Aug 11 2010

Let M$NBC and their advertisers know what we think of their hiring character assassin Martin Bashir

Category: Seven @ 4:18 am

'Birds' of a Feather Bed Together

'Birds' of a Feather Bed Together?

Martin Bashir has been hired by M$NBC starting in September of 2010. Please e-mail the network and share your thoughts about Mr. Bashir being hired by them. Use your real name, and not your MJ fan psuedo name. Please do not YELL (no CAPS!) or use profanity. Please remain calm, respectful, and factual in your correspondence.

Expressing concern about Bashir’s modus operandi, particularly with the “Living With Michael Jackson” assassination piece, is great! Expressing concern about Bashir’s tabloid-media tactics and further tabloidization of the media in general, and their network in particular, is acceptable dialogue too – but hysterical yelling or profanity are not.  So, stick to facts and just express your feelings about this in as calm and factual way as possible. But DO let them hear from us!

Here is the link to email M$NBC:

1) Choose “Dateline” from the drop-down list

2) Then scroll down to the “Comment” box and write your comment or statement

3) Then click on “Submit

Let’s let M$NBC know what we think about Bashir and his unethical reporting.

You can also contact M$NBC on Twitter and Facebook:

M$NBC Twitter

M$NBC Facebook

To learn more about the connection between M$NBC and Martin Bashir, check out these two links – feel free to use them or any facts contained in them,in your messages to M$NBC:

The Connection Between M$NBC and Martin Bashir (Part I)
The Connection Between M$NBC and Martin Bashir (Part II)

M$NBC Advertisers to contact (visit their websites to get contact info – sample letter below)

Kashi cereals
Progressive Insurance
Aruba Tourism Department
Transitions Lenses
AIG Term Life
Coldwell Bankers
Venus Breeze
Jimmy Dean Sausages
lawyers Weitz & Luxenburg, NY
Video Professor
Natural’s Cat Chow, Purina
Merneke Car Care Center
Am. Express
Travel Companion on CNN
Crystal Light
Infiniti Car
Vonage Phone
Dyson Vacuum
Hyundi Car
U.S. Buildings
Direct TV
Colonial Penn Life Insurance
Stop IRS Debt
HSBC Direct Financial Inst
U.S. Airforce
Progresso Soup
Cooking Lite
Steak-umms Burgers
Mama Lucia Meat Balls
Sea Bond
Financial Freedom, reverse mortgage
eDiets Meal Delivery
Aqua Velvet
Mr. Clean
Bayer Products
Old Mutual Investment
Verizon (Both)
Coldwell Bankers
Jimmy Dean Sausages
Natural’s Cat Chow, Purina
American Express
Crystal Light

SAMPLE LETTER TO ADVERTISERS – PLEASE customize this letter so that they do not receive many of the same letter – add your own touches and rewrite the letter in your own words. This is ONLY a sample:

Dear MSNBC Advertiser:

I urge you to read this letter, as it represents the mindset of an important segment of your marketing demographic – the consumers you hope to reach through television advertising. You can expect to receive thousands of letters from citizens nationwide expressing similar outrage. This is not an attack against you – the advertiser, but a stand we must all take if we hope to redeem ourselves as a society with a conscience!

We are committed in our mission to bring an end to the despicable practice that has now become business as usual in the mainstream media. Once lauded as a noble profession, journalism has now turned into a vulgar free-for-all attack on the personal and public reputation of innocent human beings. There are many who call themselves responsible journalists when, in fact, they are so far removed from reporting the truth that they no longer recognize their own corrupt perversity, let alone care to monitor it. TRUTH is the new “dirty” word in mainstream media. Why not…when lies and slander are so much more profitable. Never mind who it harms…or kills!

For the purpose of this letter, I am referring to one such “journalist” recently hired by MSNBC – Martin Bashir. I’m sure you know the name – but certainly not for his moral accomplishments! Mr. Bashir is about as obscene as they come. He holds the “proud” distinction of having produced the infamous TV documentary, “Living With Michael Jackson.” Yes, the program that prompted an investigation of Mr. Jackson, resulting in his false arrest on charges of child molestation and being brought to trial. Despite his innocence and being found not guilty on all charges, Michael suffered unimaginable pain and devastation from the ordeal of a five-month trial, from which he never fully recovered. The trial ended on June 13, 2005 – yet for all he endured, and despite the victory of being found innocent, Michael would only live another four years.

