Front Burner - What 'Leaving Neverland' means for Michael Jackson's legacy

Episode Date: March 5, 2019

"It's something we'll have to grapple with in an ongoing way," says Slate music critic Carl Wilson about the challenge of coming to terms with the sexual abuse allegations against Michael Jackson in the HBO documentary "Leaving Neverland". He, along with Exclaim! magazine contributor A. Harmony, talk to host Jayme Poisson about what that might mean for Jackson's legacy as a pop music icon.

Hey there, I'm Kathleen Goltar and I have a confession to make. I am a true crime fanatic. I devour books and films and most of all true crime podcasts. But sometimes I just want to know more. I want to go deeper. And that's where my podcast Crime Story comes in. Every week I go behind the scenes with the creators of the best in true crime. I chat with the host of Scamanda, Teacher's Pet, Bone Valley, the list goes on. For the insider scoop, find Crime Story in your podcast app. This is a CBC Podcast. Hi, I'm Leah Simone Bowen. And I'm Phelan Johnson.

And we're the hosts of The Secret Life of Canada, a history podcast about the country you know and the stories you don't. That's right. Season one, we discovered some really eye-opening things, like Banff was built by POWs. And that pizza pops are Canadian. And that Canada had 200 years of slavery. Join us for season two on CBC Podcasts.

As we dive even further into the undertold and untold history of Canada. Hello, I'm Jamie Poisson. Over the last 48 hours, a documentary aired on HBO in two parts, and it tells the stories of two men who say they were sexually abused by Michael Jackson over years when they were children. He would run drills with me where you'd be in the hotel room and he would pretend like somebody was coming in and you had to get dressed as fast as possible without making noise. Their stories have a lot of people struggling, once again, with how to reconcile allegations

of the sexual abuse of children with the legacy of an icon, nearly a decade after his death. These types of allegations are not new. In two completely separate cases, Jackson reportedly paid a $23 million settlement to the family of one accuser. That was in 1994.

The boy says he and the singer frequently shared a bed and had sexual contact on many occasions. And was tried and acquitted on separate charges of sexual abuse in 2005. Jackson's fans say they're still loyal. Honestly, I don't see him doing something like this. I believe in him. But this is a very different time, the Me Too era. Today we're going to explore all of this with two Canadian music critics, Carl Wilson and A-Harmony. This is Frontburner. But first, let's recap just so that we can all get on the same page, and a note to say that some of the details here are upsetting.

The four-hour documentary includes interviews with two men, Wade Robson and James Safechuck. They have very similar accounts of their experiences with Michael Jackson. Both were brought into Jackson's life as young kids in the late 80s. Robson was seven, Safechuck was ten. At first, Jackson treated them like friends. They played with toys, watched movies, and he gave them presents. Playing tag, watching movies. He taught me how to do the moonwalk. We went into the closet and we're looking at his

stuff and he told me I can pick out a jacket. I could have that. It would be mine. I picked the thriller jacket. But quickly, the relationship became something different. became something different. The men say Jackson began sexually assaulting them over a period of several years, including molestation, oral sex, French kissing, and masturbation. We were meant to be together.

And this is us, showing each other that we love each other. He would tell me that if anybody found out, his life would be over and my life would be over. The details are harrowing. Robson talks about being naked on the corner of Jackson's bed between Jackson, who was masturbating to him,

and a cardboard cutout of Peter Pan. Safechuck tells the story of the time Jackson took him to buy a ring. Jackson tells a jewelry store clerk the gold band with diamonds on it is for a woman. The pair then have a mock wedding in Jackson's bedroom. For years, both boys told their parents and even swore under oath they had not been abused. They say they lied then because they were scared and also because they had grown to love Michael Jackson. I never told anyone about any of the sexual stuff that went on. I felt special.

I was this boy from the other side of the world, and Michael chose me. Yeah, there's no question I was like head over heels in love with Michael. And he said he loved me. Okay, that's the documentary. And I do want to say that the Jackson estate disputes all of this. Now let's get to our conversation with Carl and Harmony.

