On Sat, 22 Feb 2003 23:43:32 GMT, Janet Baraclough
wrote:

It was what we in the UK call an interview, Zhan. One of the
differences between a documentary and a voluntary face to face recorded
interview, is that the first can be made without the knowledge, consent
or active participation of its subject.An interview can only happen with
the full co-operation of its subject.

Jackson's defenders might ask themselves why he deliberately chose to be
interviewed by a UK TV journalist who is most famous for his TV
interview with Princess Diana about her adulterous failed marriage; in
which she too was excruciatingly self-revelatory, indiscreet and
deliberately publicity-seeking.

Janet.

When it aired here it was billed as a documentary. It was clear the
journalist had preconceived convictions. Following the tape was an
interview with the journalist. I didn't watch that part feeling it
would be too biased. I'm not a fan of Michael Jackson simply because
I don't care for his music. But after watching that show I'm
convinced he's a most naive person and incredibly dumb. After what it
has already cost him for being alone with boys and then take the
chance to be sued again!!!!!!!!

The reason he granted the 8 month interview is because he was paid 5
million dollars. Maybe Michael is like me never heard of the fellow or
the interview with Princess Diana.

As far as him being a pedophile, I have my doubts. Because if a
parent truly believes their son has been abused they wouldn't settle
out of court. Nothing less than emasculation and dismemberment would
be satisfactory justice.

zhan