What does any of this have to do with you as a sponsor of MSNBC? Everything! A magnificent and innocent human being is dead, and people need to start holding the media accountable for their actions. Lies and slander over a period of years can KILL! Michael Jackson was a tragic result of how the “politics of personal destruction” can ruin an innocent man’s reputation and the quality of his life. And when the privilege of reporting news to the public is placed in the toxic hands (and mind) of a corrupt “hack” like Bashir, it can also prove fatal! Bashir can take credit for committing the most egregious form of entrapment one can inflict on an individual. Michael Jackson was the most beloved entertainer in the world, but more importantly, there was a genuine innocence about him, and he had the most generous heart and pure soul. He never failed to give people the benefit of the doubt. He was an electrifying force on stage, but in reality Michael was a shy, highly spiritual, humble and non-confrontational person. Many who surrounded him during his life grossly abused that side of his personality. As fate would have it, Bashir used Michael’s gentle nature against him for his own sinister purposes.

How did he do it? First, gain Michael’s trust – then bring out the big guns! Patronize him to the point of distraction, talk over Michael to render him inaudible, ask him emotionally distressing questions, turn the knife by harassing him about cosmetic surgery, make him the object of ridicule, twist the facts to make the world think he puts his children and other children in danger. And to wrap things up, present a false face to Michael on camera – then sneak in your own post-production script in the editing room to create a troubling atmosphere. Speaking in an ominous tone with carefully chosen words, Bashir manipulated viewers by planting subliminal messages to suggest sinister circumstances that did not exist! Michael learned of Bashir’s betrayal after the program aired and was devastated – and from that moment on his life became a living hell. Aren’t you glad this didn’t happen to a loved one of yours? Well, it happened to a loved one of ours! Michael was a gift to the world whose goodness and generosity touched the lives of more people than you can possibly imagine. His death left millions feeling they have lost one of their own.

This should be enough to make you sick to your stomach and question whether to continue sponsoring a network that would hire a man of such low caliber and integrity. I’m sure you offer a fine product, but if you continue advertising on MSNBC while Bashir is on their payroll, you will lose potential consumers. We will not be watching…and we will not be BUYING! MSNBC has garnered poor ratings for their low reporting standards and biased agenda. They are welcoming Bashir with open arms because he mirrors their journalistic practices. Do you really need this venue to sell your product? Keep in mind that Martin Bashir will always be remembered as the man who helped send Michael Jackson to an early grave. Michael was a wonderful human being who did not deserve such abominable treatment by the media, and Martin Bashir is at the top of that manure pile! Your commitment to “truth in advertising” is diminished when the network you partner with does not embrace the same philosophy and hires someone who perpetrates lies and slander. What harm can it do? Just ask Michael Jackson. But the tragic point is…we can’t ask him! But we do ask that you look to your conscience by pulling your sponsorship from MSNBC and investing your advertising dollars elsewhere. If not for Michael Jackson, then before another innocent person falls victim to the pollution of a corrupt media.


{Many thanks to my friend Micheline for this wonderful sample letter to advertisers! -Seven }

Jul 30 2010

The Connection Between Martin Bashir and (MS)NBC (Part II)

Category: Justice,Photos,VideosSeven @ 7:29 am

'Birds' of a Feather Bed Together

'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.


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:

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 }

Tags: , ,

Jul 29 2010

The Connection Between Martin Bashir and (MS)NBC (Part I)

Category: Justice,Photos,VideosSeven @ 3:41 am

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 skinning his prey

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! 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.

To add insult to injury, they hired Victor Gutierrez as a consulting producer for this episode as well. ( 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

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:

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:

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:  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 }

Jul 22 2010

Revolting Development: Martin Bashir leaves ABC to join MSNBC

Category: JusticeSeven @ 5:07 pm


All Media are Tabloids (aka Medialoids)

All Media are Tabloids (aka Medialoids)

As everyone on the planet knows, Martin Bashir is the backstabbing “journalist” who created the mockumentary “Living with Michael Jackson” – that piece of two-faced, psychopathic, deft and dirty cut-up technique and falsified innuendo that was do doubt the model for similar subsequent attacks such as the one on Ms. Shirley Sherrod recently and attacks on many others which we see from the media almost daily ever since.

