Media Lies & Manipulations


Hear ye, hear ye: Dan Reed put on notice the Michael Jackson community, given the new twitter provisions.

It was probably a mere attempt to raise his profile traffic on twitter or looking a loophole to find a way to be interviewed and spread awareness of how many Mr. & Mrs. Looney there are in the MJ fandom. Who knows: it might have been a way to support his friends during their soon lost cause against the Michael Jackson Estate.

In reality, few accounts wished him words concerned with the new Twitter restrictions. It’s common knowledge that bad education and lack of common sense exist everywhere globally, even among, and particularly within his fans.

90% of the MJ community’s tweets directed to this unknown individual before 2019 are precisely related to his one-way mockumentary. Reed inexorably and virally amplified his two protagonists’ voices, without other party intervening to contradict or deny their heavy accusations. And of course, being the accused Michael Jackson, one of the most famous, celebrated, and important artists of the twentieth century, it was a fruitful deal.

The documentary “Leaving Neverland” stirred up perplexities within a rational audience and the fans’ anger.

Above the first comment of director Marcos Cabotà, who attended Leaving Neverland’s premiere at the Sundance Film Festival on January 25, 2019.

Here the reaction of Joe Vogel,  American author, scholar, and popular culture critic. 

and Judi Brisse, a former housekeeper of Neverland Ranch

  • Was Michael Jackson, a great performer and a good person?

“That may be true, but he raped children,” Reed said during interviews on TV. Reed admitted he never met Jackson, and also before shooting the movie, he didn’t even know his story. So, based on which proof this MJ’s neophyte dare to express such strong accuse?

  • Why did Reed only wanted to show part of the narrative, without asking those who have always professed Michael’s innocence?

The protagonists’ words leave little room for interpretation if the other side of the story is unknown: Robson claimed to have been molested by Jackson from 7 to 14, Safechuck from the age of 10. 

And both stories are characterized by the sudden end of attention for them, being replaced with Macaulay Culkin and Brett Barnes, who always denied that Jackson treated them like sweethearts.

“It’s almost easy to try to say it was ‘weird’ or whatever, but it wasn’t, because it made sense,”  He understood me and identified with me,” These are the words of Macaulay Culkin, who always remain consistent with his version. Culkin reiterates the peculiarity of his relationship with Jackson, stating that: “He reached out to me because a lot of things were happening, big and fast with me, and I think he identified with that. He was the kind of person who’d been through the exact same frickin’ thing and wanted to make sure I wasn’t alone. He was ironic and sweet. People have no idea how funny he was”. Listen to Culkin’s interview with Michael Rosenbaum.

Therefore, it would have been ethically correct for Reed to interview the defense counterparts or present concrete elements in favor of Robson and Safechuck’s stories. Instead,  there is no objective confirmation beyond their words.

Furthermore, a check of the content shows space-time inaccuracies. Invented episodes and editing in the footage archives to present Jackson in a certain way. Here are some examples that cast doubt on the integrity of Leaving Neverland:

  • Safechuck said having spent Thanksgiving 1987, which fell on November 26, with Michael at his home. That specific day, Jackson was in Australia for the Bad Tour, as anyone can check on google.
  • The question Safechuck asked Jackson on the plane, “What’s the best thing about going to Hawaii?” to which Michael would have replied, “Stay with you.” The sentence is not remotely enough to indict anyone in a court trial, but it’s interesting to note how Reed cut the final part of Jackson’s answer, which continued like this: “Being with you and your family: I can’t wait to spend more time with them. “
  • Another rather bizarre example is Safechuck’s recalls that Jackson gave him oral sex while he was sleeping. How it is possible for someone not to wake up for such an episode is weird.
  • Safechuck’s mother stated she had doubts about Jackson, but too often closed her eyes. The sentence means nothing and certainly does not constitute a tangible proof. However, if there were these doubts, why she kept bringing her son to Neverland?
  • Robson claimed to have been to Neverland numerous times, while he swore he had gone 14 times at the time of the trial deposition, of which only 4 with Jackson present.
  • The last example here, but there are many others, is a futile and ineffective fragment:  a ring the singer supposedly would have gifted to Safechuck. Still, there’s no receipt or anything that confirms that it was Michael who gave this gift. 

