CONTROVERSIES
Are the lyrics of "They Don't Care About Us" anti-Semitic?
Is it true that many MJ's friends did not support him during the allegations?
What TV show examined the media's handling of the 1993 allegations?
Why does Michael use swear words on HIStory?
Does Michael bleach his skin or does he have vitiligo?
Why does MJ wear a surgical mask when he goes out?
Did MJ and Lisa Marie know each other only 4 months before marrying?
Is it true that that MJ and Lisa Marie's marriage wasn't legal?
What is the story behind "Word to the Badd!"?
Should I believe everything LaToya said about Michael in recent years?
What is the status of the 1993 criminal investigation?
What is the difference between the criminal and civil allegations case?
Is it true that Michael cannont proclaim his innocence publicly?
Who is Victor Gutierrez and why did Michael sue him?
What publication provides a balanced overview of the allegations?
Why do some say that Prince was conceived by artificial insemination?
Are the lyrics of "They Don't Care About Us" anti-Semitic?
No. "They Don't Care About Us" is a song about ethnic polarization and indifference to justice in modern society. The original version, released in 1995 on the HIStory album, contained the lyrics, "Jew me, sue me, everybody do me/Kick me, kike me, don't you black or white me." During her June, 1995 "Prime Time Live" interview of MJ and wife Lisa Marie Presley, Diane Sawyer quoted these lines out of context and asked about the possibility of anti-Semitism on MJ's part, as "to jew" is a slang expression meaning "to swindle" or "to deceive" that stems from anti-Jewish stereotypes, and "kike" is a common anti-Jewish slur. Michael explained in response that in the song he is the victim, not the attacker, and chided Sawyer for suggesting he was anti-Semitic when many of his friends and associates were Jewish.
The lyrics and Michael's naive defense ignited a storm of media derision. Army Archerd, columnist for Daily Variety, complained that "when Jackson uses those words, they become acceptable for ordinary conversation" and told him to "kill the song". The response of major Jewish leaders was also critical, if more balanced. Rabbi Abraham Cooper, director of the Simon Wiesenthal Center, stated that he knew from an earlier visit of Michael's to the Center that Michael was not an anti-Semite, and that he understood that the real intent of the lyrics was not anti-Jewish, but he was worried that the nuances would be lost on many listeners, and that the song would teach slurs to young people. Rabbi Abraham Foxman, director of the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), echoed his concerns, and a representative of the Jewish Defense League (JDL) criticized the lyrics as inexpertly crafted for what MJ wished to convey. Longtime friend Steven Spielberg, who is Jewish, was also offended and wrote a letter to the New York Times to say that his written accolades in the HIStory album booklet were not meant as an endorsement of any of the new songs on HIStory.
MJ stated in the NY Times on 6/15/95: "The idea that these lyrics could be deemed objectionable is extremely hurtful to me, and misleading. The song in fact is about the pain of prejudice and hate and is a way to draw attention to social and political problems. I am the voice of the accused and the attacked. I am the voice of everyone. I am the skinhead, I am the Jew, I am the black man, I am the white man. I am not the one who was attacking. It is about the injustices of young people and how the system can wrongfully accuse them. I am angry and outraged that I could be so misinterpreted."
Michael was defended by his Jewish manager, Sandy Gallin, who told the NY Times that the lyrics should be taken in the context of the whole angry song. "When I heard those lyrics, I thought they were brilliant. He's saying, stop labeling people, stop degrading people, stop calling them names. The song is about not being prejudiced. To take two lines out of context is unfair." Melani Rogers, the vice president for publicity for the Epic label, said in a written response, "Our own view of the song is that it is a statement against prejudice of any kind." Longtime friend David Geffen, who is Jewish, protested that MJ is "not a hater of any kind. There is not one iota of anti-Semitism in Michael. At worst, he is naive."
