ok 1stly,i'd like 2 say that bashir seems like s total prick to me.
he kept going on & on & on & on & on & on,about his 'relationship' with children.
when he clearly talked about it,very truthfully in my eyes...& it didnt take a fucking genius 2 understand the words coming out of Michael's mouth,or see how sinciere he was.
but he kept on coming back 2 it...& he was saying how he felt uneasy & disturbed about MJ's 'relationship' with kids.
WELL...i think we may have 2 ask ourselves what HIS issues are,as he seems 2 have some kind of obsession with the subject...HOWEVER:
i am glad finally Michael is there,saying thi stuff,& while i was NOT impressed at all with bashir's attitude,i was very proud of Michael.

As 4 Michael himself: . . . . .i think it was very genuine...Michael seemed very truthful,& i have gained more respect,as far as seeing that he seems 2 be a very good parent 2 his c0hildren.At least,not 'weird' like everyone makes it out 2 be.

The masks 4 his children,2 many may seem weird.
however i can see where he is coming from.

When he talked about how he used 2 be embarrassed as a child,when he had very bad acne...
i know where he is coming from,because i have been there & done that.
i would get so ashamed of myself physically & embarrassed,i wouldn't want to go out or put on loads of pimple-covering make up,blemish cream,to hide it as best as i could.

so if michael has ANY insecurities these days about his appearance,i know where he is coming from totally.


People say Michael is 'weird' ... ...as far as i am concerned,he is his own person.
it is because of the media's scrutiny,& intrusuion in on his life,
that he has to alter his lifestyle 2 try & make it as normal as he possibly can 4 himself.

many parts of this program tho,were remenicent of the Oprah interview back in 1992.

in the end... it was good 2 c Michael 4 me.
as far as the special as a whole goes,it was good,but bashir seems 2 sleezy 4 my liking.


thank you
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
This edit shall b proclaimed the new King Of Pop (MJ WHO!!??)
[This message was edited Tue Feb 4 4:27:19 PST 2003 by Joshy84au]

Bashir asked the questions non-fans wanted asking.It was great journolism in the beginning IMO.

I wasn't too enamoured with Bashir's hidden agenda that was only revealed in the last 1/2 hour.

.
[This message was edited Tue Feb 4 6:35:54 PST 2003 by Marrk]

Joshy...you know we're cool...so i hope we can agree to disagree...i saw a little on tv...and thought... "how fake can this fuckwit be?" ...the part where he was asked about his farther hitting him and looney boy put his hand over his face and then continued talking was the worst piece of acting i've EVER seen... i think his whole thing is 3 parts calculated attention seeking and 1 part lunacy... just my opinion

Joshy84au said:

Joshy, why do you think that Michael Jackson with all the money in the world that can buy good advice, agreed to undertake this interview and then was unable to answer questions consistently?

Why did he deny having the facial operations when first asked by Bashir?

Why did he later say that he had had one operation on his nose, and then two operations?

Do you believe that the purpose of the nose operation was to enable him to breathe better and sing high notes as he claimed?

Why did he state that he had had a relationship with the mother of Prince Michael II / "Blanket"?

Why did he later say that he had never met this woman?

Amonst all of this, at which point do you believe he was 'very truthful', and at which point was he not 'very truthful.'

Not trying to join the bashing but he didn't look like a very good parent when he was shaking 'Blanket' on his knee so violently when he was feeding him. And wrapping the cloth around the baby's head so tightly - Martin Bashir showed more concern there than MJ did.

this bashir guy is a total joke, how the heck did he get 2 do this

the deal must have been ' U film when I want U 2 film and ask me
what I want U 2 ask and I'll answer 5 of your own Qs at the end of the show'.

the whole thing didn't seem right, when michael was in control he seemed easy going
but when he wasn't in control he was clearly worried.

I would have asked more Qs relating to his career and his peers in the industry ie P
and Madona, his music and his thoughts about the current pop generation.

most of the show was about michael justifying his own actions, there wasn't
too much insight at all...

although i applaud him for trying to be young and free, sometimes u just have to be
an adult and responsible.

I question some of michaels morals,
especially when it comes to the subject of parenting a child.

there were some very obvious lies throughout the show
I think micael loses some credibility with some statements he made.

I agree with michael on the subject of climbing trees though, its fun.

It was good to see michael behind the scene, in his motorcade and hotel
and so on.

overall this was a waste of time, although a certain record company
made the most ofit here in sydney by advertising mjs best of on cd and dvd

The way I see michael is that he's too emotional about many issues, now
that shows that he really cares about humanity. his only escape from this
turmoil is through innocense, hense his child like persona.

Prince on the other hand is just as emotional as michael, however Prince
is just as spiritual as well and that's where real strength is.

anyone who does albums like 'off the wall' and 'thriller' is a true genius.

langebleu said:

ok i agree u do have a point there.
i ididnt even think of that until now,& now that i recall
those segments of the show,yes u are right.

i dont know why he sed that.

heck 2 tell the truth,i am sick of talking about MJ.
jus gimme the music in the end.

