Why the bad reporting?

Long after Michael was 13, and a while after 1991, the media narrative shifted and he wasn’t just glorified, deified, or made into a freak anymore. He was widely accepted to be guilty of sexually abusing boys. That narrative clouded each and every media report, as it should.

But think for one minute: what if he was not guilty.

Let’s take a random example from the Guardian. The British press, even the non-yellow press, was relentless and cynical. And it still An article from March 2001, long before the second allegations surfaced, is titled:

“No kidding as Jacko calls for bill of rights“

In one of the strangest decisions of his deeply strange life, the multi-million selling singer Michael Jackson last night chose the Oxford Union to demand the right for children to be read a bedtime story without having to compete with the evening news.

First of all: After Michael had explained as early as 1997 in an widely viewed interview with Barbara Walters (and this is only one occasion) that he disliked being called Jacko. Who still calls him that in 2001 does it derogatory.

Secondly: How cynical do you have to be to second-guess and ridicule someone for proposing a universal bill of rights for children?

Yes, if he was guilty he should be second-guessed and made uncomfortable. But at that time no proper court of law had found him guilty of anything. It was all just speculation, assumption, prejudice. Years later in 2005, he was found not guilty. But the media narrative hasn’t adequately mirrored that.

Let’s look at another, more recent, example. An article from March 2025, the same newsletter.

“‘I’ve had murderers try to find me. I’ve had armed people say they’ll shoot’ – Dan Reed on the fallout from his Michael Jackson films“

First, the article gives Dan Reed, who is a controversial figure even to the most favorable observer, a platform without putting in the effort of countering his perspective with some facts. Of course the abuse Reed has received is inacceptable, and there are destructive elements in the fandom that need to be addressed.

Secondly, Dan Reed, and by extension this article, goes on to call everyone who is convinced Michael Jackson is not guilty a “cultist” and a “faithful“. This puts all these people in the realm of cult followers, religiously fanatics, indoctrinated sheep. Crucially Reed does the exact same thing he complains about: He abuses. His statement is not only gaslighting, it is factually wrong, it is also tantamount to libel.

The crux of the matter is that everything hinges on whether you think Jackson guilty or not. Reed himself has put out a narrative that supports the former viewpoint, without strenghtening his case via facts. We are to believe that Reed and his collaborators are right, just as he argues fans simply believe Jackson’s side.

But there is another way. We don’t have to believe anything without asking questions. We can simply gather facts. The more facts the better the case. The facts lean towards Jackson’s innocence more than they do support his guilt. Even if you don’t agree with that conclusion, we can argue about the facts. That would be a start.

Editors need to place a higher value on journalistic integrity over publishing copy unfazed with facts just because something is deemed news-worthy. Writers need to put in the work and research their topic. Yes, it is a complicated subject that by far exceeds the scope of an assignment for an interview or opinion piece.

But half-assing this is opportunistic, unprofessional, and one reason for the ever-eroding trust in the mass media.