Once apprised of the depth of Jewish concern over the lyrics, MJ publicly apologized to anyone he had offended by the wording, telling the Simon Wiesenthal Center in a letter that his "choice of words may have unintentionally hurt the very people with whom I meant to express solidarity." He also decided to take the suggestion of the Center's Rabbi Marvin Hier to put an apology and explanation in all copies of HIStory that had not yet been shipped to stores. MJ later also agreed to change the lyrics to obviate all possible misunderstanding. "Jew me" became "do me", and "kike me" became "strike me". These lyrics were amended soon thereafter to "chew me" and "hike me".
The perception of Michael's basic sincerity in the incident was seconded in a July 10, 1995 letter from Rabbi Foxman to the Wall Street Journal in response to an article lambasting MJ as one of the "peddlers of verbal garbage" who use sensationalism to sell products: "We have been in close, continuing contact with the parties during the period, and we find no reason to conclude that Mr. Jackson's apology and the sensitivity and responsiveness of Sony Music's Michael Schulhof in handling the situation was anything but honest, straightforward and commendable."
The controversy was revived in March 1996, during filming of the videos for "They Don't Care About Us" in New York and Brazil. It became apparent that, contrary to the expectations of some, the videos would not contain the revised lyrics, but instead the potentially offensive words would be masked by sound effects. Unsatisfied by this approach, and somewhat confused about Jackson's intentions in the song (see above), Rabbi Hier of the Wiesenthal Center appeared on the U.S. television program "EXTRA" to express his disapproval, saying, "When you have a person like Michael Jackson telling us that he has composed lyrics for a song of love and tolerance, and those supposed words of love and tolerance include 'Jew me, sue me, kick me, kike me' -- that's just ridiculous." Video director Spike Lee observed that there was a double standard if unflattering portrayals of blacks and Jews were permissible in Martin Scorsese's films, for instance, but Michael Jackson was excoriated for his choice of artistic expression in protesting social conditions in "They Don't Care About Us". Rabbi Hier contended that there was a big difference between Scorsese's movies and the song, although the distinction was not made clear.
The videos debuted on MTV and VH1 in the US in early April 1996. The "prison" version of the video, which contained brutal illustrations of man's inhumanity to man, was broadcast with a disclaimer saying that the video contained graphic footage, but MTV was nevertheless showing it "in the interests of artistic freedom." However, this and the "Brazilian" version of the video received little airplay and were soon dropped from the playlists. MTV spokeswoman Carol Robinson explained in Michael Fink's Insider column in the April 29 issue of People magazine that although the lyrics had been edited, "there remains the perception that the tone of the song is anti-Semitic, and as a result we are no longer airing it." MJJ Productions VP Bob Jones countered that Jackson "is not a racist, as evidenced by his endeavors on behalf of people of all religions." An Epic representative concurred, expressing disappointment in the decision of the cable music channels.
The attitude of the US affiliates was apparently not shared by MTV Europe, where "They Don't Care About Us" was #1 for three weeks, or by BET (Black Entertainment Television) in the U.S., where it reached #3. The single was top ten all over Europe and in Israel and reached #10 on the U.S. R & B charts the week of 6/15/96. (from Reuters, VOA, Daily Variety, NY Times, MTV News, Wall St. Journal, EXTRA, People, Billboard, club members)
Is it true that very few of Michael's friends and associates supported him during the allegations?
Michael has been quoted as saying that during the allegations he could count his true friends on one hand. Some of his friends may have disappointed him because of their silence, while others may have provided support privately. We may not be aware of all the people that came to Michael's support publicly, as their statements of support were rarely reported by the media, but here are those that we know to have came to Michael's support:
Elizabeth Taylor, Elton John, Jane Fonda, Corey Feldman, Mariah Carey, Bruce Willis, Brooke Shields, Sharon Stone, k.d. lang, Howard Carpedale, Maximilian Schell, Quincy Jones, Stevie Wonder, Katherine, Joseph, Janet, Jackie, Marlon, Rebbie, and Tito Jackson, J. Randy Taraborrelli, Flo Anthony, Garth Brooks, Paul McCartney, Tony Toni Tone, Lisa Marie Presley, Macaulay Culkin, Yoko Ono, Tevin Campbell, Queen Latifah, Kim Fields, Sinbad, Bryant Gumble, Mary A. Fischer, Bill Bellamy, Barbara Eden, Michael Peters, Shanice, Carol Burnett, 3T, Alfonso Ribiero, Frank Dileo, NAACP, Los Angeles area ministers, Jeanne White (Ryan's mother), Kieran Culkin (Macaulay's mother), Teddy Riley, Donnie Wahlberg & Joe Macintyre (from the New Kids On The Block), Smokey Robinson, Lynne Gold-Bikin (President of the Association of the American Barristers), Bruce Swedien, Lauren Shuler-Donner (film producer), and Phil Collins.
