Media Frenzy Appears Stupid after Presley Statement-Bullet #107

Posted by

Media Frenzy Appears Stupid after Presley Statement-MJEOL Bullet #107 Lisa Presley released a statement yesterday (March 17) to put to rest the firestorm of media speculation and reports. Presley says she never saw anything inappropriate happen between Michael Jackson and any child. She says her comments were taken out of context and purposely twisted to insinuate Jackson was guilty of something. In a statement to clarify what she meant during an Australian interview, Presley says:

I was in no way referring to seeing something inappropriate with children, as I have stated publicly before. I never have. Unfortunately, due to the recent media frenzy surrounding Michael Jackson, my comments during a recent TV interview in Austrialia regarding him were completely taken out of context and erroneously read into. In saying I ‘saw things’, I was specifically referring to things in that relationship with us that went on between us at the time as husband and wife…

Well she finally clarified her meaning but the larger question is just why did the media go on a two-day binge; a frenzy talking about her possibly being made to testify in front of a grand jury? (continue…) Based on absolutely nothing confirming that she was even speaking about molestation, the media was ablaze with speculation, whether her comments were intentionally vague or not. Panels of “experts” and “analysts” were convened on show after show to discuss whether or not what Presley allegedly “saw” could land her in the middle of the Jackson case. Dan Abrams (the Abrams Report) did an entire segment about her possibly being called as a witness even though she did not say anything directly about molestation. Catherine Crier (Crier Live) did the same thing, as did the Today Show, Good Day Live and whoever else wanted to beat the story into the ground. Without so much as mentioning/questioning whether or not LMP was even talking about molestation, the off the wall discussions continued throughout the day. On the Abrams Report (March15), Abrams and Mike Taibbi (NBC) discussed this issue along with prosecutor Paul Pfingst, Jeralyn Merritt, and Norm Early. There were comments like:

“What would not be protected, Dan, is any personal observations she made about his conduct, about whether or not he had pornography and things on the walls…” (Pfingst; former prosecutor)

Pfingst is speaking hypothetically of course, but where the hell did that come from? Pornography on the walls? Huh? It came from Presley’s initially vague statement coupled with the machinations of a media mindset set on believing the absolute worst FIRST. Another statements was:

“His best hope would be that that would not come in at trial because it wouldn’t be relevant, because it’s 10 years ago…” (Merritt; Criminal defense atty)

Best hope? How about his best “hope” being that she didn’t see anything because there wasn’t anything to see in the first place? Again, Merritt too is speaking hypothetically, but no one makes a mention of whether or not Presley is lying, exaggerating, or is being used (unwittingly or not) to rake Jackson over the coals once again. So as not to seem like I’m picking on the Abrams Report—and I’m not—this theme was all over the air waves. This is from the Today Show (March 16):

“Well certainly if she saw anything whatsoever that would bolster the prosecution’s case, I would expect her to be called. She has no privledge not to testify…” (Jim Hammer, San Francisco Asst. DA)

Well now it’s clear she didn’t see anything whatsoever that would bolster the prosecution’s case. The only person I’ve heard even question whether or not Presley was even talking about molestation before her statement yesterday was CNN legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin. After he finished answering his hypothetical question, he at least hints toward the obvious:

TOOBIN:….However, that statement, sort of tantalizing as it may be, it’s pretty vague. I mean… O’BRIEN: I saw lots of things, I’m not talking. TOOBIN: Right. I mean, and it could, you know, it could be financial. I mean you have — that alone is certainly not going to be admitted in any court.

My opinion hasn’t changed. I think this intentionally vague statement was made to manipulate the press. What she may not have counted on was this blowing up in her face. The fact remains that every time she speaks about Jackson, she gets media coverage for her comments by the worldwide press. And she knows it. The fact is that one simply can’t say “I was powerless…” and “seeing things going on that I couldn’t do anything about” during this time and NOT have those statements taken out of context unless they are clarified right then and there. Will this stop the inane and incorrect speculation that the ex-wife saw Jackson molest a kid? Hopefully her clarification has finally shut down the nonsense machine. -MJEOL

Leave a Reply