Since the following articles are from 2010, it's actually old news. However it's "old news" that was NEVER pick up by the USA corporate news media outlets. And those were THE same outlets that gave Gene' negative comments about Michael far more news coverage!

http://www.sawfnews.com/Gossip/62855.aspx

Jennifer Batten performing with Michael Jackson on the Bad tour from September 12, 1987 to January 27, 1989. Photo Credit: Sawf News

By Charles Thomson

February 27, 2010, (Sawf News) - Michael Jackson's former tour guitarist has slammed Gene Simmons' recent allegations against the King of Pop.

In an interview earlier this month, Simmons told Classic Rock that a musician friend had quit a Michael Jackson tour after 'seeing boys coming out of the hotel rooms'.

But Jennifer Batten, who accompanied Jackson on all three of his world tours, says the allegations are untrue and that nobody ever left a Jackson tour after it hit the road.

Jennifer Batten performing with Michael Jackson on the Bad tour from September 12, 1987 to January 27, 1989. Photo Credit: Sawf News

She said: "Number one, there's no truth to it. Number two, I would guess that it was somebody who got fired. Somebody who was embarrassed that they got fired and so they made up a story."

Batten added that only two musicians were ever fired and they were let go 'like a week before we took out on the road', meaning that they couldn't have witnessed anything going on inside hotels.

The guitarist also blasted the media for widely publishing inaccurate stories, saying that after Jacksons death, "They were respectful for about two or three hours and then they turned it into a tabloid festival... It's all about money now, not about truth. People can be very cold."

A mouth later, news writer Charles Thomson wrote an essay to The Huffington Post where he called out the news media for not picking up on Jennifer's story:

Last week Michael Jackson's guitarist discredited widely reported allegations about the star's behaviour on the road. So why is the media refusing to publish her comments? British writer Charles Thomson explores media bias against black music's biggest star.

Aging glam-rocker Gene Simmons made international headlines last month when he claimed to know that Michael Jackson had molested children. In an interview with Classic Rock, Simmons alleged that Jackson was on tape ordering alcohol for children and that during the star's 2005 trial a travel agent had testified to importing Brazilian boys for Jackson's amusement. He also claimed that a musician friend had quit a Jackson tour after seeing 'boys coming out of the hotel rooms.'

What followed was a classic example of copy and paste journalism. Within hours the story had been duplicated by hundreds of blogs, forums and news websites from Australia to India to the USA. None of them had fact-checked the story before they re-hosted it. Jackson was never on tape ordering alcohol for children. There was never any testimony during his trial about young Brazilian boys. Both of these claims were easily disproven by trial transcripts.

As a relative Jackson expert, I was also unaware of any musician ever leaving one of the singer's tours midway through. So when I sat down a fortnight ago for an interview with Jackson's long serving tour guitarist Jennifer Batten, I ran the story by her.

She told me that no musician had ever quit a Jackson tour. Two musicians had been fired but both were let go before the show hit the road, so they couldn't possibly have witnessed anything going on inside hotels.

When Sawf News published Batten's rebuttal I observed an all too familiar phenomenon. Although the story appeared on Google News and was picked up fairly swiftly by the Examiner, nobody else seemed willing to touch it. Whilst Simmons's speculative and ultimately baseless accusations had been reproduced the world over, Batten's expert rebuttal was being suppressed.

I soon began receiving emails from Jackson's fans telling me that they were sending the story to every celebrity news outlet they could think of, including several of those which published Simmons's initial allegations.

But more than 48 hours later, typing an exact quote from Simmons's rant into a search engine produced almost 350 webpages. The number of news outlets hosting Batten's rebuttal? Three.

This was not the first time I'd had a Jackson story suppressed. After Evan Chandler's suicide in November 2009 I was contacted by the Sun and asked to supply information about the 1993 allegations. I spent quite some time compiling my research, advising the newspaper of common myths and how to avoid them, being careful to source all of my facts from legal documents and audio/visual evidence.

When I read the finished article I was stunned to find that all of my information had been discarded and replaced with the very myths I had advised them to avoid. I alerted staff to the inaccuracies but my emails were not replied. The same inaccuracies appeared in every single article I read about the suicide.

The same bias manifested itself the following month when Jackson's FBI file was released. Across more than 300 pages of information there was not one piece of incriminating evidence -- but that's not the way the media told it.

A videotape seized at customs in West Palm Beach and analysed for child pornography was repeatedly referred to as belonging to Jackson. In actuality, files stated merely that the tape was 'connected' to Jackson and that connection appeared simply to be that somebody had written his name on the sticky label.

In another document the FBI logged a telephone call from a tipster claiming that the bureau had investigated Jackson during the 1980s for molesting two Mexican boys. The files made no other mention of the supposed investigation and the claim was ascribed no validity -- the call was merely noted. But the media persistently referred to the anonymous tipster's unsupported allegations as the FBI's own conclusions.

Jackson's FBI file overwhelmingly supported his innocence but its contents were routinely manipulated to give the opposite impression.