What was the PBS program (US) where they examined how the media dealt with the 1993 molestation allegations? What was the similar program in the UK?
"Frontline" on PBS did a special on tabloid coverage of the allegations called "Tabloid Truth: The Michael Jackson Scandal". The program details how an employee of the Child Protective Services in Los Angeles called a reporter and informed him that Michael was being investigated for child molestation, and within 24 hours the news was around the world. It examined how sources can be bought and how the media creates the story as they go along in order to garner ratings and sell magazines and newspapers. A similar program was shown on BBC television in the UK in 1994 as "The Hunt For Michael Jackson".
Why does Michael use swear words on HIStory?
When angry, count ten.
When very angry, swear. ----Mark Twain
Does Michael bleach his skin or what evidence is there that Michael really has vitiligo? Why doesn't he use dark makeup to cover his skin instead of the light makeup?
In the February 10, 1993 interview with Oprah Winfrey, MJ revealed that his skin had turned from brown to white because of a pigment-destroying skin disorder that runs on his father's side of the family. The following Friday, as reported by AP, his dermatologist, Dr. Arnold Klein, confirmed that he had diagnosed MJ with vitiligo in 1986. Joseph, Katherine, and Randy Jackson appeared on the US TV program "Day One" about a month after the Oprah interview to reveal that they had known for many years that Michael had vitiligo but had been sworn to secrecy. Janet Jackson told Ebony, MTV, Q, Bravo, and Star Club that she too had known but had complied with MJ's request to remain silent. She added that it always hurt to listen to claims that Michael was artificially lightening his skin because she knew the truth but could not defend him without violating his privacy.
In addition to the confirmation by close associates and family members, there is directly observable evidence. In Europe, two fan magazines devoted to Michael, Black & White and Nations of Magic, have published unretouched pictures taken during the Dangerous Tour that show that MJ's hands and arms are mostly pale but are speckled with dark pigment blotches, an appearance consistent with advanced vitiligo. Pictures of Michael with baby Prince published in the OK! magazine in April 1997 show dark blotches on his otherwise white arms. Fans who have followed his concert tours have reported occasionally being able to see blotches on his skin through the makeup. Reporter Tom Green, who covered MTV's "Weekend at Neverland Contest", wrote in USA Today on June 23, 1993, "[Jackson] is in makeup, but it is evident that his disclosure of a skin-lightening disease seems credible. Darker spots are apparent on a hand and around an ear." It is doubtful that if Michael's goal were to have white skin, he would allow these blotches to remain, especially since complete depigmentation is a treatment alternative for vitiligo patients. Finally, some well-known MJ trademarks are characteristic of vitiligo sufferers, including wearing wide-brimmed hats, long-sleeved shirts, and long pants and carrying an umbrella to protect against the ultraviolet radiation in sunlight.
The pictures in Black & White and Nations of Magic reveal the reason that MJ uses light rather than dark makeup to conceal his uneven pigmentation. They indicate that MJ has lost as much as 80% of his pigment to the disorder, making the use of dark makeup impractical.
More information about vitiligo can be found at:
http://goofy.ti6.tu-harburg.de/vitiligo/
Why does MJ wear a surgical mask when he goes out to a lot of places?
In his own words--"Because with time my skin condition has gotten worse. I have vitiligo and I'm totally completely allergic to the sun. I'm not even supposed to be outside actually. Even if I'm in the shade the sun rays can destroy my skin."
Did MJ and Lisa Marie Presley know each other for only 4 months before their marriage?