And, Bashir’s seedy hit-piece was absolutely one of the larger knives in Michael’s back which accelerated the end of Michael’s livelihood and career, his health, and his finally, his life.

To say that Martin Bashir had a hand in helping shove Michael Jackson to an early end to his career and an early end to his life is no understatement. And, the media have thusly all become such parasitic and psychopathic barbarian tabloids. Where does it end?

MSNBC’s president insists “this is the direction MSNBC wants to go.

Their memo on Bashir indicates that they are proud that this media assassin snipped, cut, manipulated, and twisted his film on Michael Jackson to make a perfectly innocent Michael look guilty, and yes, resulting in additional allegations, investigations and a trial that destroyed Michael Jackson’s career and life:

Bashir is best known for making landmark documentaries including “Living With Michael Jackson,” which 27 million American viewers tuned in to watch in 2003 and prompted an extensive police investigation of the singer.

-MSNBC memo on Martin Bashir

Now, if that’s the direction they want to go I’m sure they’ll be happy to know that millions of Michael Jackson fans will not be going there with them due to this revolting development. MSNBC is the second-highest rated network in the U.S. right now. They can be assured that with this cockamamy decision, that rating will fall.

MJ fans can and should write to MSNBC concerning their further foray into the tabloidization of the network with unethical tabloid journalists like Bashir.  Here’s where and how to contact them:

MSNBC Twitter

MSNBC Facebook

MSNBC Comments

PLEASE do be calm, stick to facts, and to not use profanity in your communications with MSNBC about this. Expressing concern about Bashir’s modus operandi particularly with the “Living With Michael Jackson” hit piece, expressing concern about Bashir’s tabloid-media tactics and further tabloidization of the media in general, and their network in particular, is acceptable dialogue. Hysteria, profanity, and ranting are not.

If you are a viewer of any of their programs, you might reconsider your viewing habits while reminding them that they will be losing viewers due to this ill-advised “choice” of theirs.

Jun 15 2010

More Mad Dogs and Media: Martin Bashir and Book Publishers

Category: Justice,Photos,Quotes About MJSeven @ 4:54 am

MORE Mad Dogs & Media

MORE Mad Dogs & Media

Last week, in ‘Mad Dogs and Media‘ I presented what is really just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to media bias and vindictive schemes against Michael Jackson. This week, I’ll venture in a little deeper to this barbaric practice that is still in full swing today and is a clue into why REAL journalists with integrity such as Charles Thomson can’t get a platform for sharing their expertise, but the likes of Diane (Demon) Dimond or Ian (Hairpin) Halperin can. Charles himself has called them out on this barbaric bias multiple times, and of course they do just exactly what he has rightly accused them of doing: they ignore and completely redact him in the lame$tream media (which is why I call them “lame$tream“).

Consider some of those that the lame$tram give credence and a platform to when it comes to Michael Jackson: Ian Halperin, Randy Taraborelli, Diane Dimond, Martin Bashir, and many others. For anyone to therefore believe that they are getting factual, unbiased, complete, untwisted and un-sensationalized information from these corprat-owned, profit-driven entities, is similar to believing the earth is flat and the moon is made of green cheese. Same with the magazines, tabloids and many books out there about Michael Jackson. Yes, even publishers are in on the profiteering bias as well.  Remember, publishers told Aphrodite Jones, author of ‘Michael Jackson Conspiracy‘ that they would not publish her book because it was a ‘pro-Jackson‘ book and “pro-Jackson books don’t sell“.

But let’s talk about Martin Bashir for a bit. Yes, the video swindler du Jour who the media not surprisingly still employs though he produced a video that outright lied about Michael Jackson and Neverland and in doing so, was key in destroying the man’s life and sending him to an early grave.