You can find the whole set of discrepancies and invented stories the Michael Jackson fanbase and objective journalism was able to find in Dan Reed’s mockumentary in the following articles:

Why is U.S. Media Silent on the Implosion of Leaving Neverland, While the U.K. Press is Pouncing?

These two men recounted alleged sexual encounters and other oddities, including fake marriages and mutual masturbation episodes at Neverland ranch when they were under 10. Astonishing how Robson and Safechuck look incredibly at ease declaring their new versions in front of a camera, – when no longer a lawyer like Tom Mesereau is on the other side to ask questions.

A documentary to be defined “such” should support the protagonists’ statements with facts and evidence because not everyone is willing to accept a story that does not present evidence other than two witnesses’ oral statements.

Jackson was no stranger to such allegations. In 1993, while he was performing in Bangkok during the Dangerous World Tour, he was accused of sexual abuse by Evan Chandler, the 13-year-old boy father of Jordan. Still, the affair was resolved with nothing because the complainant was not considered a reliable person. Still, rather it was believed that he was looking for visibility. The following year the Chandlers received a considerable sum of money in exchange for a document stating the innocence of Michael Jackson. Despite the messy narrative we still have today about the Chandler accusations, those who were adults at the time remember how the matter was handled internationally. Only journalists like Diane Dimond and few other faunas of the American gossip entertainment kept supporting those who had to defend Sneddon’s vicious and failed actions.

When the documentary “Living with Michael Jackson” was released in 2003, made by the British journalist Martin Bashir, who followed Jackson from May 2002, the troubles started again. Jackson is immortalized hand-in-hand with 13-year-old cancer patient Gavin Arvizo, and the media started their smearing game again. At that point, once again, the Santa Barbara County Attorney’s Sneddon launched a criminal investigation, and, after a search of his estate, an arrest warrant was issued. At the end of the trial, in 2005, Jackson was acquitted of all charges. As for the 1993 case, the accuser’s low credibility affected the already weak evidence brought up by Sneddon: Gavin’s mother was a repeat offender for state tax fraud and fraud against insurance companies, and Jackson later spoke of an organized plot to deprive him of his assets.

It was May 5, 2005, and Wade Robson was twenty-three when he voluntarily testified in favor of Michael Jackson, claiming he had never been abused by the latter. Twelve years earlier, a15-year-old James Safechuck also declared the same in 1993 to the Grand Jury. Both under oath confirmed the Michael Jackson innocence then, before changing their version today. Both filed a complaint in 2013 against Michael Jackson’s Estate requesting alleged material damage. That same court that in 2005 heard 200 witnesses and found Jackson innocent on 14 out of 14 counts; Furthermore, in the 333 pages of the FBI, nothing incriminates Jackson.

Jermaine Jackson stated that Leaving Neverland was a further step in search of fame that never came for Robson. “After being excluded from the MJ Cirque du Soleil show, Robson was looking for a contract to realize a book on alleged abuse, but no publisher took into consideration. Soon after, he sued the MJ’s estate for $ 1.5 billion but was thrown out of court. “

In Dan Reed’s documentary, the story is not changed slightly but appears completely distorted: Leaving Neverland defines Michael Jackson as a monster, a pedophile of perverse thoughts and concrete actions. For years he allegedly pursued sexual assault on numerous children, two of whom he met by chance, namely Safechuck (they met while shooting a commercial for Pepsi) and Robson (winner of a dance contest in Australia).

Last year the impacts of the testimonies contained in “Leaving Neverland” were devastating. Radios banned Jackson’s music. An episode of the Simpsons in which Jackson lent his voice has been eliminated. Louis Vuitton decided to remove clothes of the fall/winter 2019 collection inspired on MJ, and the Indianapolis Children’s Museum decided to remove some objects from an exhibition dedicated to his memory.