Four months is the time that they were actually dating rather than just friends. In fact they have known each other for years, ever since Elvis Presley brought his young daughter backstage to meet the Jackson 5 when they performed at the MGM Grand Hotel in Las Vegas in 1974. MJ and Lisa Marie renewed their acquaintance in 1991 and became close friends, often telephoning and spending time together. In May 1993, they were together at an event in support of the Atlanta Immunization Project. (from Ebony, Atlanta Constitution)
I heard that MJ and Lisa Marie Presley's marriage wasn't legal. Is this true?
No. The US tabloid TV program "A Current Affair" supposedly carried out a year-long investigation into the marriage and purported to have evidence that the marriage was illegal. Their main claims were:
At the time of the ceremony, the judge who carried it out, Hugo Alvarez Perez, was 100 miles outside his jurisdiction.
According to the laws of the Dominican Republic, there must be a period of 10 months between a divorce and a new marriage; Lisa Marie's marriage to her first husband, Danny Keough, was formally dissolved only 3 weeks before she married Michael Jackson.
According to flight reports and other time schedules, the marriage cannot have taken place when it was reported to have.
However, on November 5, 1995, Judge Alvarez clarified that Michael Jackson's marriage to Lisa Marie Presley was in fact legally valid. According to Dominican law, in order for a marriage to be performed, all that is needed are sworn statements from the bride and groom that they are currently single. These were provided. Moreover, shortly after the May 26, 1994 ceremony, Agence France Presse (AFP) obtained access to official records and witness accounts that demonstrated that the wedding had taken place in La Vega, within the judge's jurisdiction. Finally, the only parties who could have challenged the legality of the marriage were the bride and groom themselves, and only within a year after the marriage, and this they did not do. (from Agence France Presse)
What is the story behind "Word to the Badd!"?
In November 1991, a new single, "Word to the Badd!", by Jermaine Jackson was leaked to Los Angeles radio station KPWR. The DJ began to play the single continuously in alternation with MJ's new single "Black or White". The lyrics were a no-holds-barred attack on Michael. They read, in part:
Reconstructed
Been abducted
Don't know who you are...
Once you were made
You changed your shade
Was your color wrong?
Could not turn back
It's a known fact
You were too far gone
The broadside caused shock and controversy in the media and the public. Jermaine explained on the UK network TV program "Rapido": "I tried to put some phone calls to him and I didn't get a reply...it's a number of things but it's nothing we couldn't work out, had we spoken, but I wasn't granted an opportunity from his people to speak to him...the overall message is an older brother telling his younger brother to get back to reality...you have done it to the ultimate level, but you're still a person."
According to Margaret Maldonado, his former common-law wife, Jermaine wrote the song when he became enraged that his producers, L.A. Reid and Babyface, postponed work on his next album in order to work with Michael on Dangerous. Jermaine was unable to reach MJ by phone to confront him over the postponement, so he conceived a plan to put Michael in his place and at the same time draw attention to his own album.
The morning after the song began to air, MJ appeared at Hayvenhurst to demand an explanation. Contrary to some reports, he did not attempt to attack his brother physically over the insult but instead went into a room with him to discuss the matter, with mother Katherine mediating. Maldonado reports that after the meeting Katherine told her that Jermaine had refused to apologize, though Michael was deeply hurt. MJ begged his brother to withdraw the single, since his own fans would not care, but Jermaine's career would be ruined. Unwisely, Jermaine did not, and although the version of "Word to the Badd!" that appeared on his album did not contain the acid lyrics, the single and album were commercial failures due to public contempt over the cynical attack on Michael. Jermaine was dropped from his Arista contract soon after and remains unsigned to any label. (from A Visual Documentary, Jackson Family Values)
Should I believe any of the things LaToya has said about Michael in recent years?