Why in the heck did Michael ever agree to deal with this man? Well for one thing, Martin is a typical abuser. That is, he’s two-faced. He has one face for his victim, and another completely different one for the public. Notice how charming and sweet Martin was with Michael in the videos, particularly Michael’s rebuttal video “Living With Michael Jackson, Take Two” – where Michael’s own cameras captured the footage that Bashir deliberately left out of his version in order to give the impression of Michael as some sort of child-luring, scheming demon at Neverland.

Yes, Martin was so sweet, flattering, and sincere in getting Michael to let him into his life . . . but when Bashir’s piece aired, we saw a 180-degree different story, with Bashir claiming that Neverland seemed to be a place to “lure innocent children”.   Thus is the modus operandi of any abuser, whether it is a pretentious, self-serving parasite like Martin Bashir seeking to build his career upon destroying the lives of celebrities, or whether it is the man next door battering his wife. They all operate the same way: two-faced – Jekyll & Hyde personality.   They are excellent at ‘shaping public opinion’ in their favor and against their victims. It’s pure and simple abuse.

Another significant fact is that Martin Bashir promised Michael that he would allow him to view and vet (approve) the video before Bashir aired it. But, that never happened. In fact, Michael attempted to sue Bashir after the trial was over claiming breach of confidence for just this reason.

One of Michael’s attorneys, David LeGrand, assertedBashir never followed through on a promise to let the pop star “screen and edit” the final product. LeGrand said that in January 2003, before the program aired, he was asked by Jackson to assemble a team of lawyers in Britain and the United States because he was concerned that no one in his camp had been allowed to review the final work.

One of the most damaging and iconic scenes in Bashir’s hit piece on Michael was the one where Michael his holding hands with Gavin Arvizo and Gavin has his head on Michael’s shoulder.  But 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 Michael to do that to further give the impression of something untoward going on.

Aphrodite Jones reveals this while giving an interview promoting her MJ special on ID (Investigation Discovery). Her 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, and 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.

Back to books, I mentioned publishers above, and how they refused to publish Jones’ book because it was ‘pro-Jackson‘.  Well, the book-publishing vultures, smelling money when the trial was over, were swarming around the jurors from the trial, trying to get them all to publish skewered books claiming that Michael was really guilty.

Two jurors accepted such book deals. Their names were Ray Hultman & Eleanor Cook. Ray Hultman announced in September 2005 that he was going to file a lawsuit to get out of the book deal he signed, because his co-author Stacey Brown (who also co-wrote “The Man Behind The Mask” with Michael’s former publicist Bob Jones) plagiarized one of Maureen Orth’s slanderous articles on Michael in Vanity Fair. I don’t know about the outcome of the lawsuit, but neither book was ever published, and that speaks volumes about the lack of integrity of the books.

The article linked in the above paragraph also mentions the violation of the stipulation that jurors were not to accept any offers to publish anything relating to the trial or their verdicts for 90 days following the end of the trial. With dollar signs in their eyes, these jurors apparently ‘forgot‘ about that.

In a press release for Aphrodite Jones’ book “Michael Jackson Conspiracy“, Jones mentions how other jurors were also offered book deals to lie and say Michael was guilty, but they turned them down due to their integrity. They called Ray and Eleanor “traitors” and I agree with them.

In 2005 Aphrodite Jones was one of only two authors granted access to every day of the Michael Jackson trial. With seven New York Times bestsellers under her belt, her book looked set to fly off of shelves when it hit stores.

But when Jones came to write her book she hit wall after her wall. As one of the only journalists willing to admit that Jackson’s 2005 trial had proven his innocence once and for all, Jones found that publishing houses were unwilling to give her a deal.

Thomas Mesereau, Jackson’s defence lawyer, encountered the same problem. After the trial almost every major publishing house in the US approached him with lucrative book deals. When he maintained that Jackson was truly innocent and he wouldn’t write anything to the contrary, every publishing house retracted its offer.

Jurors were offered book deals too. Two jurors claimed after the trial that they really thought Jackson was guilty, but only after they had signed six figure book deals. Other jurors claimed that they had been offered identical deals by the same publishing companies – but only if they too would change their opinion from innocent to guilty, casting enormous doubt over the sincerity of both rogue jurors’ u-turns.