Hi, guys. Hi. Hi. Thanks so much for joining us today. So the stories in the documentary, they're not new. There have been court cases about similar allegations in the 90s and the early 2000s. But with these two stories, and correct me if you disagree with me here, there is a level of detail that maybe we haven't heard before. Carl, what was it like to hear about these experiences?

that surrounded the two trials in 1993 and 2005, that interfered with even just listening to what the actual claims were in those cases. Michael Jackson will lose his career, his reputation, his freedom, if a jury believes he did what he's accused of doing, inviting a 13-year-old cancer survivor to his Neverland ranch, plying him with wine and molesting him. That's all stripped away, and we just listened to the details of these accounts and the parallels between these two men's accounts of what happened to them when they were children with Jackson. And that makes it very difficult to feel that there's anything but convincing storytelling happening.

You know, that if these are fabricated stories, they're extraordinarily fabricated stories. And Harmony, this documentary, it also is coming out at a very different time. There, of course, is this excruciating level of detail, but also these allegations are happening in this like post Me Too era. And do you think that that changes how people are viewing this documentary? I definitely think that changes the climate greatly from when these allegations first came out. Even though these are really disturbing allegations, I think audiences are more receptive to hearing victims' accounts than they were back

then. And like Carl said, it's a lot more difficult for us to turn a blind eye to these things or to make excuses for them because we're in this climate where we're having these discussions a little bit more openly and learning some more of the complexities around cases like this. So I think audiences are more willing to hear stories like this, even though they're difficult and have these difficult conversations. And, you know, one thing that's a bit different about this case compared to other cases like R. Kelly, for example, Michael Jackson is not alive today to defend himself. He died in 2009. The L.A. coroner has concluded the pop singer died of a lethal amount of that powerful anesthetic propofol, but that that drug was just one of many given to Jackson that night.

And Carl, do you think that that changes how we view these allegations? I mean, I think it changes and complicates them in many ways. I mean, on one level, it means that there's no longer the kind of celebrity machine around Michael Jackson to throw up smoke screens. I mean, when you think about those trials, one thing that you have to take into account is that there were tons of tabloid allegations about Michael Jackson in all kinds of ways. And there were ways in which he was kind of hounded by the media and portrayed in kind of freakish ways implants in your cheeks you've had a dimple made in your chin you've had your lips enlarged you've had your eyelids reconstructed

none of it's true which all got muddled up with the stories about possible abuse. So we're at a distance from that now. And I think that helps clear the air a little bit and make it possible to focus and think differently. You know, on the opposite side, our attachments to Jackson start to become historical.

And so that changes things in lots of ways. On one level, it means that it's not a current celebrity that we're talking about, and there can be a kind of perspective. On another level, it leaves us with this quandary about what we do about someone who's now beyond punishment and who can't really, you know, no actions and no discussions that we have

can change what happened in the past. But there's nothing we can do about Michael Jackson now, except figure out how we're going to think about him and what his legacy is in the long run. And I do want to get to that with both of you, how we're supposed to think about him now. But first, I do want to make the point that the Jackson estate has very aggressively disputed all of these allegations, and they're filing suit against HBO, claiming over $100 million in damages. Members of the Jackson family have denounced these two accusers as opportunists. They've described this documentary as like a one-sided hit piece. When you're actually there in that atmosphere and you're around it and you're

watching movies with his kids, it's very innocent. But I think the fault of my uncle was he just, he didn't have that bone in his body to look at it the other way. His naivety was his downfall. That's what hurts me more than anything is knowing his innocence, but then knowing how the world is. Which I think plays into what you were saying before, Carl, that the noise has been removed from this documentary. There is a little bit of the denials that Jackson made throughout the years and that members of his team made throughout his years, his lawyers. I am not guilty of these allegations, but if I am guilty of anything, it is of giving all that I have to give to help children all over the world.

It is of loving children of all ages and races. But this documentary is very much the story of these two men. Would you agree? Yeah, and I mean, I don't know what you think, Harmony, but I mean, as a journalist there, I had some qualms about that. On the other hand, you know, you have to think we had decades of hearing what the Jackson Camp's defenses around these things were. And so it's not as though they've been denied an opportunity to speak to these cases in general as a category.

