tactical skills and allows some aggression.” – interesting comment on himnself.
I don’t want to make comparisons here between Michael and another michael, michael barrymore, because they are very different people and situations, but its the bashir connection thats interesting.
i spent hours last night and this morning trying to find any video of bashir’s interview with michael barrymore which was shortly before our Michael’s interview. couldn’t find any video of it, just some write ups. for those that don’t know, barrymore, a famous comedien in england, has had a lot of personal problems which are not disputed, and he was on the news a lot because a chap died at a pool party at his house, there was talk of drugs, booze, gay sex galore. barrymore was not held reposnsible for the death, but was questioned cos it was at his house, never charged but there was lots of opinions expressed in the media. anyway fact is barrymore was in a mess, and entered rehab for some time. shortly after he came out, he was interviewed by bashir for TV, thinking it would help his career get back on track, instead it was the nail in the coffin.
http://archives.tcm.ie/businesspost/2002/09/29/story437738528.asp
barrymore says he bever wanted to do the interview and was more or less brought out of rehab and sat down in front of bashir. -so i don’t know the truth of if he wanted to do it or not, but:
http://www.johannhari.com/2002/11/14/gays-in-palace-shocker
“martin bashir harangued barrymore in an itv interview, saying (bizarrely) again and again ‘once you set down on the road of drugs and casual sex, this tragedy was inevitable, wasn’t it? Wasn’t it?’ Even in his sedated state barrymore had the good sense to resist this argument until bashir’s bullying became too much.”
bashir sounds like he’s the pitbull terrier starved and then unleashed whenever the media want to destroy someone. thing about pitbulls is, sooner or later they end up torn apart and either killed by another dog or put down by the authorities.
July 31st, 2010 12:29 pm
I have to amend my comment from yesterday as I had no knowledge of the interviews by Bashir or the other “film which is reported to be equally damaging to him” that he’d made.
In my mind this man was an opportunistic, jealous slimeball but now I think he is seriously and deeply disturbed.
The day is coming soon when Michael Jackson supporters (I sense their numbers are ever-growing too) will become so organised as to boycott every complicit TV network until the injustices inflicted on Mike are addressed by them.
As it is, I barely watch TV anymore and I’ve read so many comments to that effect whilst researching this topic, that it is obvious TV as a medium will continue to struggle until one day it goes the way of the dinosaurs, unless they do something to win back their lost viewers.
There are many like me who have invested hundreds of hours understanding what has transpired and who are disgusted with all those involved and want to do something about it. This is not going to go away. Not ever. The new generation seems even more indignant than Mike’s contemporaries.
The damage that has been done to the news media alone warrants every effort to utilise Michael Jackson’s incredible fame to bring attention to those insidiously corrupting elements that have run amok for too long.
July 31st, 2010 12:46 pm
Thank you to David Edwards and Seven.
All this informativ and impressing pieces here. Thank you Seven for sharing it. I read it all, but I can not express myself like you are able to. It’s not my language, but I learned now, and I try.
I didn’t know the first video in original. There was a translation on TV, that was not telling the whole sense of all.
This disgusting reporter Martin Bashir made comments I can not
bear. This all happened in my town (Berlin)at the “Adlon”. I have not been there…., but I was in the town!!!
I remember all the tabloids, when the so called baby-dangling happened, and the filthy press reacted.
I met a woman which was infront of the hotel, when “that” happened.
She said, That was not two seconds, but in the press they made it
some minutes longer!
This human, is it a human ? Martin “Bashit”, is a man without any character!
Oh my god, he is not worth, to kiss the feet of MJ or his legacy now.
I hope, he goes to hell, and rots there!!!
I’m really a peaceful person, but this man (Bashir) is scum !
He is responsible for Michaels death. He was the beginning of the end.
I put a curse on him !!!
July 31st, 2010 5:45 pm
Hey guys, when I mentioned that MJ tried to sue Bashir after the documentary aired, I forgot to mention that Janet Arvizo also considered suing him as well! It wasn’t enough for Bashir and ITV to air the documentary without MJ’s approval, but they never sought out the approval of Janet, and Gavin’s name and faced were used in the film, which would be illegal in the USA because he was a minor. I believe that ABC blurred out his face when they aired it, but ITV did NOT blur his face or his name when it aired in England.
Here is Janet’s response to the Gavin being included, taken from “Take Two: The Footage You Were Never Meant To See”, starting @ 4:30.
Janet Arvizo: “I’m appalled at the way in which my son has been exploited by Martin Bashir. The relationship that Michael has with my three children is a beautiful, loving, father/sons/ & daughter one. To my children and me, Michael is a part of our family.”