Probably not. Her proof for the many provocative claims she has made about her family in the past few years is slim, and she has been contradicted regularly by other family members. For instance, sisters Rebbie and Janet have both publicly denied the sexual abuse that in 1991 LaToya avowed her father had inflicted on the Jackson daughters. In December 1993, LaToya claimed at a press conference in Israel that MJ was guilty of child molestation; she repeated these claims on the US TV show "Today" and added that her mother had once shown her canceled checks that represented payoffs to past victims. When challenged by anchorwoman Katie Couric, she then admitted she had no evidence of misbehavior on her brother's part, and she had no idea what the canceled checks had really been for. LaToya further alleged on tabloid TV shows in the US that Michael behaved suspiciously by having young boys in his room at Hayvenhurst for hours at a time; Margaret Maldonado has revealed that the young boys MJ had had in his room were only his nephews Taj, Taryll, and T.J., and the so-called suspicious behavior was nothing more than playing video games and watching movies. LaToya has often been called upon recently by tabloids to expound on events in Michael's life, but the views she has given are probably of little worth, since in late January 1996, she admitted on the US tabloid TV program "Inside Edition" that she hasn't seen Michael in years.
A possible end to her erratic behavior was signalled in May 1996, when she filed for divorce from her husband of seven years, Jack Gordon. The couple obtained restraining orders against one another, and LaToya later filed a lawsuit against Gordon, claiming he physically abused her (one much-publicized instance of which left her hospitalized in the early 1990s) and forced her to pose nude against her wishes. Reports indicate that she is now reconciling with her family and has apologized for her past actions. (from Michael Jackson: The King of Pop by C.C., Rolling Stone, A Visual Documentary, LA Times, Jackson Family Values, Radioscope's Electronic Urban Report, San Jose Mercury News, club members)
Latoya divorced her husband in 1997 and has returned home to the Jackson family.
What is the status of the criminal investigation into the allegations of sexual molestation made against Michael in 1993?
There is no active case against Michael Jackson today.
In September 1994, Los Angeles County District Attorney Gil Garcetti and Santa Barbara County District Attorney Tom Sneddon announced that after a 13-month investigation in which 400 witnesses were interviewed, no charges would be filed against Michael Jackson. The boy who had accused him of misconduct had declined to testify against him in court in any possible prosecution. The formal investigation concluded in Sept. 1994 and the case is closed. However, under California law, cases involving minors expire six years from the date of any alleged accusation, and in this particular case, the statute of limitations expires in 1999.
On September 12, 1997, the ABC television program 20/20 aired a Michael Jackson interview. During the introduction, Barbara Walters said in reference to the investigation: "By the way, we checked with the District Attorneys in Los Angeles and Santa Barbara and learned that there is no active case against Mr. Jackson today."
Lightweight news outlets that refer to "charges" of child molestation against Michael are incorrect, as this word carries the distinct legal meaning that an actual criminal prosecution was begun against him. Neither of two grand juries convened to review the evidence returned an indictment against MJ, and he was neither arrested nor charged with a crime. Some news organizations also conflate the criminal investigation with the civil lawsuit filed against him by his accusers, saying that the criminal case was dropped after he settled out of court. In reality, the two proceedings were legally separate, and it would have been illegal for his accusers to accept money in exchange for silence.
(USA Today, TIME)
What is the difference between the criminal and civil side of the allegations case?
When the boy accused Michael of molestation, California authorities began a criminal investigation into the case. This thorough investigation lasted for over a year and in the end, the authorities concluded that there was not enough evidence to file ANY criminal charges against Michael, which means that the State of California did not prosecute Michael and ended the case.
However, while the investigation was taking place, shortly after the California authorities began their investigation into the case, the boy's family decided not to wait for the authorities to find truth and filed a civil lawsuit against Michael. A CIVIL lawsuit can be filed by anyone against anyone, and is completely separate from any criminal lawsuit/trial. Civil suits generally focus on monetary penalties, and in the civil case of the boy against Michael, the boy's side was seeking millions of dollars from Michael. While the amount of money sought were not disclosed, the boy's lawyer did ask to review all of Michael's finaces.
The CIVIL suit ended with an out-of-court settlement in January 1994, but the criminal investigation continued for 8 more months, until September 1994, when it concluded WITHOUT any charges being leveled against Michael.
