Stupidity Alert: Rivera Attacked for NOT Bashing Jackson – MB #243

Posted by

Stupidity Alert: Rivera Attacked for NOT Bashing Jackson – MJEOL Bullet #243 In a media filled with opinion, innuendo, and speculation, Rivera is bashed by some because he refuses to buy into this ‘guilty until proven guilty’ nonsense. Feb 7 2005 — In the circus that is the media, you’ll find a number of different characters: from the lion tamers to the tight-rope walkers to the clowns. Well certain “clowns” have taken it upon themselves to criticize Geraldo Rivera for taking a leave of absence from the Big Top. It seems absolutely amazing to some that Rivera’s interview with Michael Jackson has generated so much envy and/or hatred. I extend a welcome to the club of enlightenment to Rivera for his refusal to convict Jackson before trial. Finally, someone in the media isn’t afraid to overtly say that the emperor has no clothes. Or in this situation, Sneddon has no “case”. Ironically, most of that nonsensical hatred is aimed at Rivera by know-nothing reporters who had already publicly convicted Jackson the minute they heard the charges, and who wouldn’t know the first thing about unbiased journalism. We all have our opinions of this case. If Rivera was trashing and bashing Jackson left, right and center, there wouldn’t be so much as a peep of criticism. Some observers have suggested that some in the media, like Court TV, may have invested a lot of money on digging out and pursuing the ‘Jackson is guilty’ angle and they are loathed to relinquish that viewpoint. And anyone who publicly interferes with their crusade, like Rivera, suddenly becomes a target. Not to say that everyone at Court TV believes Jackson is guilty. They just seem to have more than their fair share of hysterical hosts, guests, and ill-labeled “journalists” who want/need Jackson to be guilty for all to be right with the world. Rivera’s formed his opinion by actually reading the court documents, doing his own independent research, and using commonsense. It is his constitutionally protected opinion; an opinion those who hate Jackson, or those who are jealous Rivera scored the interview, don’t seem to want to accept. The hypocritical and disgustingly ridiculous comments from these loud clowns under the Big Top seem to hold a ‘guilty-until-proven-guilty’ attitude about this “case”. And they do this while attacking Rivera’s objectivity, credibility and credentials as a journalist. One of the reasons why they bash Rivera could be because they may be worried that the public would start seeing Jackson as human instead of an inanimate, ambiguous ideal. They can’t handle it. For them to continue to rant without question, Jackson has to stripped of his status as a human being. And just forget about questioning the “upstanding” District Attorney who prosecution-sympathizers have claimed is beyond reproach! __No doomsday voiceovers? No lying to Jackson’s face? No conclusions of guilt?? Shame on you, Rivera!__ The Rivera interview was very well done. It was by far no where near as slimy and sensationalistic as the hatchet-job of a “documentary” done by ABC’s newly discovered hack, Martin Bashir. The interview consisted of Rivera asking Jackson’s questions and actually broadcasting Jackson’s full answers to those questions. What a novel idea! There was no doomsday, accusatory voiceover. No sensationalistic cuts, no chopping up of Jackson’s words, and no stripping the meaning from its context. No inane comments from know-nothing alleged Jackson “experts” who have never so much as met Jackson, let alone is an “expert” on him. It also baffles some “case” observers that Rivera is criticized for asking Jackson “softball” questions. What did these critics expect? Jackson couldn’t talk about the specifics of the “case”, nor could he discuss the allegations point by point. He couldn’t tell the public what the family was REALLY doing when they now claim to have been held hostage and molested. So Rivera asked a great artist going through hell about his art, about how this “case” has affected his life, and….get this….he actually allowed Jackson to give his own opinion of himself! Oh, what a concept! If more people would actually listen to Jackson instead of listening to “some hack’s opinion” while viewing him through a “guilty”-filter as in the Bashir “documentary”, we may actually learn something. Take note, tabloid reporter Diane Dimond. Another issue here, though, is frustration by some observers. They ask just why the hell people always expect that every interview Jackson gives must be comparable to an inquisition. Why do critics always want Jackson to engage in ridiculous and accusatory interviews where the interviewer must ask Jackson questions as if the interviewer is prosecuting him? As one pro-prosecution observer actually admitted, “Those who feel that way need to get over it. It is what it is. We all have opinions and I would not want someone else questioning my character because I don’t agree with them.” As expected, both Catherine Crier and tabloid reporter Diane Dimond whined about the Rivera interview not being accusatory or confrontational enough on Crier’s show today (Feb 7 2005). They both had the unmitigated gall to claim that the interview wasn’t “journalism.” Ha! Some have asked what either one of them would know about “journalism” in reference to this “case”. This stance is made all the more laughable coming from tabloid reporter Dimond. Dimond did what critics on the other side could characterize as a “fluff piece” with DA Tom Sneddon. So I guess “fluff” is in the eye of the beholder. Her interview with the current DA was given even before he filed an initial set of charges against Jackson. Some of her “hard-hitting” and “unbiased” questions were “Will you ever accept a plea bargain from Michael