Maury Povich: In addition, she is considering action against Mr. Bashir for including Gavin in his special, without parental consent.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ptASOrd6ULc
July 31st, 2010 6:02 pm
One more thing:
I found some more dirt on that Feb. 2003 episode of Dateline NBC! The reason that it seems like it came from tabloid trash is because IT REALLY DID COME FROM TABLOID TRASH!
They interviewed the author of the book “Freak!”, which is literally a compilation of tabloid articles from the Star, the Globe, and the National Enquirer. There are some other examples that are listed in the article, and after you read it you’ll realize that NBC sunk to an all time low. They produced that episode with Victor Guiterrez in order to make MJ look guilty, so it’s only fitting that they would hire Martin Bashir.
Remember, Tim Russert, who was the host of “Meet The Press” and had a lot of influence at NBC, was married to Maureen Orth. They also hired the ex-sheriff of Santa Barbara, Jim Thomas, as an analyst.
NBC is infested with MJ haters!
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,78862,00.html
This was talked about this in more detail in this blog entry.
http://www.mj-777.com/?p=4290
July 31st, 2010 6:15 pm
I understand that Uri did indeed know that Bashir was going to eff Michael over, and that he did indeed receive money. I heard $250,000. Uri is an opportunist who used MJ for self aggrandizement. He was never a friend, although like many others around Micheal during that time, he certainly pretended to be.
July 31st, 2010 11:03 pm
i don’t understand something – when it says a tv company ‘buys the rights’, eg to the outtakes, does that mean they have the right to show it -once – or does it mean they take over ownership of them and can do as they want with them?
if the second, that would have meant the tapes would have been lost forever as any defense material doesn’t it? devious ploy by the sneddon / dimond/orth crowd if thats what it means.
August 1st, 2010 4:35 am
Gavin, I like your words very much:
“The day is coming soon when Michael Jackon supporters (I sense their numbers are ever-growing too) will become so organised as to boycott every complicit TV-network until the injustices inflicted on Mike are adressed.”
This is a huge motivation to stand together and to go on – not only in the US, but worldwide.
I also realised that a growing group of very young people (teenagers) are becoming new fans and are interested in Michaels HIStory – perhaps partly through their parents. And this new generation might really have a growing influence.
August 1st, 2010 5:05 am
Whoa, hold up there little Gavin! Mike’s “contemporaries” will crawl to the moon on our knees if we have to to clear his name and abolish the lies. Never underestimate the power of the elderly! Growing up, decade by decade with Michael gives us an insight that can never be captured by second generationers, but we love you anyway!
August 1st, 2010 6:48 am
Ha ha Heidi! – even on our artifical knees trailing our catheters and bedpans behind us!!!!We’ll claim victory over Michael’s haters with our last breaths through our nebulizers!! – thats a picture for Seven to work on!!!
August 1st, 2010 7:31 am
Gavin
Your comments are very, very right. Like you, I am so disgusted and angry with all injustice the media did to Michael that I can say to you that I don’t even remember when was the last time I turned on my T.V. I don’t watch tv anymore because I’ve learned that to give attention to the media is the same than to throw your time (and your brain) in the garbage can.
Thank you Seven and David for this wonderful job.
August 1st, 2010 1:34 pm
David – thank you. Thanks to Seven too. Michael granted Bashir access to his life like no other “journalist” before or since and he deliberately chose to abuse that privilege and Michael’s hospitality in the worse possible way. And I use the term journalist very loosely seeing as he has no qualification as such. Bashir committed a terrible act of injustice against Michael which he added to by later cowardly hiding behind his “rights.” Bashir didn’t mind stomping all over Michael’s rights – a gross violation of rights carried out over a long period of time with malice aforethought, during and after.
August 1st, 2010 2:21 pm
Uuuh, Ali, I laughed my head off! I wished Michael could read this and amuse himself also up there wherever he is.
August 1st, 2010 8:59 pm
Gavin I love your comments, so on point. And I say power to the new generation! But since Im Michaels age I’ll have to go with Heidi and Ali. You really made my day and Im sure Mike is smiling ear to ear.
But seriously, the new generation is coming and they are fierce. My 11 year old niece became a fan after Michael passed and omg that girl is one fanatic, buys evrything, updates me on evrything. But sadly one of these days I will have to tell her more than i would like to at her age, before she starts to ask questions. Hate it, but I guess thats part of our mission.
David and Seven what an excellent piece, so much still to learn. I had not seen the 2nd docu before and i was shocked. Bashit is one repulsive sewer rat. Imagine this man touching Michaels kids, pretending concern for them, meanwhile torturing their father to death.
As for Geller, he did confirm getting money from Bashir, who he choose over Theroux, but he said the money went to charity. Sure……
Geller is a money grubbing a**. Remember his docu, Michael my friend came out seconds after Michael passed, ofcourse juiced up with the usual secretly recorded phonecalls.
