First the Reagans, now Michael Jackson

First the Reagans, now Michael Jackson
: Pity CBS’ scheduler. First, they had to scramble to replace The Reagans. Now they have to scramble to replace a Michael Jackson special that has been “postponed.”

Given the gravity of the charges against Mr. Jackson, we believe it would

be inappropriate at this time to broadcast an entertainment special.

However, we are very mindful that Mr. Jackson is innocent until proven

guilty. We will consider broadcasting the special after the due process of

the legal system runs its course.

Or they could send it to VH-1. [via Cory Bergman at Lost Remote]

  • Marcel Perez

    We have watched the entire Jackson dysfunctional family story unfold over every possible public medium, in every public venue.
    The king of bizarre, Michael, is once again facing career and freedom threatening charges over personal proclivities involving young boys.
    He doesn’t seem to be able to learn from former errors in judgement and at least one other near-miss escape from disaster in the last scandal involving a young boy’s charges of sexual molestation.
    It doesn’t look like any out of court settlements are in the offing this time, and the county prosecutor hints that there may be multiple alleged victims. We could be in for some graphic and shocking revelations in the event these charges result in an indictment. The alleged victim’s family, filing these charges, have indicated that they are not pursuing civil suit – for now. If some reports of Jackson’s poor finacial condition are true, he may not have anything left to pay a civil judgement.
    An arrest warrant just issued should see Mr. Jackson’s arrest, in the next day or two. Bail, set at $3 million, should be met and would allow him to better help his attorneys to prepare for a possible legal defense.
    We won’t be wanting for information as every news source in the world is tapping in for this story.
    Regardless of the outcome, Michael Jackson’s career is all but over. If convicted and imprisoned, so, too, may be his life. The image of Never Land is in cruel juxtaposition to whatever any accomodating prison might offer.

  • A friend of mine in the UK had her Jackson bio documentary pulled from broadcast on ITV yesterday as the news broke.

  • old maltese

    ‘However, we are very mindful that Mr. Jackson is innocent until proven guilty.’
    This is sadly a too-common statement.
    He is either innocent *or* guilty. Period.
    He must be *considered* innocent in the legal process, which is a different thing altogether.

  • Marcel Perez

    In our highly litigous society, one has to be careful of comments that can be construed to be libelous or defaming. It really becomes a game of dotted “i” and crossed “t” and has no real meaning to people who have already come to their own conclusions.
    Most people are more than willing to give the benefit of any doubt to an accused person who doesn’t already have a track record of proven or even alleged misdeeds. This is human nature and is usually based on common sense.
    Michael Jackson has more than a track record for bizarre behavior and alleged illegal acts against young boys. Most people would common- sensibly consider a multi-million dollar settlement to be tatamount to a guilty plea.
    The hushed story of his equally bizarre introduction to fatherhood is also an unfinished one and will probably find it’s way into the legal proceedings ahead.
    No network or production company in it’s right mind will release anything that can be taken as supportive of Jackson at this time, considering the form and gravity of the charges made against him.

  • More crushing of free speech. Must have been that damned mob again.

  • old maltese

    Eric —
    You don’t mean the VRWC, do you? To what lengths will they not go?

  • I know, first their jack-booted stormtroopers goosestep all over Mr. Barbara Streisand, and only for basing his portrayal of Ronald Reagan on the Spitting Image version, as he’s admitted, and now the Zionist-imperialist running dogs have altered the holy CBS schedule yet again. Thank goodness there are bloggers who understand that any case in which a TV network decides to cancel or postpone anything is a violation of freedom of speech. Looks like it’s time to flood the zone again!

  • Marcel Perez

    I think you are making a bit more of this than it warrants.
    If and when Michael Jackson can clear up this matter, I’m sure he will soon enough be a featured subject for TV viewers.
    The timing is the problem, whether it is totally coincidental or at least partially contrived. A decision to go ahead with the scheduled airing might give the impression that the network people didn’t recognize the gravity of these heinous charges or that they simply chose to disregard them, altogether.
    Whether it pleases us or not, appearances do play an important role in our daily lives, and, in itself, is reason enough to make this kind of decision.

  • Marcel:
    I was being sarcastic. Just pointing out how thinking of this decision as having anything to do with free speech (or lack thereof) makes exactly as much sense as thinking the decision on the Reagans did. Mr. Jarvis was outraged about that decision. I’m still waiting for the outrage on this one.

  • Eric: It was so quiet around here without you. Did you go on vacation?
    Can you go back?

  • Jeff:
    That’s not a very polite way to treat guests who disagree with you or point out contradictions in your thought. I thought “blogging was a conversation” and we were all here to keep each other honest and “fact-check each others’ asses” and all that. Do you always respond to criticims of your thought or writing with snide personal attacks? But you’re right. It’s your house and you can do whatever you want. You’re free to ban me or whatever other measures you feel you need to take to enforce some “tyranny of thought” in the ol’ comment box. You can be sure I won’t actually see it as a free speech issue though.
    PS It occurs to me that “quiet” usually isn’t how I describe an interesting blog, but if that’s what you want . . .

  • Eric:
    First, try turning on the sense-o-humor button, eh?
    But if you want to get serious, I will, too: A weblog is like a home. This one is my home. It’s not (as I’ve said before) like a forum — or Saturday night at the bar — where the game is gotcha! and where no one will remember the insulting things you said the next day because they and you were drunk.
    This is my open house.
    And if I invited you into my house and again and again and again all you did was go after me (which is fine) but over the exact same point (which is tedious and boring) do you think I’d invite you back to the next party? Would I ever expect an invitation from you? No on both counts.
    Yes, blogs are about conversation. But at some point, the conversation moves on or it becomes boring. If you don’t like me that much, don’t come. If you want to have a conversation, great! But let’s find new things to talk about, please. I’m over Ronald Reagan this week!
    Remember that the comments you leave here also say something about me and the company I keep. I generally leave them alone. But when tapped on the shoulder again and again and again, I will react and will rarely try to steer the conversation, as a host should.
    I thought we’d moved on but apparently we hadn’t.
    So let’s try this again, shall we?
    Didn’t mean to offend. Just a joke. So, Eric, what’s new?

  • Point taken Jeff, thanks.

  • And thanks for that response, Eric. I’m relieved.
    Come on in and have a shrimp…

  • Marcel Perez

    Perfect example of civility and cordiality at work.
    I’m kind of an interloper on your blog site, Jeff, but, because of the tete a tete that happens, we all actually get to know each other better. I think you know this and count on a bit of it to stimulate animated discussion. I like the analogy of your blog site being your home.