Medium: Leaving Neverland a few years later, and I still have concerns…about the media

[TAW1979]

Leaving Neverland a few years later, and I still have concerns…about the media

It’s been quite a while since the world was rocked by a single movie. I honestly had issues about it and how the media played its role in…

medium.com

by James Wolf

It’s been quite a while since the world was rocked by a single movie. I honestly had issues about it and how the media played its role in its promotion and criticisms of it, and today, those issues are still fresh. That said, I’m going to ask that you hear, or rather read, me out, and keep an open mind.

In early March 2019, the world was introduced to the proclaimed documentary Leaving Neverland, a 4-hour film that recorded the supposed confessions of two adult men who claimed they were molested at the hands of deceased, world-renowned, superstar entertainer Michael Jackson. The film was directed by Dan Reed and starred Wade Robson and James Safechuck with appearances of their family members. For a time, Leaving Neverland was the talk of the mainstream news media due to its harrowing and disturbing content.

I should mention that Robson has tried to sue Jackson’s estate for millions of dollars in 2013 soon after he suddenly claimed that Jackson molested him when he was a child with Safechuck following suit the following year. They never succeeded after a few tries, but today, their cases are reported to be going to trial.

Now, at first, I wanted to believe Robson and Safechuck when I first heard about the documentary and afterwards when I watched it. I was told to believe victims, because it’s the right thing to do, especially with the onset of the #MeToo climate, and I always want to maintain a liberated mindset. Actually, I thought I had a liberated mindset. Plus, I don’t consider myself a fan of Michael Jackson, nor do I think his talents should exonerate him if he was guilty. Yet, something about Leaving Neverland and how it was treated in the mainstream was gnawing at me. The whole thing seems flawed and biased.

Please don’t assume I’m defending rape culture in any way for what I’m about to write. Understand that I find something’s not right about this particular situation. Yes, the accusations are convincingly disgusting . Yes, we tend to question them and the people who made them, because we tend to wrongfully put reputation and image over sympathy and truth. And yes, accusations of these kinds of crimes made years ago are hard to prove. But are we to believe no one find these accusations, the accusers, the film or the media’s partiality towards them a tad bit odd?

When Leaving Neverland came, another documentary was being featured at the Sundance Film Festival. Untouchable is about the plentiful rape and sexual assault allegations against disgraced movie mogul Harvey Weinstein who was still a moderately hot topic at the time. Leaving Neverland was said to have been a last minute entry. Still, as soon as its existence was known, the mainstream media pounced all over it, and Untouchable became almost an afterthought. Leaving Neverland was promoted through article after article up until and immediately after its Sundance premiere. It would soon find a home on HBO.

Leaving Neverland, or rather the accusers, received support from corporate media outlets for apparently how personal and gripping the testimonies are during a time when #MeToo was still fresh in the news. The director got countless interviews that basically treated him as a breakthrough filmmaker. To the media landscape, the two men’s stories were not only devastating but also “credible”. Talk show host Oprah Winfrey even had a special that interviewed Reed, Robson and Safechuck in front of an audience of abuse survivors. The film won awards, and produced “fans” of its own, or rather people who watched the movie who immediately and vigorously believed and backed the three men without question.

This led to commentary that pondered on whether or not Jackson should still be idolized and his music should still play on the radio. Or should we just “cancel” him from life and history altogether. Some even said we should. Some have. For examples, Radio stations around the world stopped playing Jackson’s music. An episode of The Simpsons that featured Jackson’s voice was removed from syndication. And some of those who were his fans renounced their fandom.

The allegations featured in Leaving Neverland are still fresh in the mainstream’s rolodex as the film is still referenced, especially if the news story relates to Robson and Safechuck’s lawsuits against Jackson’s companies.

It turns out many people are uncertain about Leaving Neverland. Since it arrived, they saw holes in the two men’s testimonies. Some conducted their own research and found lots of problems they felt couldn’t and shouldn’t be ignored and had questions that should be asked. At least I did.