0rlando said:

that made me so angry.
where do they get off promoting a package that was released 16 damn months ago?
i dont blame MJ 4 wanting 2 leave Sony,& that was just on the part of Sony Australia.



but now i think of a couple of mistakes MJ made,lying,i dont kno wwhy he did (ie mother of his last child).
however this thing about him & 'young children'...
i stand by him 100% on that.
always have.

How Many Times Can The Word "Disturbing" Be Used in One Night?
"Living With Michael Jackson".

by © Robin Meltzer MJNI, Tuesday 4th February 2003

It was billed as unprecedented access. It was certainly that. Michael Jackson let Martin Bashir into his life for eight months, apparently oblivious to the fact that Bashir is an investigative journalist with his own agenda. When push came to shove, it was irrelevant that Michael was disarmingly charming, open and friendly during their early conversations, because nothing was going to prevent Bashir from persevering with his crusade to expose the "disturbing" aspects of Michael's life.

So we were left with a Michael Jackson who was probably more genuine than anything we have seen before, and certainly by the end of the project, more angry and distressed than anything we have seen before. For fans of the artist, there will be mixed feelings. Perhaps some will be shocked that they did not know Michael Jackson as well as they thought. Perhaps – like me – it will be the opposite reaction: that Michael was behaving exactly as expected.

For me, it all boils down to a question of truth. Perhaps the most shocking thing for some fans to accept is the fact (and it is a fact) that Michael lied during the interview. But to concentrate blindly on this issue would mean missing one very vital point: even when he was lying, he was being utterly genuine. The things that he fibbed about (his face, the early explanations about Blanket's mother) were not great monumental questions of mankind. Those issues were his business, and he was very embarrassed and (for some reason) clearly did not expect to be probed like this.

Do I wish that Michael had been more open on those topics? Of course. Am I angry with him for not being open on those topics? Not in the slightest. I would question why it is that he has no-one around him that was able to explain to him that this was not going to be another Oprah Winfrey interview. This was going to be the Diane Sawyer interview on speed. This was going to be about feeding the public's taste for all things salacious. This was going to be about allowing Michael to open up to Bashir, climb trees with him, talk about his childhood – in order for Bashir to go in for the kill later. But to feel anger towards Michael for his naiveté and openness - openness which ironically led to him having to fib out of sheer embarrassment - is to demonstrate a fundamental lack of understanding about him. This is him being genuine. Evading questions that he sees as no-one else's business is what he does in real-life too! Over the years, I have spoken to countless friends and associates of Michael's, and none of them – even the closest – talks to him about his appearance. Apart from anything else, it quickly becomes ridiculous to remain focussed on that aspect of his life when he has clearly has so many other interesting things to say.

Crucially, contrast his reaction to those issues to the issue that the world's media, in their insatiable hunt for paedophilia, will focus on. Michael's relationship with children is something that he is happy to talk about. In the early scenes with Gavin, the brave 12-year old who beat cancer, Michael was awkwardly aware of people's image of him but didn't attempt to stop Gavin speaking about their close friendship. Indeed, Michael actually confirmed that Gavin does sometimes sleep in his room. Even in the segment filmed in Miami in early 2003, when Michael is obviously feeling very angry and betrayed by Bashir, he is unwilling to "clean up" his story to satisfy his critics. Unlike the shape of his nose or the complex nature of his relationship with his children's mother, this is an issue that Michael is perfectly honest about. Yes, he says, children (not just boys – again, a tabloid fantasy) sleep in his bed if they want to. No, he says, he doesn't have sexual contact with them. I thought that his speech about bedtime stories and warmed-up milk was painfully honest, and not in the least bit sinister. It is therefore terribly ironic that this segment of the programme, when Michael was – even through his anger – refusing to be beaten by the aggressive line of Bashir's questioning, is going to be the segment that parts of the media will use as an indication of how "disturbing" he is.

How many times can the word "disturbing" be used in one night? Does Martin Bashir really have such a poor grasp on the English language that he has to revert to these Louis Theroux-esque clichés?

Why was Bashir pussyfooting around the issue? We saw a boy who had suffered from cancer and had expected to die. We know he spent a lot of time with Michael. We know they slept in the same room, possibly even in the same bed (I was angry that Michael felt he was compelled to reveal the exact sleeping position they adopted as if he was on trial). Why do those things become "disturbing" unless Bashir believes that Michael Jackson likes to have sex with 12-year old cancer victims? The innuendo and smut can only lead to one conclusion, or else it's just there for the sake of it. My opinion is that it's the latter.

If Bashir feels that Michael Jackson has sex with 12-year old cancer victims, he should have the courage to come out and say it. If he doesn't believe that, then he should not employ such tacky journalistic practices to imply something he does not believe.

