Interview with Charles Thomson, part two

We are talking with Michael Jackson expert Charles Thomson about some recent, peculiar events in the fan community. To recap, Thomson is a music journalist who frequently writes about black music. His award winning work on musicians like James Brown and Michael Jackson is widely read. He has written extensively in defense of Michael Jackson’s innocence, but has recently come under fire for his alleged secret agenda. In this lengthy serial interview, I tried to find out how things got so out of hand. One moment, Charles was a devoted, brilliant writer…the next, he was being accused, exposed, and jabbed for some absurd motivations. I wasn’t quite sure what was going on, so I decided to ask.

Read the first part of the interview (yesterday) here: http://extrememichaeljackson.wordpress.com/2010/09/29/talking-with-charles-thomson-about-recent-divisive-events-in-the-mj-community/

As a journalist, you were instrumental in getting Michael Jackson’s FBI records released to the public. Tell me about that process. What did those records reveal?

The files were released under a piece of legislation called the ‘Freedom of Information Act’. The act is designed to maintain openness and transparency in government by allowing members of the public to request information which is, for one reason or another, not public. The FBI, as a government body, is required by law to respond to FOIA requests.

While a person is alive, their FBI file is unavailable because to release it would breach privacy laws. You can get around this rule but only by getting the subject of the file to sign a privacy waiver agreement. However, once a person is deceased you can request their file and the FBI is required by law to release it unless it breaches national security. The files are often redacted, however, because they include reference to particular FBI agents or information on people who are still alive.

I was one of several people who requested Michael Jackson’s FBI file under the Freedom of Information Act, which I did because I was curious to see if it contained any additional information on the government’s repeated interferences in his life. I wasn’t sure he’d even have an FBI file so I was shocked to learn that he did and that it was 600 pages long.

Overall, I was distinctly unimpressed by the FBI’s handling of the request. Initially this was because the FBI took so long handling my request. In the UK, bodies are required by law to answer FOIA requests within 20 working days. However, I filed my request with the FBI in summer 2009 and it wasn’t released until December.

I was also unimpressed by the way in which the FBI released the documents, which I’ve never seen them do in any other case. They announced to the world’s press that the documents would be uploaded on a certain date at a certain time, which sparked a worldwide rush to download the documents and be the first to write a story about them. Meanwhile, as one of the original requesters of the file, I was not given any advance notice or priority.

The result was that the media, all racing to be the first with the story, skim-read the files and published wildly inaccurate stories about them on a global basis. I saw newspapers which claimed that the FBI had supposedly seized a videotape from Jackson and found child porn on it. The files actually said that the tape, seized from an unknown person at Palm Beach customs, was simply ‘connected to Jackson’ – and that connection appeared merely to be that somebody had written his name on the cassette’s sticky label. As for child porn, there was no record of any being found.

Other newspapers said that the FBI had investigated allegations that Jackson molested two Mexican boys in the 1980s. This was patently untrue. The FBI merely noted a phone call in which somebody claimed that they’d heard a story that the FBI had investigated such a claim. The documents further note that the FBI “searched indices, both manual and automated for any reference to the above mentioned investigation. No references were found.” In other words, somebody telephoned the FBI and made a bogus allegation. The FBI noted that allegation and found no merit to it, but the media misrepresented the allegation as the FBI’s own conclusion.

The inaccuracies in the media’s reporting on Jackson’s FBI files were countless and they went all over the world. The files supported Jackson’s innocence, showing that after ten years of investigation by both the LAPD and the FBI, neither organisation had ever been able to find one piece of evidence connecting Jackson to any crime. The release of the files should have been positive PR for Michael Jackson but the media’s ridiculously poor reporting had the opposite effect.

This is why I was so irritated by the way in which the FBI handled the release of the documents. If I had been given some kind of advance copy because I was one of those who actually requested the file, I could have read them properly and filed an accurate report, which would have been copied and pasted by lazy media outlets the world over. By releasing the documents to a global mob of salivating reporters the FBI ensured that the files were not read properly before news outlets started filing reports on them. So instead of repeating accurate claims about the FBI files, media outlets – on a global basis – were recycling distortion and misinformation.

My other gripe with the FBI was that they omitted around half of Jackson’s file and never offered any explanation as to why. My understanding is that government bodies are required by law to give an explanation as to why any information has been held back when answering an FOIA request. I never saw any record of the FBI giving any such explanation.
In an earlier interview with me, you stated that you believe in Michael Jackson’s innocence, not because you like his music, but because that’s what the evidence shows. The importance of this distinction might seem rather obvious, yet it is a distinction overlooked by Jackson’s fans and foes alike. Can you comment on that?

Michael Jackson is a divisive subject. He has some very overzealous fans and some very overzealous detractors, both of whom have attacked me for pretty much the same reason. The detractors have attacked me because they think it is impossible to believe in Michael Jackson’s innocence unless you’re an insane fan. They’ve palmed me off as a ‘floon’, a word they use to describe Jackson’s ardent supporters. But I don’t even like all of Jackson’s albums or tours and I’m certainly no apologist for his mistakes.

Unfortunately, the fact that I don’t like all of Michael Jackson’s albums or tours and don’t airbrush over his mistakes has drawn the ire of some of his fans, too. They don’t seem to be able to distinguish between a fan and a journalist and, displaying logic that is strangely similar to Jackson’s detractors, they seem to think it’s impossible to believe in Michael Jackson’s innocence unless you’re a devout fan.

I’ve said in the past – notably in my previous interview with you – that I don’t like a lot of Jackson’s later musical output or performances. Consequently, these fans have lambasted me as a ‘hypocrite’ and a traitor. Quite what my opinion on Jackson’s HIStory Tour or Invincible album has to do with my views on his trial, I’m not sure, but for some fans there is definitely a perceived connection. I can’t understand the logic that by believing Jackson is innocent and at the same time not liking some of his albums I am a hypocrite. The two, as far as I am concerned, are irrelevant to one another. It’s like calling somebody a hypocrite because they love apples and hate pears.

Next time: You wrote an excellent piece for the Huffington Post about how the tabloid lynching of Jackson is one of the media’s most shameful episodes in history. And you’ve consistently conveyed fact based journalism and analysis that champions Michael Jackson as innocent, doing much to prove that innocence to his detractors. This has exposed many prejudiced hate-mongers and the woefully misinformed for what they are. Yet recently, you have been attacked on some rather absurd premises. Can you tell me about that?