Many are quick to scoff when Jackson's fans speak of a media conspiracy to destroy the star's reputation and I used to scoff with them. As a member of the industry I prefer not to think of it as sinister and conspiratorial, but I find it increasingly difficult to explain away the bias with which Jackson is treated.

I wonder whether the problem is pride. When the 1993 allegations broke, the vast majority of information available was released, either officially or unofficially, by the prosecution. Jackson, meanwhile, remained characteristically silent.

Perhaps because the prosecution's version of events went almost completely unchallenged (although I imagine that drama and selling newspapers had something to do with it, too), the media primarily chose to portray Jackson as guilty.

But as the facts started to trickle out it became increasingly apparent that the case was full of holes. The allegations had been instigated not by the boy but by his father, who had demanded a scriptwriting deal from Jackson before he went to the police. He was on tape plotting to destroy Jackson's career and dismissing his son's wellbeing as 'irrelevant'. Then the boy told cops that Jackson was circumcised, but a police body search concluded that he was not.

Although Jackson's innocence looked increasingly likely, most news outlets had made their bed and to this day they seem unwilling to do anything but lie in it.

Whatever the motivation, be it pride, profit or plain old racism, the bias against Jackson is undeniable. The suppression of Batten's comments proves once more than when it comes to Jackson the media is interested not in fact or reason but negativity and sensationalism. Batten accompanied Jackson on all three of his world tours and was known for a decade as his 'right hand woman'. But Simmons -- who self-confessedly did not know Jackson -- has been given over 100 times more media coverage for his inaccurate ranting than Batten has for her firsthand experience.

It is time for outlets to assume responsibility for their own content. Websites should not re-host other publishers' stories unless they can be completely certain that the content is factual. Even if the media refuses to print the truth about Jackson, they should compromise by not printing the lies either. At least that way he can rest in peace.

This was posted when it came out on MJJC. It's been said that some media outlets look at that site too.

MickyDolenz said:

This was posted when it came out on MJJC. It's been said that some media outlets look at that site too.

I'm fully aware of that. But you know what piss me off the most is the fact that Jennifer (to my knowledge) has NEVER been invited to CNN, Fox News, HLN, or MSNBC to tell her story and give her that opportunity to defend Michael. No radio talkshows would invited Jennifer neither. Yet these same corporate media MFers would damn nearly suck Gene Simmons' penis (symbolically speaking) to get him on their shows so he can make his negative comments about Michael, regardless if there any evidences or not, regardless if his sources are credible or not.

I'm convince without question that there are plenty of people in the industry (including Bill O'Reilly, Oprah, & Nancy [Dis]Grace!!) that disliked/hated Michael too much in recent years to give a damn about the real truth.

TonyVanDam said:

I'm fully aware of that. But you know what piss me off the most is the fact that Jennifer (to my knowledge) has NEVER been invited to CNN, Fox News, HLN, or MSNBC to tell her story and give her that opportunity to defend Michael. No radio talkshows would invited Jennifer neither.

Why would they? The average person doesn't know who Jennifer is. She's a session musician. It's not likely that the media and press would interview Jerry Hey or Bruce Swedien either. They won't draw any ratings or readers. It would be the equivalent of printing a big story, and then putting a retraction in small print on the back page. Gene is famous, and many people know who he is, even if they don't know his music. He's a celebrity.

Jennifer Batten has not DEBUNKED shit. She is simply sharing what she experienced. She/people seem to think that because she had an incredibley wonderful and particular insight and experience in Michael's world that she knew everything about his world. Michael Jackson was way to smart to be caught up by some touring guitarist. If Michael wanted to do something, anything at all, without this chick having a clue about it - done. Aint no question. Her story is just that, a story; it is herStory and that is valid and fine and I really envy her, but her take is anecdotal at best.

Gene Simmons is a tool! He, clearly, has even less knowledge of MJ's life than Jennifer Batten. I would personally prefer it if he kept the hole in his face shut.

MickyDolenz said:

TonyVanDam said:

I'm fully aware of that. But you know what piss me off the most is the fact that Jennifer (to my knowledge) has NEVER been invited to CNN, Fox News, HLN, or MSNBC to tell her story and give her that opportunity to defend Michael. No radio talkshows would invited Jennifer neither.

Why would they? The average person doesn't know who Jennifer is. She's a session musician. It's not likely that the media and press would interview Jerry Hey or Bruce Swedien either. They won't draw any ratings or readers. It would be the equivalent of printing a big story, and then putting a retraction in small print on the back page. Gene is famous, and many people know who he is, even if they don't know his music. He's a celebrity.

Jennifer is the white woman with big blond hair (by 1980's pop-metal standard) that has been on Michael's right side of the stage since the motion picture Moonwalk. See there, she is noticeable!

Just saying to the critics.

allsmutaside said:

Jennifer Batten has not DEBUNKED shit. She is simply sharing what she experienced. She/people seem to think that because she had an incredibley wonderful and particular insight and experience in Michael's world that she knew everything about his world. Michael Jackson was way to smart to be caught up by some touring guitarist. If Michael wanted to do something, anything at all, without this chick having a clue about it - done. Aint no question. Her story is just that, a story; it is herStory and that is valid and fine and I really envy her, but her take is anecdotal at best.