Harmony, thoughts there? My one critique of the documentary coming from a journalist's perspective is that lack of balance. I think there was opportunity for Dan Reed to tell a bit of a more fulsome story, and I think that would have actually served both of the victims a little bit better to paint a more fulsome picture of what was happening and provide some context there. And because we have this era of social media, which is the driver behind things like the Me Too movement, etc.,

that opinion is just as noisy as what we saw back in the day with tabloids, etc. It's just that now it's a little bit more complicated because one person involved in this story doesn't have the opportunity to rebut in real time within this context. I have found the reaction to this documentary interesting, not just the last 24, 48 hours, but there were a lot of think pieces that came out before it, sort of prepping people for what was coming. And we haven't seen what we have with other cases,

like the Mute R. Kelly campaign, for example, happening when it comes to Michael Jackson. You know, this isn't scientific, but if you search Twitter, there certainly does seem to be a lot of people who are challenging the allegations made in this documentary. And what do you make of that, Carl? I mean, I think Harmony is right that there are things that the documentarist could have done without really watering the film down to anticipate those defenses and and try to answer them. Anticipate those defenses and and try to answer them. There are there are things that speak to the credibility of the accusers that, you know, there are lawsuits and things like that that are that are still in motion involving sums of money and all of these kinds of things. Both of the accusers had previously sued the Jackson estate around 2013, and those cases were thrown out by a judge because they took too long to bring the cases, but they're now currently under appeal.

So this is the argument that this is all about money. Yeah. And I mean, the other thing is that is that the camp of defenders of Jackson, of, you know, sort of the hardcore true believer fans who've always really wanted to keep any of this from sticking to his name. These people have been engaged in that project for 25, 30 years, and they're pretty organized. And when I published a piece last week about Jackson, I endured a day or two of getting barraged on Twitter, and that's going to happen.

And so in those ways, for the documentarists not to think about the things that were going to happen. And so in those ways for the documentarist not to think about the things that were going to come from that side seemed like an unfortunate omission. One question I had is, you know, we can debate what the documentary should have included or what it should not have included. But do we even think it would have made much of a difference? Because here you have this beloved icon. It is really not possible to understate his significance. Ten o'clock this morning, there were 15 boxes bearing Jackson's new Bad album

stacked up in this record store. By mid-afternoon, there were only six left. Jackson's new musical masterpiece even got a whole display rack. Even Rockstar Prince only got half. And is it also just possible that there's nothing that people can say that would change their minds about Michael Jackson? I think that it will be a change. I think that the thing that won't change is that Michael Jackson's music is some of the most significant and globally impactful music of the second half of the 20th century. And its influence is everywhere in the music that we hear today. That can't be wished away. And no matter what else we decide

about him as a person, you know, just as with many titanic cultural figures over the decades and centuries, we're going to be left with that cultural legacy. And it's not, it's something that we're going to have to grapple with in an ongoing way. And I'm interested to know how you're both grappling with it. So Harmony, first, let's start with what your relationship is to Michael Jackson's music. I mean, I grew up with Michael Jackson's music. And I remember when he died, actually having conversations with my mom or with older generations saying that they also grew up with him. And like Carl says, there's no denying that he made a significant impact on pop music, especially as

someone who critiques music, assesses a lot of music. There's no escaping that. I think the difficulty lies in grappling with how we view any person who makes a significant contribution to the art that we love. I think we often conflate the two. If they made good art, they must be a good person. And I think that is something that needs to change as we shift the culture to make space for people who come forward with, like I said, allegations like this that are so serious and so harrowing. We can't give people a pass to treat people any way they want or behave any way they want, or put them on a pedestal that leaves them exempt from any type of critique just because they make good music. The fact that Michael Jackson made significant contributions to the world of pop

music and to R&B, etc., that will always be true. But these allegations are also a very large part of his legacy. And we have to learn to look at both and accept both of them. And will this change how you listen to his music or even if you listen to his music? And someone like Michael Jackson, it's not just his music. He's influenced so many other artists who've come after him, that it's almost impossible to get away from his music. Me personally, at least right now, I don't think I can listen to his music and quite feel the same thing knowing some of the things that this documentary revealed. But it's a personal decision that everyone has to make at the end of the day. Carl, how about you?