However, Dan Stephens at Top 10 Flims describes how the backlash helped to avert attention towards any and all probing questions and proven facts:

His guilt is assumed in this viral cooking pot of media dissemination because, oh, look Canada isn’t playing his songs anymore, The Simpsons aren’t playing the Jackson episode anymore, and his house has dropped in price. All these factors detract from a considered look at what Leaving Neverland said happened. And they detract from accepted truths in a court of law: the fact Jackson was acquitted on child molestation charges in 2005 after the jury unanimously found him not guilty of all charges.

Now, at first take, why would Wade Robson, who sung nothing but praises for Michael Jackson from childhood to adulthood and during the trial, suddenly make a 180 and condemn him for allegedly sexually assaulting him for seven years when he was a kid? Why did James Safechuck’s mother Stephanie supposedly cheered when Jackson died in 2009 when her son didn’t disclose his abuse until 2013? And why didn’t Dan Reed interview other people who knew Jackson, Robson, Safechuck and their families to help add layers to his film like Brandi Jackson, Michael’s niece, who dated Robson and calls him a ‘liar’ and actors Macaulay Culkin and Emmanuel Lewis, two of Jackson’s friends when they were children who firmly stressed that they were never molested by him? These questions are only the tip of a much bigger and deeper iceberg. For more information about and behind present (and past) allegations, click here and here.

During my time on social media, a lot of people had similar questions and plenty of other issues. They expressed not only their disgust with the film and how Reed, Robson and Safechuck portrayed Jackson as a monster without solid stories and with incredulous editing, but also the media’s overall acquiescence to the film. Most articles only described the appalling details they learned, how it made them feel about Jackson and his music afterwards and, in some cases, how the film is a testament to the importance of survivors to come forward. NPR, The New York Times, CNN, Slate, The Root, Indiewire, Salon, The Los Angeles Times and The Guardian were among many media outlets that followed this pattern. I’m not saying that it’s wrong per se. But why wasn’t there as much of an effort in fact-checking the movie’s allegations as it was in reviewing its narrative?

To be fair though, the media did widely report on a serious discrepancy regarding the timeline of Safechuck’s alleged abuse at the Neverland train station after journalist and author Mike Smallcombe tweeted it here. He also gave a scathing review of Leaving Neverland and the media’s response:

The whole idea behind doing this research is to offer the balance that wasn’t there in the first place, firstly in the documentary, which made no attempt to investigate whether the pair’s allegations are indeed true, or to challenge two people who are after hundreds of millions of dollars. The documentary violated all norms and ethics in filmmaking and journalism.

The media coverage around the documentary has also been atrocious, with reporters just regurgitating articles and not bothering to research the other side of the story. They are probably wary of how it might affect their reputations. But journalism is about seeking the truth, at any cost.

Editor, photographer and journalist Stereo Williams expressed similar thoughts when he questioned the eventuality of the film’s impact:

In the aftermath of Leaving Neverland, I was surprised to see that so many others had no such questions — that this documentary was enough to convince them that we’d finally gotten the truth about Michael Jackson. A documentary that arrives on the heels of two men changing their stories, one superstar dead in the ground, and lawsuit appeals pending. We’re asked to believe everything, even with no clarification or corroboration in what’s being presented. I was shocked that this was all anyone needed. So many people seemed to retreat to the most naïve parts of their reasoning, while wielding sanctimony like a blazing sword — tearing into anyone who dared not jump to co-sign this project’s claims as a morally-defunct celebrity worshipper.

I can attest that some of the people I interacted with who believe Jackson is innocent are not fans, but they are still assumed as such by the film’s believers who command them to watch Leaving Neverland as if it’s a gospel of irrefutable truth thinking they must haven’t seen it since they aren’t accepting it. Even Reed himself thought this. But even some of the fans that defended Jackson did so not because of his music, dancing, star power, etc. They too saw a lot wrong with the movie. Yet, they are scorned for still being possible fans defending the King of Pop.

Reed, in his interviews, not only described the alleged sexual assaults as “romantic” and “loving”, but also has shown he had no interest in investigating if the allegations are true or not. He practically just believed them, and he considered those who didn’t accept the allegations as crazy fans and/or those who simply didn’t watch his film. He doesn’t believe there was anything that could question or refute the allegations or the film. To Reed and the believers, Leaving Neverland is inarguable and unquestionable. There’s no room for disagreement within the mainstream media’s landscape or with Leaving Neverland’s believers.