Gene Simmons is a tool! He, clearly, has even less knowledge of MJ's life than Jennifer Batten. I would personally prefer it if he kept the hole in his face shut.

Jennifer's story proves that Gene's sources are very wrong. That is enough to count as DEBUNKED!

TonyVanDam said:

allsmutaside said:

Jennifer Batten has not DEBUNKED shit. She is simply sharing what she experienced. She/people seem to think that because she had an incredibley wonderful and particular insight and experience in Michael's world that she knew everything about his world. Michael Jackson was way to smart to be caught up by some touring guitarist. If Michael wanted to do something, anything at all, without this chick having a clue about it - done. Aint no question. Her story is just that, a story; it is herStory and that is valid and fine and I really envy her, but her take is anecdotal at best.

Gene Simmons is a tool! He, clearly, has even less knowledge of MJ's life than Jennifer Batten. I would personally prefer it if he kept the hole in his face shut.

Jennifer's story proves that Gene's sources are very wrong. That is enough to count as DEBUNKED!

Gene is not exactly the biggest MJ fan. That's why Kiss got kicked off that tribute gig.

TonyVanDam said:

MickyDolenz said:

Why would they? The average person doesn't know who Jennifer is. She's a session musician. It's not likely that the media and press would interview Jerry Hey or Bruce Swedien either. They won't draw any ratings or readers. It would be the equivalent of printing a big story, and then putting a retraction in small print on the back page. Gene is famous, and many people know who he is, even if they don't know his music. He's a celebrity.

Jennifer is the white woman with big blond hair (by 1980's pop-metal standard) that has been on Michael's right side of the stage since the motion picture Moonwalk.

Only really hardcore Mike fans would know or care who was in his band. The average person can't even name all of the J5 and they're his brothers, so why would anyone be interested a session guitarist? It's like asking a mainstream Prince fan who Tony M or Andre Cymone are. Maybe the readers of a guitar or musician magazine might be interested in Jennifer, but they only write about music, not gossip or someone's personal life. The general public would not want to read about her and that's who the media are trying to reach. Gene is a person who can attract attention. If someone is trying to sell magazines or get TV ratings, are they going to get Jeffrey Townes & Andrew Ridgeley or Will Smith & George Michael?

BlaqueKnight said:

TonyVanDam said:

Jennifer's story proves that Gene's sources are very wrong. That is enough to count as DEBUNKED!

Gene is not exactly the biggest MJ fan. That's why Kiss got kicked off that tribute gig.

And The MJJ community are not interested in being in the same room with The KISS Army neither.

[Edited 8/19/11 16:58pm]

MickyDolenz said:

TonyVanDam said:

Jennifer is the white woman with big blond hair (by 1980's pop-metal standard) that has been on Michael's right side of the stage since the motion picture Moonwalk.

Only really hardcore Mike fans would know or care who was in his band. The average person can't even name all of the J5 and they're his brothers, so why would anyone be interested a session guitarist? It's like asking a mainstream Prince fan who Tony M or Andre Cymone are. Maybe the readers of a guitar or musician magazine might be interested in Jennifer, but they only write about music, not gossip or someone's personal life. The general public would not want to read about her and that's who the media are trying to reach. Gene is a person who can attract attention. If someone is trying to sell magazines or get TV ratings, are they going to get Jeffrey Townes & Andrew Ridgeley or Will Smith & George Michael?

OFF-TOPIC: It's one thing to not know about Randy, But to not know about Jackie, Tito, Jermaine, OR Marion is no excuse.They're in the American Rock & Roll Hall Of Fame, FFS!

Even if the average person do not know anything about the Jackson 5, they will never be excused for not know the history of Motown Records. NEVER!

TonyVanDam said:

MickyDolenz said:

Only really hardcore Mike fans would know or care who was in his band. The average person can't even name all of the J5 and they're his brothers, so why would anyone be interested a session guitarist? It's like asking a mainstream Prince fan who Tony M or Andre Cymone are. Maybe the readers of a guitar or musician magazine might be interested in Jennifer, but they only write about music, not gossip or someone's personal life. The general public would not want to read about her and that's who the media are trying to reach. Gene is a person who can attract attention. If someone is trying to sell magazines or get TV ratings, are they going to get Jeffrey Townes & Andrew Ridgeley or Will Smith & George Michael?

OFF-TOPIC: It's one thing to not know about Randy, But to not know about Jackie, Tito, Jermaine, OR Marion is no excuse.They're in the American Rock & Roll Hall Of Fame, FFS!

Even if the average person do not know anything about the Jackson 5, they will never be excused for not know the history of Motown Records. NEVER!

Not everyone listens to rock 'n roll or Motown. My grandfather only listened to blues music, mostly country blues at that. If someone only listens to thrash metal, bluegrass, easy listening, or classical, why would they care about Motown? I went to school with some goth kids. They might be interested in the history of Bauhaus or Robert Smith's makeup tips, but I doubt they'd be interested in anyone in the Rock 'N Roll Hall Of Fame.

Please use the MJ sticky, thanks.