Michael Jackson, 'Leaving Neverland' and the debate since
It’s now approaching two weeks since the release of ‘Leaving Neverland’, a two-part documentary series examining the accusations afforded by James Safechuck and Wade Robson, who allege they were sexually abused by Michael Jackson as children at his Neverland Ranch and Century City apartment.
The documentary, directed by British director, James Reed, for Channel 4 in the UK and HBO in the US has broken numerous streaming and viewing records.
The weeks following its release have been marked by vehement and intense debate on social media, on television and on radio, and in the everyday discussions of Brits, Americans and people around the world. Are the testimonies of Wade and James to be believed? Is Michael guilty of the alleged abuse? Is it time to reassess his legacy? Can we still morally listen to his music? Does it really matter, considering he’s dead?
Of course, the answer to the latter question is patently yes! Foremost, if he is guilty, despite his incapacity to face justice, the truth coming to fore allows us to ask important questions. Like, ‘how did he get away it?’ and ‘Was someone knowledgeable of its happening, but did not do anything about it?’ As is reminiscent of the Saville case, these questions crucially lead to progressive changes in the way we perceive and operate. Specifically, in our ability to notice abuse occurring, and more tangibly, in our willingness to act to prevent it. However, I believe the truth being out-there for the sake of permitting accurate perceptions of others is a good enough reason in it’s own right. Of course, if he’s innocent, it’s not fair to tarnish his legacy or allow false accusations to be afforded without repercussion.
But, with the limited evidence - restricted largely to the witness testimonies of the accusers (including that of Jordan Chandler in the 1990’s) - it’s impossible to be certain of his guilt. Absolutely, evidence is rarely insurmountable, and we must always leave room for doubt. But, this is not a criminal trial, it’s a documentary made for public consumption. And on this basis, one must make up his own mind on the question of Michael’s innocence, based on the evidence presented, the credulity of the witnesses, the believability of the testimonies, and sheer gut-feeling.
Understandably, radio stations, TV shows and any company dependent on the consumption of its product by a diverse and divided public will err on the side caution, choosing to remove references to the artist and distancing themselves from the performer. Certainly, it is in their best interests to do so.
“Radical conviction to one side of the fence is unreasonable and awkward. You can be ‘inclined to believe’, but you do not ‘know for certain’”
That being said, one must always entertain the possibility of doubt. The evidence is not indisputable. Radical conviction to one side of the fence is unreasonable and awkward. You can be ‘inclined to believe’, but you do not ‘know for certain’. The bold and unwavering professing of his innocence on Twitter and the unyielding conviction to the “fact” of his ‘innocence’ visible in the crowd-funded campaign which saw London buses plastered with the slogan “Facts don’t lie. People do” is disconcerting. Take note of your fandom and your desire for him to be innocent, and ground your actions firmly in reality. Believe he is innocent if that is the conclusion you have drawn based on the evidence, but ensure all your actions allow for some doubt.
And of the question ‘can we morally listen to his music?’. If you believe he is guilty, but you’re capable of separating the artist from his product, sure. If you believe he is innocent, continue listening. It is a personal choice. I’ll continue listening to him as much as I did previously, practically never. Though, I will likely continue to nod my head and mumble the lyrics (albeit, awkwardly) if I ever hear ‘Billy Jean’ come on the radio. One must continue to do whatever one feels comfortable doing. But, as before, it’s a different story for the companies relying on the consumption of their product by the general public; those hoping to avoid a backlash from individuals believing of his guilt.
The discussion hasn’t reached its conclusion. More evidence will likely surface, possibly making the water murkier. Certainly, with Dan Reed planning a second documentary examining the 2005 abuse trial (The People vs. Jackson; MSN news), opinions will likely remain divided for the foreseeable, and the passionate debate will likely only become more ardent.