Mon, February 9, 2004

These days, Stephen King has a back-page column in "Entertainment Weekly" every few weeks. I was in a swing of liking Stephen King when the column started. (I got into him a little in junior high, then someone recommended 'Salem's Lot and I hated it so much that I swore off King for years. Then, after The Shawshank Redemption I was into his short stories, which are magnificent almost without exception. Then, I didn't pay attention to him for a few years, and then lately I've been liking him although not reading any of his novels. I was looking forward to reading his "final" one, From a Buick 8 though.) So much for that!

The reason I bring it up is that his column is usually pretty entertaining, even though he spent two consecutive submissions celebrating Mystic River, which I haven't seen, but I have it on good authority that it's terrible, despite the critical acclaim. This week, though, King makes the case that anybody who presumes Michael Jackson's guilt in the current legal proceedings is a traitor. In the column, King rightly reminds his readers that when he started writing for "EW", he stated right away that he wouldn't apologize for his opinions, and that readers are free to disagree with him. Yeah. First of all, what sort of narcissistic jackass really thinks that anyone wants to read his opinion on anything? I hate when people just rant about whatever's on their mind and we're expected to care. But, if you're going to do it, you should at least follow my lead and ignore – or outright condemn – any dissenting views. Show some backbone, King! (Not literally, of course. I'm sure all those vertebrae are still a tad pulpy after getting mowed down by that van.)

King's point of view on the Jacko case is that Michael Jackson is clearly disturbed and had a bad childhood, and that his resulting adult behavior is a little peculiar. But, says King, that doesn't mean that anyone has the right to pre-judge his guilt in this particular matter. (Neither, apparently, does the hush money that Jacko paid out in a similar case a few years back – although King neglects to bring that up.) King (or, more precisely, his manservant, whose argument King merely transcribes and then agrees with) says that the media and the American public are vilifying Michael and destroying the fine life that he's built for himself (referring to the monkeys, the treehouse, and the private amusement park) with slander, just because he's a little weird. King says, whatever happened to someone being innocent until proven guilty?

King's argument is fallacious, because nobody has incarcerated Jackson or seized his assets. All that's happened is an investigation into a claim made by someone who has spent time with him – an claim which, based on commonly known facts, makes sense to investigate. It's the responsibility of a jury to find him guilty or innocent. Not the media, and not the American public. We're allowed to have whatever opinions we want on the matter, because we're not the ones tasked with sentencing Michael Jackson or making any final decision about his case. I'm certainly no fan of the media, and certainly no fan of their propensity for explosive coverage of salacious or sensational stories, but it's not the responsibility of the media to keep the justice system on track. TV reporters aren't passing judgment one way or another on Jacko's guilt. They're using the word "allegedly" just like they're supposed to. Sure, they're covering it more than they should, but that's all they're doing – they're reporting that the allegations have surfaced and that the police are looking into it. If it turns out that the charges are entirely baseless, then the coverage will appear a bit extreme in hindsight, but the reporters aren't responsible for determining whether or not Jackson's accusers are telling the truth. That's for the police and the jurors to decide. The late-night talk show hosts, like the rest of us, are entitled to their reaction. If they want to make jokes about Jacko's behavior, that's their right. Just as it is mine, and yours.

Now, if Jacko is judged guilty in the "court of public opinion," and nobody buys his records any more, that's not the same court as the "innocent until proven guilty" scenario. Public opinion doesn't sentence him to jail. If he's exonerated by a jury, some people who presumed his guilt may change their minds. Others may assume that the trial was a sham, as in the case of O.J. If he loses his theme park and his John Merrick life-sized Operation game because his career is ended by negative public opinion based on untrue allegations (and that's a lot of hypotheticals), that's certainly unfortunate. But it's part of what "celebrity" means in this country. Celebrity is a popularity contest, and if you upset your fans (or weird them out) you run the risk of ending your career in the public eye. It isn't necessarily fair, but it's part of the game. A local news anchor in Ohio lost her job recently for getting naked at a wet T-shirt contest. This isn't fair, but she was aware of the risks involved in taking off her clothes as a public persona. (Whether it's fair for such a thing to still cause such controversy in this day and age is a topic for another column.) Michael Jackson has behaved recklessly around his own children and frequently admitted that he shares his bed with other youngsters. It's entirely true that, in court, these things do not automatically render him guilty in this particular case. But, public opinion carries a different burden of proof. If you don't want the public to jump to any crazy conclusions about your activities with young children, you don't dangle your infants off balconies or admit on camera that you sleep with young boys. Sure, maybe those are innocent activities, but they're not innocent-sounding. If you're a celebrity and you want to cover your bases, you do those things behind closed doors and you don't talk about them on camera.

It would be irresponsible for a judge or jury to sentence Michael Jackson to prison based only on rumors and tabloid coverage about his past behavior with kids. It would be irresponsible for any member of the media or the public to try to attack Michael Jackson or physically harm him based on assumptions and hearsay. But it's irresponsible of Stephen King to say that any of us is obligated to remain quiet about the Jackson case until a verdict is delivered. We have the right to an opinion. We can make jokes and express our feelings on the issue, and we should. Such a free exchange of ideas is one of the most important foundations of our democracy.

Me, I'm just proud of myself for not making a kiddie-blowjob pun at the start of paragraph four.

© onebee · all rights reserved