One juror, Ray Hultman, lost his publishing deal after it was revealed that his manuscript included portions plagiarised from an inaccurate Vanity Fair article. These included allegations that the former juror couldn’t possibly verify, such as claims that Jackson had a detachable nose.

The book was co-written by Stacy Brown, a serial Jackson detractor who also co-wrote a book about the star with Bob Jones, Jackson’s former aide. Jones was forced to admit on the stand in 2005 that portions of his book ‘The Man Behind The Mask’ had been fabricated by Brown in order to boost sales.

Hultman’s crediblity was further damaged when it was revealed that after the verdict he had commented to one reporter, “The evidence just wasn’t there. We couldn’t have gone any other way.” A strange comment from a man who would later insist that Jackson had been guilty.

Jonna Spilbor at takes these jurors to task for endeavoring to undermine their own verdicts for profit:

The Case of the Michael Jackson Jurors: Why Did They Come Forward Now?

Looking at jurors Hultman and Cook, I asked myself this: Why come forward now? For that matter, why come forward at all? If they cannot change their verdict (and they can’t), and therefore cannot change the outcome of the case, why speak out?

The answer, sadly, requires little imagination. Obviously, something happened in between what appeared to be an unwavering “not guilty” verdict following several days of deliberation, and August 8th, when they appeared together – on a primetime cable news show – to announce their about-face.

What was it? Did these two people happen to show up at some “Jurors Anonymous” meeting, only to learn the Step Six is admitting when you’ve rendered the wrong decision? Or, were they approached with the prospect of a book and movie deal which (wink, wink) just might make them a whole lot richer if there were (hint, hint) a controversy of sorts surrounding the verdict?

I can’t truly know these jurors’ motivations, but I can hazard a guess based on the timing of events, and the statements they’ve publicly made. I’m putting my money on the book and movie deal because, simply, the revelations of jurors Hultman and Cook coincide with the announcement of their individual books deals and combined television project.

Each juror will be coming out with his or her own book, and both, not surprisingly, will be published by the same publisher. Hultman’s is to be entitled, “The Deliberator”, while the title of Cook’s tell-all is to be, “Guilty As Sin, Free As A Bird.” I imagine that books entitled “Yup, Like We Said, Still Not Guilty” would be a lot less saleable.

How The Jackson Jurors Broke the Law: They Were Supposed to Wait Ninety Days

In California, Penal Code section 1122 states, in part: “After the jury has been sworn and before the people’s opening address, the court shall instruct the jury…that prior to, and within 90 days of, discharge, they shall not request, accept, agree to accept, or discuss with any person receiving or accepting, any payment or benefit in consideration for supplying any information concerning the trial; and that they shall promptly report to the court any incident within their knowledge involving an attempt by any person to improperly influence any member of the jury.” (Emphasis added.)


Looking at the calendar, it has not been 90 days since Jackson’s jury was discharged. Clearly, the pair is in violation of the statute — a statute punishable by contempt of court.

In the end, it wasn’t about getting the truth out there for these publishers – or these two jurors. It was purely about making money by selling lies about Michael Jackson. It’s the same with the lame$tream media. Be they tabloids or “news” media – all of them are guilty and all of them helped send Michael Jackson to an early grave by persecuting and lying about him on television, radio, in print, and on film, all for profit.

Along with various corprat vultures and their extortionists, the media (including publishers) and an abusive legal and political system which worked in tandem with them had as much to do with destroying Michael Jackson as Conrad Murray. All together, they took away his livelihood and destroyed him financially. They destroyed his ability to make a living and support himself and his children. They caused him incomprehensible anxiety, stress and insomnia, and were certainly a large part of sending Michael to an early death.  Remember it was his inability to sleep that lead to the use of propofol – the substance that finally physically killed him.  The line and the dots that connect it all is quite clear in my opinion.

It wasn’t just Conrad Murray – a greedy, money-driven sociopathic “doctor” who murdered Michael Jackson. The decades-long crucifixion of Michael Jackson for profit began long before that. What really killed Michael Jackson wasn’t propofol. It was MONEY.

_ _ _

{ Many thanks to David Edwards, whose information and research form the bulk of this piece. I did the writing. THANK YOU DAVID!  -Seven }

Tags: , ,

Next Page »