Martin Bashir

[MargeB]

On what grounds is Michael Jackson going to be able to sue Martin Bashir?

[BigDogsWang]

I would guess at Defamation of Character. If I remember rightly, Jackson complained that the documentry portrayed him in a bad light, accusing Bashir of editing out the best parts. In Jacko's defence, when the American version was screened (they filmed it alongside the BBC's version), Bashir was seen to be praising Jacko to the skies, none of which was seen in the BBC documentry.

[Gevs1966]

I can't remember which one I saw but it portrayed MJ and Bashir in a bad light. You could tell it was heavily edited.

Bashir made a fool of himself by really sucking up to MJ and praising him to the hilt while they were on camera and then completely slating him off camera and then voicing "concerns" all the way through about his relationship with children. It was fairly obvious that this was the purpose of the documentary and it is one of the reasons that all the recent events have taken place. I think that is what Jacko is upset about.

I think in a way it made Bashir out to be worse than Jacko as it completely ruined his credibility as a serious and impartial docu-journalist and I haven't seen him on tv since.

[jno]

Breach of contract and breach of confidence; there would have been a carefully worded contract saying what Bashir could and could not show and say. I believe Bashir is now working in the USA.

[MargeB]

Thanks for the good answers so far.

I did see Mr Spoon Bender Uri Geller on TV saying that he had a signed document from Bashir saying that the latter would show Jackson in a good light in the documentary, which is now with Jacko's lawyers.

Never heard of all this in my life though: defamation through selective reporting and editing. Objectively, perfectly valid, in my opinion: it's all about the perception you create in the 3rd party, and editing can do this as much as pure content?

[stevie21]

Surely it can't be solely down to editing? If you only show the bad bits that were filmed, they're still accurate (perhaps out of context).
It's not as if Bashir got a special effects man in to create a scene where Jacko is saying "I share my bed with kids, and if they love me they'll share my bed". These are real things that were filmed.

If MJ was whiter than the driven snow (as I am) then there wouldn't be any bad bits to put into the docu.
Must be some breach of contract thingy.

[hinge1967]

Surely down to editing? If you show the bad bits that were filmed, they're out of context.
It's as if Bashir got a special effects man in to create a scene where Jacko is saying "I share my bed with kids, and if they love me they'll share my bed". These are real things that were not filmed.

That's the first part of your post Stevie21 with a bit of editing but nothing added. I don't know about Jackson and Bashir, but words and images are manipulated everyday to present subjective views as truth.

[luckyboy]

Small point it was a itv doc...

I have to say though that he has no grounds to sue him, i agree that bashir is a slipperry journo, but he did not force jacko to admit on camera that he sleeps with boys, from that moment the **** hit the fan, and you can bet thousands of lawyers, and journalists where on the blower trying to trace arvizo and his mother with huge financial offers with tales of money making prospected lawsuits and other inducements.... no jacko brought all this on himself blaming bashir is a cop out..

[stevie21]

Maybe I've misunderstood your post hinge1967 but if you filmed me for 2 weeks and half your footage showed me to be a saint and the other half a complete walloper then showing only the latter half wouldn't be grounds to sue you.
Sure, you'd only be showing the bad half of me but it's still ME and not something that you've fabricated.

No matter how or what was edited, the fact remains that MJ still came out with the admission of sharing his bed with children. If not illegal in itself, it's certainly wrong in my book.

[hinge1967]

Stevie21 Please don't think that I'm defending either of them. They both had their own agendas for wanting to make the documentary, but what was presented in the end was Bashir's agenda because he had control over what was cut together in the final edit. It would be interesting to know what was left on the cutting room floor because it was considered not relevent.

I was attempting (badly it seems!) to illustrate the point that editing is a very powerful tool and can transform objectiveness to subjectiveness. Solely on the basis of a few cuts and tweaks to your post the meaning was altered. sorry to cause confusion.

[undercovers]

the contact between bashir and michael was that michael and his lawyers would get the final decision whether the footage should be screened, they did not get this opportunity hence contract has been broken - the rights and wrongs of the following criminal case involving MJ and gav does not matter this is a simple case of breach of contract and MJ will easily win.

[MargeB]

hmm. I guess in that case maybe Bashir will argue that the contract was invalid because it denies the supremacy of free speech and at least no libel charges could be brought. Free speech is pretty sacrosanct in the USA.

What? Did I just write 'sacrosanct' and 'USA' in the same sentence?

[neill]

NONE.Do you really think that Michael Jacksons lawyers would allow a programme to be "aired" world wide without having a great say in just what is shown??? It would never happen. All parties saw the final version & all parties agreed for it to be shown. If Mr Jackson doesn`t like it now.........TOUGH. Blame your lawyers Michael.People still have their doubts about you & your attitude towards children. I personally would not trust you to tell me the TIME.

[Andy008]

I don't like journalists at the best of times, but let's look at the facts: Jackson admits to sleeping with kids. Dangling his child over a balcony. Plying kids with alcohol. Leading one deeply disturbing life, even for an American A-lister. Making his "children" go out in veils, masks etc. ....erm, generally acting like a weirdo, demonstrating America at its hideous worst.

Is Martin Bashir worried? Not likely, more to the point, was he really stupid enough to enter into a potentially tense legal situation when he knew the content was touchy at best?