Is it true that because of the out-of-court settlement of the civil case, Michael cannot proclaim his innocence regarding the accusation of child molestation?
Details of the civil case settlement are private, but statements made in a press conference by lawyers representing the plaintiff and the defendant shed some light.
VERBATUM Transcript from the Michael Jackson/Chandler settlement press conference as taped from satellite on 1-26-94, unedited.
Larry Feldman's statement-Attorney for Plaintiff:
We wish to jointly announce a mutual resolution of this lawsuit. As you are aware the plaintiff has alleged certain acts of impropriety by Mr. Jackson and from the inception of those allegations Mr. Jackson has always maintained his innocence. However the emotional trauma and strain on the respective parties have caused both parties to reflect on the wisdom of continuing with the litigation. The plaintiff has agreed that the lawsuit should be resolved and it will be dismissed in the near future. Mr. Jackson continues to maintain his innocence and withdraws any previous allegations of extortion. This will allow the parties to get on with their lives in a more positive and productive manner. Much of the suffering these parties have been put through has been caused by the publicity surrounding this case. We jointly request that members of the press allow the parties to close this chapter in their lives with dignity so that the healing process may begin.
Johnnie Cockran's statement-Attorney for Defendant [Michael Jackson]:
In the past ten days the rumors and speculation surrounding this case have reached a fever pitch and by-and-large have been false and outrageous. As Mr. Feldman has correctly indicated Michael Jackson has maintained his innocence from the beginning of this matter and now, as this matter will soon be concluded, he still maintains that innocence. The resolution of this case is in no way an admission of guilt by Michael Jackson. In short, he is an innocent man who does not intend to have his career and his life destroyed by rumor and innuendo. Throughout this ordeal he has been subjected to an unprecedented media feeding frenzy; especially by the tabloid press. The tabloid press has shown an insatiable thirst for anything negative and have paid huge sums of money to people who have little or no information and who barely knew Michael Jackson. So today the time has come for Michael Jackson to move on to new business, to get on with his life, to start the healing process and to move his career forward to even greater heights. This he intends to do. At the appropriate time Michael Jackson will speak out publicly as to the agony, torture, and pain he has had to suffer during the past six months. Thank you very much.
Who is Victor Gutierrez and why did Michael sue him?
Victor Gutierrez is a freelance writer who appeared on the U.S. tabloid television show "Hard Copy" to claim that there was a videotape of Michael Jackson molesting a boy. Some background on his story can be found in the book Jackson Family Values, by Jermaine Jackson's ex-common-law wife, Margaret Maldonado. She writes that in early 1995,
I received a telephone call from a writer named Ruth Robinson. I had known Ruth for quite a while and respected her integrity. It made what she had to tell me all the more difficult to hear. "I wanted to warn you, Margaret," she said. "There's a story going around that there is a videotape of Michael molesting one of your sons, and that you have the tape."If anyone else had said those words, I would have hung up the phone. Given the long relationship I had with Ruth, however, I gave her the courtesy of a response. I told her that it wasn't true, of course, and that I wanted the story stopped in its tracks.She had been in contact with someone who worked at the National Enquirer who had alerted her that a story was being written for that paper. Ruth cross-connected me with the woman, and I vehemently denied the story. Moreover, I told her that if the story ran, I would own the National Enquirer before the lawsuits I brought were finished. To its credit, the National Enquirer never ran the piece."Hard Copy," however, decided it would. "Hard Copy" correspondent Diane Dimond had reported that authorities were reopening the child molestation case against Michael. She had also made the allegations on L.A. radio station KABC-AM on a morning talk show hosted by Roger Barkley and Ken Minyard.Dimond's claims were based on the word of a freelance writer named Victor Gutierrez. The story was an outrageous lie. Not one part of it was true. I'd never met the man. There was no tape. Michael never paid me for my silence. He had never molested Jeremy. Period.