The argument against what I have just said comes from the righteous brigade. The point, these people say, with copies of the Daily Mail shoved up their backside, is not that Michael is actually having sex with 12-year old cancer victims. It is the fact that he lives in his own fantasy world that has no connection to our world (the world of war, deceit and corruption presumably) and that he should therefore be made to recognise the responsibility that he, as a 44 year old, has when it comes to the welfare of children. We're not saying there's anything sinister about him, say the righteous brigade, but it's just not right that he should be left alone with children.

My answer is: yes it is. Leave your children with this man and perhaps they will be exposed to a belief system refreshingly different to the ignorant fever that modern society suffers from with regard to child sexual abuse. We're all obsessed with having sex with children. The papers are full of it. People go out in the streets to protest against it. Front page after front page is full of details about men who prey on children. It is simply not right, says the perceived wisdom, for men to be alone in a room (never mind a bedroom!) with a child who is not their own. All men want to do is to have sex with children.

Michael is a victim of other people's fear and depravity. Study after study has revealed that most child abuse occurs in the child's own home – either by parents or other family and carers. There is simply no evidence whatsoever to back up the image of an enormous underworld of strangers desperate to get into a child's underwear. Of course these things happen, and they are horrific. But if just a fraction of the attention that is spent creating a climate of fear was thrown in the direction of where the abuse actually occurs, perhaps we would be living in happier times. When Michael's silly baby-dangling moment was plastered across newspapers the world over, how many other children were genuinely at harm in their own home? When Gavin was holding Michael's hand tight as he revealed how Michael had helped him gain mental courage as he suffered from cancer, how many 12-year olds were actually being abused in their own home as the media pundits tut-tutted?

Michael has nothing to hide when it comes to this non-nose-job area of his life, and it seems to me that it is this openness that really "disturbs" people. Despite all the suggestive headlines and the pop-psychology (even Freud would be turning in his grave), I am pleased that Michael is still so real that he can speak perfectly candidly about the need to show affection to children despite everything that happened in 1993. It's one of the reasons I admire him.

The other reason, my main reason, is his music. Of course, we should not be surprised that an investigative journalist did not want to concentrate on the music of this living legend. Similarly, we do not know how much footage was left on the cutting room floor. And yet, would the public really have been so bored if we had heard some more about Michael's creative process? If Bashir had refrained for just 10 seconds from asking Michael about how he dare change his own nose, would the audience have been so disappointed? Someone, somewhere, bought enough Michael Jackson records to fund that lifestyle that Bashir finds so "disturbing" (how dare someone spend their own decently-earned money on creating a fantasy world!). More people have bought products bearing Michael Jackson's name than have bought products bearing the name of any other artist, anywhere in the world, at any time. Would none of those people have been interested in knowing a little more than simply how Michael does the moonwalk and where he was when he composed Billie Jean? Were none of these questions worth pursuing, or – if they were pursued – were none worth including in the final edit? I find this a great, if predictable, shame.

I don't know how Michael Jackson has got to this stage in his life with no adequate system in place to protect his unusual personality from other people's agendas. However, I am pleased that he has remained true to his beliefs, and that when it came to the really important things, the things that are not purely to do with himself but can actually relate to us all, Michael consistently tried to be open and honest, even in the midst of what was clearly, by the end, an aggressive questioner.

In the article that Martin Bashir wrote for the Sunday Times on 2nd February 2003, he said that while he was pleased to have spent so much time with Michael, "it will be a relief to walk away from Neverland and return to the relative normality of a family life, three naturally conceived children and the weekly trip to Sainsbury’s." Well, I would have thought that it would have been quite a relief for Michael too. Let Bashir have his delightfully normal, inoffensive life. I don't see Michael, or anyone else, laying claim to know how best Bashir should live. There is no proof that Michael Jackson's way of life harms anyone; there is plenty of proof that it helps many disadvantaged people. My favourite scene from Living With Michael Jackson was the one of Michael walking over the bridge at Neverland with all the children around him. I dare anyone to find anything sinister in that; if you can, than I suggest the problem lies not with Michael but with you. If Bashir is so offended by this that he can't wait to get back to normality, then that's fine. Each to his own. In the mean time, I'm glad Michael's still there, doing what he does. And making no apologies.

+++

not my words but definately my thoughts.

Wow,you guys are really intrigued by this documentary

I'm a huge MJ fan,but I may not even watch this thing when it comes on.I stopped caring about his personal life years ago.I still buy his CDs though and follow his career.

For the record, Martin Bashir used the word 'disturbing three times during the programme. Once, in the first segment of the programme during the introduction, and twice during the fifth 'segment' of the programme.

Compared to that it is used six time (with one related form o of the word) in this short article. No wonder the writer refuses to answer their own rhetorical question. But then again, as is said in the article 'for me, it all boils down to a question of truth', and no doubt, like Bashir and like Jackson, Meltzer has an agenda.