Still I dont think he meant bad, unlike his friend the fake rabbi. He always defended Michael about the allegations. He behaved unethically though, he confessed putting Michael under hypnoses and then (without Michael knowing) he questioned him about the allegations, and Michael denied.
I think his mind was so much on the money he didnt realize or care what Bashir was up to.
And I hate what he says about Michael needing help.
But he was right that Michaels representatives did a bad, bad job with the contract for the docu and PR wise.
Imagine the biggest superstar on the planet signing a contract of that nature like you and me buying a tv in the store. Shame on them.
After Gellers docu aired( in Europe, I dont know in the US),there was a rumour that he was on Michaels ‘black list’,
Can anyone confirm if this list did exist or was it made up by Michaels German managers?
For the record, Theroux also made a docu after Geller teamed up with Bashit.
I dont think Theroux would have done a better job, maybe not as slanderous as Bashit, but definitely not positive.
In his docu he tries to get in touch with Michael through Joe, Michaels father, ofcourse not for free.
On one side its very hilarious because he is chasing Joe, Joe asking a substantial sum in advance, Theroux not wanting to pay because he suspects that Joe cant get him to Michael.
In the end Joe gets mad and stops the whole thing because of Theroux suggesting Michael might be gay. But what is disturbing in this docu is Theroux interviewing of alle people ,Thiery George. Enough said.
Somewhere along the line. not in the docu, dont know in what context, Michael calls Theroux on the phone and it turns out a very strange conversation about Judas and what happened to him after he betrayed Jesus. Theroux wrote an article about this phonecall.
Dont know what to think of the guy.
Seven,I read on another forum that there will be readings on september 15 at the LA county bar association about the MJ cases, for law students , lawyers, barristers,judges and others
It will be a legal analysis of the civil and criminal cases , with speakers of the procsecution, the ‘alledged victim ’s attorney Feldman, Michaels attorney Messerau , and the judge of the 2005 case.
I think its very important that someone who lives near the place attends to get more inside information on the legal aspects and maybe information that never came out before.
Maybe you have the opportunity to question the speakers.
I really really hope someone can go and ask Feldman some serious questions about his professional ethics and the bogus charges.
Space is limited, so register asap
See http://calendar.lacba.org/Calendar/i…arEventID=3276
August 27th, 2010 10:18 pm
Hey Seven, I found some new info on NBC and Sony! In January 2003, Andrew Lack was hired by Sony to replace Tommy Mottola. http://www.sony.com/SCA/press/030110a.shtml
Lack was the President and Chief Operating Officer of NBC since June 2001, and President of NBC News for eight years prior to that. In 1993 NBC hired him to help increase the ratings of their fledgling news program, Dateline NBC. Their ratings were down after they were caught manipulating a story by rigging explosions in a report on truck safety! General Motors sued them for libel and defamation, and NBC settled out of court, and FIRED several journalists and producers who were associated with the story.
Whoa, talk about journalistic integrity, huh?
(Open the links below for more info on this scandal:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dateline_NBC#General_Motors_v._NBC
http://www.usatoday.com/money/media/2005-06-13-lack-usat_x.htm)
The reason that this is very important is because as the head of NBC, he gave the go-ahead for those horrible Dateline NBC episodes that aired after MJ rejected their interview offer after the Bashir documentary aired. If they had no problem slandering a major corporation like GM, then they certainly had no problem in slandering MJ, who was himself a walking, talking corporation!
This is an excerpt from Maureen Orth’s 2003 article on MJ: http://sinhablar.com/news/orth4-2003.html
This past January, however, Tommy Mottola was out as Sony chairman. Ironically, his replacement is Andrew Lack, the former president of NBC, who, shortly before accepting Sony’s offer, had given the go-ahead for Dateline NBC to do a show for the February ratings sweeps on Michael Jackson’s collapsing face and the downslide of his career. This action of Lack’s was alluded to by Jermaine Jackson, Michael’s brother, on a TV talk show on which he extolled the closeness of the Jackson family while at the same time letting slip that Michael had never met Jermajesty, Jermaine’s son.
MJ always thought that some of his enemies paid Janet Arvizo to make those false claims, and he never ruled out Sony. The fact that Sony hired the President and COO of the network that has done the worst reporting on MJ, instead of hiring a record executive with years of experience, only confirms MJ’s suspicions.
And here is another example of Sony’s corruption: in 2002-2003, they were involved in a scandal known as “payola”, where they would pay radio stations to play the music of their artists, regardless of the demand for their music by the public. This scandal was made public during 2005.
It’s amazing that while they were paying radio stations to play the music of such “legends” as Jennifer Lopez & Jessica Simpson, they refused to even market MJ’s “Invincible” album.
MJ was right: the music business is the most corrupt business ever!
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,163537,00.html
BTW, since a lot of people may not see this comment because this article is old and no longer listed on the home page, feel free to use this info in any future posts on Bashir, NBC, or Sony!