There's definitely a moratorium on it in my mind. And I think particularly while we're all absorbing and processing these stories, I think that that's something that we should all observe for each other's sake too, because I think that there's a danger of these stories re-traumatizing people. And, you know, you're walking through the mall and Billie Jean comes on and all of these stories come flooding into your head. I think that's something that we have to be responsible to each other about for the time being. I don't know if that's a permanent thing. I suspect it's not. But I think that we have to be mindful about it. I have one follow up question for you that I want to pick up on something you said earlier in our conversation. When you talked about the mental gymnastics

that they went through in these earlier years to try and convince themselves that maybe Michael Jackson was just a little bit weird or eccentric or just enjoyed slumber parties with young boys. And now that they find these two men so convincing, they feel guilty about that. And so I leave this question to both of you. I'll start with Carl. Do you feel that same guilt? Yeah, I do feel that way. I mean, I think that knowing Jackson's own history of abuse and of the sort of premature sexualization that he went through as a public figure in the 70s and, you know, being exposed to his brothers, bringing groupies back to his room and all of that kind of thing. I convinced myself that all of that might have arrested his development on some level.

And this was a story that Jackson played into, too. And actually, I think that the abuse allegations and this story can kind of be true at the same time, that Jackson's perception of himself as kind of a perpetual child, even while being an adult sexual person, might have been a paradox that he was dealing with and didn't know how to deal with. Harmony? In terms of the question, do I feel any guilt for anything I may have thought in the past? No, I don't. And I also don't take responsibility for anything that a celebrity does. However, I also think that guilt doesn't really help victims or help people who are put in these situations.

I think what helps is once we know what we know, once we've learned, once we have the ability to do better because we're more informed, we now have a responsibility to go forward and do better. And I think Carl kind of mentioned it earlier. There is nothing that we can do about Michael Jackson because he died. Beyond allowing the victims to tell their story, there's not much we can do to kind of erase or undo those wrongs. But we can go forward and make sure that we're shifting the culture in general so that it doesn't facilitate this kind of abuse by other celebrities to other people.

So, no, I don't feel any guilt, but there certainly is a responsibility once you become aware and once you learn some things and unlearn some flawed ways of thinking to go forward and do better. That's really well put, Harmony. lot of ways of thinking to go forward and do better. That's really well put, Harmony. And one thing I would add about this story in particular is if there's anything that we rethink going forward out of this, I really feel like, although it comes up in many times in many ways, the question of child stardom really feels like something that, that even though we know how much dysfunction and damage is associated with it, I feel like we're, we still facilitated it.

And that's something that I think this story really makes you think about again. Right. Because not only was Jackson a child star, so were the two victims. Or at least that was, they were aiming at. They were aiming.

They were in that world. They were trying themselves to be stars at such a very young age. Thanks so much to you both. Thank you. Thank you. Before we go today, an update on the SNC-Lavalin scandal, which, well, it just doesn't seem to stop. On Monday afternoon, Jane Philpott quit Prime Minister Trudeau's cabinet, and this is really significant. She was a senior member there, the Treasury Board President.

Formerly, she worked in Indigenous Affairs. And her parting shot was not a read-between-the-lines resignation letter. She made direct reference to the SNC-Lavalin situation. Here's a part of that letter. Sadly, I have lost confidence in how the government has dealt with this matter and in how it has responded to the issues raised. Philpott is close friends with Jody Wilson-Raybould, the former attorney general at the center of all of this. Later in the day, Trudeau responded. She worked tirelessly with this team to achieve transformational change. We will continue this crucial work. In a democracy like ours, and in a space where we value our

diversity so strongly, we're allowed to have disagreements and debate. We even encourage it. Now this is all happening just a couple days before another big moment in the story. Jerry Butz, the Prime Minister's former right-hand man, is set to testify before the Justice Committee on Wednesday. You'll remember that Jerry Butz resigned over this whole mess. Butz has categorically denied that he or his office has pressured Wilson-Raybould. We're going to be watching this story, and if you need to catch up, we've got a whole episode on it from last week. You can find it in our feed.

That's all for today. I'm Jamie Poisson. Thanks for listening to FrontBurner. For more CBC Podcasts, go to cbc.ca slash podcasts. It's 2011 and the Arab Spring is raging. A lesbian activist in Syria starts a blog. She names it Gay Girl in Damascus. Am I crazy? Maybe. As her profile grows, so does the danger. The object of the email was, please read this while sitting down.

It's like a genie came out of the bottle and you can't put it back. Gay Girl Gone. Available now.