The Transport of London decided to remove the posters in defense of Michael Jackson, which were on the English capital buses, after the concern expressed by a CSA association, according to which the advertising could have discouraged victims of violence from making reports in fear of not being believed.

However, lies run sprints, but the truth runs marathons, and Michael Jackson is back to being listened and contrary to predictions, his fanbase has increased. That’s because time has given space to other voices with reliable evidence. An example is a Robson’s collaborator, who worked on the documentary and with no shame, called Robson a liar in public. 

Kevin L Lipsey Sr., who collaborated in Leaving Neverland production, made clear that Robson is a liar: “I worked with Wade Robson before Leaving Neverland aired on HBO. I collaborated on the sound of the documentary. We talked about Michael Jackson, and Robson told me a very different story! Let’s just say I haven’t seen or talked to a man who has been touched inappropriately by Michael Jackson!”


Reed documentary does not correspond to objective reality but is a subjective purpose, built and assembled through reconstructions, testimonies, archive images, fitting music, and any other cinematic gimmick capable of confirming the truth he wants to tell.

By giving voice to Wade Robson and James Safechuck, he provided them a loud enough megaphone for all to hear. Provable bogus but extremely detailed passages of the sexual abuse suffered by the two protagonists, alternating with private audio and cuts to the montage of Jackson’s photographs and faxes, transforming the boyish glitz of the Californian ranch into a real psychological nightmare.

And yet, paradoxically, the film’s great strength also ends up becoming its only weakness. Reed focused so much on the two protagonists and their stories that deliberately forgot to look out the window, omitting and unhinging basic journalism, not listening to other opinions or recording other versions of the facts, and telling other truths.

The ill-concealed Reed’s goal was to exacerbate the two protagonists’ truth exclusively, and for this reason, the narrative remains monothematic and immobile.

However, it does not shift the viewer’s individual opinion about Michael Jackson, Wade Robson, James Safechuck, and the Neverland ranch by an inch. Whatever the idea he had about these dark and controversial facts before starting the movie, remained unchanged when movie credits scrolled. He added a series of unprofessional and unhappy interventions on social channels showing his petty spirit, full of trivialities, full of idle talk to all of the above.

It is not surprising that the visual level of this sort of movie is abysmal: about fifty shots of Los Angeles or Neverland’s environment in long shots, extensive drone shots to link the various sequences – since everything is focused on the listening to these two men, some members of their families, and their stories. There no need to believe either one or the other to find them equally shocking, gruesome, and in bad taste. A real testimony of what TV has become today. A real crap in terms of content and people who work there. It isn’t journalism, and it’s not fair, yet the media continued to spread these stories even if several episodes don’t add up. Jackson has a public timeline, and it wasn’t hard for fans to counter and debunk the legends told in this fiction with a suspected pro-pedophile aftertaste.

Dan Reed didn’t realize that he aired an unlikely indictment of Michael Jackson, built up by tabloid journalists and the Hollywood industry powers with Leaving Neverland.
Reed set up a worldwide mess by creating this filth. I don’t even know how to define it because it certainly can’t be described as a documentary. Ridiculous, unfounded, malicious, defamatory without a shred of evidence adduced: a sadness and a victory of ignorance, the apotheosis of common sense, of the indifference, and lack of sensitivity of those who, with blatant luck, had the opportunity to meet Michael Jackson and spent time with him.

Now Dan Reed resent because the fans don’t believe in his trashy work and they are disgusted after hearing the testimonies of Wade Robson and James Safechuck? The director should be ashamed along with those two slackers—words word words, instead of analyzing the facts.

The whole criticisms that Michael Jackson fans addressed to Robson, Safechuck, and especially to Reed can be easily summed up in two words: disgusting opportunists.

I leave the publishing of curses and wicked wishes to journalists like Maureen Orth, aka the voodoo woman, another one who does not check his sources.

Recommended website to understand the allegations:

Leave a Reply