After the "Hard Copy" story aired, the LAPD told the Los Angeles Times that they had seen no such videotape, they were not looking for it, and there was no renewed investigation into molestation allegations. Michael Jackson subsequently filed a $100 million slander lawsuit against Gutierrez, "Hard Copy", and KABC-AM for perpetuating the story. None of these parties ever produced the videotape or any evidence it existed. Because Jackson's lawyers could find no sign of the videotape or the origin of the tale, Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Reginald Dunn ruled that Gutierrez was no longer protected by the California Shield Law, and ordered him to name his source. Gutierrez did not, instead claiming that a host of people, including Elizabeth Taylor and Los Angeles County District Attorney Gil Garcetti, could verify the existence of the videotape (none of these people in fact supported him). Consequently, on October 15, 1996, Judge Dunn ruled that Gutierrez's story was false and that he had acted with malice and was therefore liable for presumed and punitive damages (the amount of which would be determined at a later date.) The writer then fled to Mexico.
In October 1997, a legal action to assess the amount of "presumed and punitive damages" to be paid to Michael Jackson by Victor Gutierrez was delayed due to Gutierrez filing for bankruptcy. Mr. Jackson's lawyers stated that the assessment of such damages would be determined and that Gutierrez would not be protected indefinitely by his action.
On April 9, 1998 Michael Jackson won the slander suit against free-lance writer Victor Gutierrez. A Los Angeles jury ordered Victor Gutierrez to pay Michael Jackson $2.7 million for failing to prove the existence of a videotape that allegedly showed Michael in an inappropriate conduct with a young boy.
"We talked to the jurors afterwards," Michael's lawyer Mr. Modabber said. "They said they wanted to send a message that they were tired of the tabloids telling malicious stories about celebrities for money. They said they hope this will send a message not to do this."
Is there a publication I can read about the allegations, that provides a balanced overview of the events?
Yes. While most of the media was on a feeding frenzy and repeated speculations indiscriminately, one article stands out above all others. The author, Mary A. Fischer, presents an article that is based on extensive research and reveals information that was ignored by most media: "Was Michael Jackson Framed?" published in the October 1994 issue of GQ magazine.
What is the origin of the stories that Michael's baby was conceived by artificial insemination and that MJ paid his wife, Debbie Rowe-Jackson, to have the child?
In early November 1996, the London tabloid, News of the World, claimed that Debbie Rowe-Jackson had conceived Michael's child through artificial insemination at the Los Angeles Fertility Institute and was being paid $500,000 to have the baby. The tabloid further claimed that Rowe-Jackson would surrender custody to Michael and would retain only visiting rights. The New York Daily News quoted neighbors of Debbie's, Kevin Forrest and Tonya Watts, as saying that she had told them she was having the child out of friendship, but it was a natural conception. The News of the World countered by publishing what they said was an interview with Debbie's father, Gordon Rowe, in which he said she told him in a phone call that the child was conceived by artificial insemination. The December 2, 1996 issue of People magazine quoted a neighbor and "pal", Mary Colandro, as also saying Rowe-Jackson was "having the baby for Michael as a friend "though it was a natural conception." On November 4, 1996, Michael Jackson confirmed that he was indeed to become a father, but called rumors that the mother was artificially inseminated "completely false and irresponsible" and denied he had paid Rowe-Jackson to have the child. Nevertheless, the tabloid stories were picked up and repeated around the globe by mainstream news outlets until they gained a dubious legitimacy in the mind of the public.
Michael Jackson and Debbie Rowe were married on November 14, 1996, in Sydney, Australia. Reports soon followed in the Australian tabloids that Debbie was asking for a divorce. At length, tired of immodest speculation in the media, Michael and Debbie issued a press release on January 6, 1997, in which they said, "Deborah has been extremely upset by the flagrant fabrications and utter lies that have been published about her and the false statements attributed to her father which he never made. Deborah's father supports her decisions 100 percent. Not inclined to respond to false and vicious reports, Deborah is adamant about again setting the record straight that Michael is the father of the child, the pregnancy is not the result of artificial means, that she has not been paid to have Michael's baby, and that she is not seeking or filing for a divorce."
Michael and Debbie are still married. In 1998, their second child, a girl was born. Her name is Paris.
Transcript of Debbie's interviews can be read in the Interviews Section.
Back To FAQ
Click Here