We can’t decide that all accusers are victims without imperative investigations. False allegations of sexual assault happen, but they are extremely rare . But also, one shouldn’t use this one case to conclude that all accusers are liars. All that does is help in the shaming of actual victims. All in all, we must be very careful and wise to not fall into traps which makes us jump to conclusions that can cause further damage to individuals and society as a whole, and we can’t overrule emotion over logic when we face this very real problem. Both have to be in tandem in order to fight against the devastating culture of sexual violence that troubles society.

An article on whatwentwrongwith.com warns that to believe in an either-or mode of thinking when it comes to sex-based crimes can be highly problematic judicially:

Following the #MeToo movement, we’re now at a very crucial juncture when it comes to allegations; if every victim is called a liar before we hear (and see) their evidence you can see how that would prevent justice from being exercised but similarly, if every accusation is believed, it is also detrimental to the concept of law. We’re not supposed to do either, we’re supposed to let the courts sort these cases out but apparently these days all you need is a few hacks, a couple of sellouts, and the gullible public and the burden of proof gets thrown out of the window. It’s a dangerous precedent to be swayed by the mainstream media and social media rather than actual proof…

The Leaving Neverland fiasco exposed how feelings can take precedence over reason and how a public was manipulated by a film that induced strong emotions at the expense of objectivity and fact-finding.

There was so much more than meets the eye in Leaving Neverland. Yet, the media was quiet about it while loudly trumpeting how moving it is. This whole situation is a major reminder that the media, particularly the news, should not be above doubt and interrogation when it comes to what it gives the public and what it leaves out. It has a responsibility to the truth no matter how inconvenient or uncomfortable it is, and it was sorely lacking in this case. It was the damning news story of 2019, and there was no presumption of innocence from the press. The film — in their eyes — is the proof. But Leaving Neverland is a highly controvertible documentary. The stories elicit explicit imagery and raw emotion, but its obvious lack of vital research has been incredibly ignored by the media. Across media outlets, writers, commentators and even talk show hosts and celebrities assumed Jackson’s guilt based on the film alone. To date, there hasn’t been much, if any, investigative journalism engaged into Robson and Safechuck’s claims or Reed’s filmmaking.

Michael Jackson was a towering figure in his day. His music was the soundtrack of the 80’s, 90’s, and 2000’s, his dance moves are iconic, and his videos are considered masterpieces. But he was also a target of the media’s tabloid journalism, and it amplified when he was first accused of child sexual assault in 1993, again in 2005, up until the time of his death and thereafter. The allegations, as well as his changing facial appearance, skin condition, overall uniqueness and, of course, love of children were topics in a media geared towards sensationalism and the dehumanization of black males. Leaving Neverland, in some ways, carried on the practice, and it also succeeded in cancelling him, albeit temporarily.

Since then, two more documentaries countering Leaving Neverland were released with a third on the way: Michael Jackson: Chase the Truth, Michael Jackson: Square One and the work-in-progress Trial By Media: The Michael Jackson Story. A musical based on Jackson is going strong, winning a few awards in fact. A biopic film is in the works much to Dan Reed’s chagrin who’s rumored to be making a follow-up to Leaving Neverland. Jackson’s songs are still being played more than ever, especially on radio, even the ones that once removed them from rotation. But the child molestation accusations are still being used as facts to consider by media writers whenever Jackson is the subject.

The story of Michael Jackson is also the story of a famous but sheltered black man under the unforgiving microscope of a brutal entertainment industry, a prejudiced, racist media and equally capricious section of the public who continues to put him on trial even though he’s gone. Regardless of how the allegations against him turn out to be to anyone who bothers to examine them properly, and who wins the upcoming trial if it goes that far, the media has proven time and again that they’ll forsake real journalism for ratings and clicks. Journalist Charles Thomson saw this problem and many others with the 2005 trial, and we’re seeing history repeat itself with the repercussions of an influential yet dubious movie.