Jackson?” And, “You know and I know that Michael Jackson has three children…Do you fear for these children? Are child protective services interested in this case?” Wow….now that’s unbiased journalism! She also asked him how he felt about the fact that Jackson seemed to have written a song calling him a “cold man” (see Jackson DA: ‘We’re going to handle it like any other case’). Moreover, she has since repeatedly defended Sneddon against allegations of vindictiveness and misconduct. She’s opined about how much of a family man he is. She’s claimed she’s known him for a long time. So is this incredibly hypocritical of Dimond, and her buddy Crier, to even open their mouths in criticism of Rivera’s journalistic credibility? Absolutely. Before they draw the ire of many who have expressed surprise at their misplaced outrage with Rivera, they better take a good, hard look at the way they’ve reported on this “case” themselves all the while claiming to be full of journalistic integrity. They’re full of something, alright and are by far not above reproach in this regard. For those who aren’t familiar with the technique used by these holier-than-thou “clowns” under the Big Top, let’s break it down. This is an example of how those with that mindset fly under the radar. They may say something like this: “Oh, I’m not saying Jackson’s guilty, but I’ve heard the prosecution has a very strong case. There’s DNA evidence, my law enforcement sources say, which point to Jackson’s guilt. The defense says the prosecution is vindictive, but he’s just doing his job. He has an impeccable record. There are numerous victims of Jackson, my sources say, that prosecutors will call…..But….uh….I’m not saying he’s guilty.” Yeah, sure. They hardly ever seem to have “sources” which say the opposite. Though they may wrap their arms around the ideal of balanced reporting, either they’re delusional or are being disingenuous with the public. At least you know where Rivera stands. These detractors also level their criticism with a straight face and under the guise of “credible journalism”. Ironically, also reported today on Crier’s show were more fabricated smoke, speculation and unfounded nonsense around a number of issues; complete with short-sighted and ludicrous comments from Leslie Crocker-Snider. How’s that for an opinion! __Unbalanced criticism__ Some of those who have taken it upon themselves to criticize Rivera for NOT trying to convict Jackson in the court of public opinion had been previously silent in criticizing those who HAVE tried to publicly convict him. It seems that there are ridiculous “specials” from the likes of NBC, ABC, and various foreign “specials” featuring a bunch of “experts” sitting around talking about Jackson’s face, his money, the paternity of his children, and his relationship with kids as if he’s a cartoon character. But apparently nothing is wrong with that. That’s news. But Rivera’s tearing this “case” apart based on all the inconsistencies and contradictory stories “isn’t journalism”? Please. Rivera doesn’t exactly have a pristine past concerning Jackson. He, too, has made negative (and false) comments about Jackson’s propensity for guilt before he started to take a much closer look at the allegations. So this isn’t some Jackson shill who has never said a cross word about Jackson. Anyone who says that is sadly mistaken or outright lying. He stepped away from this guilty-until-proven-guilty mantra and began asking questions. If you remember, Rivera was the only journalist to actually ask Jamie Masada if he has ever met Jackson. Masada had made the rounds saying he introduced the accuser to Jackson. Well it wasn’t until Rivera started asking questions that the public learned Masada hadn’t so much as even met Jackson, let alone “introduced” the accuser to him. He may have made a phone call trying to get in touch with Jackson, but Jackson ultimately met the accuser reportedly through the Make A Wish foundation. The point is that no other person who interviewed Masada had ever asked the obvious question. Unless one is strictly covering what can absolutely be proven, it’s all conjecture, speculation, and opinion. Rivera’s opinion is that the current allegations are farce and a railroading job. He is far from alone in that belief. It also doesn’t appear that Rivera is solely basing his opinion on a vindictive prosecutor who flew to Australia in 1999 searching for “victims” of Jackson. He’s not solely basing it on a family shopping, being put up in expensive hotels, meeting celebrities, and reportedly contacting the DA’s office right during the time when they now claim to have been held hostage. He’s not solely basing it on the fact that when they escaped, they ran to one civil lawyer (Bill Dickerman), didn’t mention anything about molestation, kidnapping or wine; then went to the same lawyer (Larry Feldman) and shrink (Stan Katz) who got the settlement against Jackson. With Feldman, allegations of abuse magically appeared. What a coincidence….not. Rivera seems to also be basing his opinion on the incredibly shady and possibly felonious past of the accusing family. The defense doesn’t have to trash the accuser. The accusing family’s own actions have done that. And some who may have been defrauded by them have spoken out for themselves. Two of the possibly defrauded, J.C. Penney and the Mid Valley News contacted the defense about their experiences with the accusing family. So it is not difficult to understand why Rivera just isn’t buying this “case”. In the end, all Rivera has done is asked questions that other media figures have failed to do, and has come to his own conclusions based on those answers. And all the hypocritical clowns in this media circus need to check a mirror before calling someone else biased. Stay tuned. -MJEOL

Leave a Reply