'Leaving Neverland': Wade Robson, James Safechuck and 'Manufacturing Consent'

(RECORDED FEBRUARY 24, 2019) WEEEEEERE BAAAAAAACK!!!!

The term 'manufacturing consent'  was inspired by a phrase coined in 1922 by Walter Lippmann ('the manufacture of consent').  It was originally the title of a 1979 book by Michael Burawoy;  it was then popularized after the 1988 book (and eventual film of the same name) by Noam Chomsky and Edward Herman. It is identified through corporate media (in particular) dictating a particular perspective or ideology as a means of social control.  Its goal is to persuade the public to side with particular views which would be advantageous to their profit margin.  The greatest examples are the U.S.'s portrayal of the global south, the so-called Middle East or even Mexico (which is 1/3 of North America) as being 'undeveloped' and/or in serious need of 'democratization'...  Despite many of these countries having had democratically elected presidents, or have fought for self-determination to the point where they have become sovereign.  It is the media's job to do the bidding of corporations (who sit on the government's boards and who create and influence policies) and gear up excitement for militaristic invasions. 

The consolidation of media has produced less and less opportunities for people to see informed debates, and more opportunities to experience sound bites.  More and more mainstream media 'journalists' are reporting opinion pieces, versus findings from detailed assignments.  While many have focused on the proliferation of social media being used as a 'new media'; corporate media recognizes this shift as well, and is utilizing whatever means they have to attempt to compete- be it through meme-inspired commercials, use of social media posts in commentaries, purchasing the rights to internet series, or taking cues from video streaming services. 

This upcoming HBO feature, 'Leaving Neverland' appears to be inspired by all of this.  Heightened by the cooptation of the 'me too' movement by Hollywood (leaving out the voices of Tarana Burke and those who the movement originally was speaking for), 'Leaving Neverland' not only follows the wave of celebrity docudramas that have been happening in the past couple of years (Michel'le, TLC, Whitney Houston, Aaliyah, New Edition, Bobby Brown); it also has kept a watchful eye on the sea of accusations that have been spreading (Harvey Weinstein, Bill Cosby, Russell Simmons, Brett Ratner, Morgan Freeman, Neil deGrasse Tyson, Benny Medina).  Almost ten years later, the executives at Home Box Office recognize how polarizing of a figure Michael Jackson still is, regarding the issue of child abuse.  With the ratings popularity (and visceral reactions) to 'Surviving R. Kelly',  the network clearly saw potential in their decision to pick up the documentary. 

The title 'Leaving Neverland' has a couple of connotations.  The first one is literal:  Michael Jackson literally left Neverland, his place of residence from 1988 until the 2003 police raid.  The other connotation is much more nuanced:  'Neverland' was a place representative of eternal youth.  The raid prompted uncomfortable growth spurts, and Michael Jackson had to leave the place he called home behind.  The other branch to this more nuanced connotation is what Robson and Safechuck are insinuating- that Neverland was a 'house of horrors' where childhood was snatched away. 

While Michael Jackson certainly was not a perfect individual; and while we do not feel that, despite the intention, his being with kids as a means of dealing with his own trauma was the best method of healing- the research we poured into all of the cases pertaining to these accusations have not produced sufficient evidence to convince us of his guilt.  Because MJ was never really comfortable (from our perspective) in dealing with difficult questions, this gave a lot of folks who already declared him 'strange' enough ammunition to emphasize his weaknesses.  Sadly, there are some in his fan base who pathologize his vulnerability to the point where it gives further ammunition to those who aim to profit from said vulnerability.  It is a slippery slope to claim a person does not have the capacity to harm someone just because of how you connect to or perceive their public representation.  Anyone who was abused as bad as Michael Jackson has described has the capacity to hurt others.  Whether or not they actually do is another conversation. 

The comparisons between MJ and Robert Kelly make no sense to us.  Even though both were found 'not guilty' at their trials, Robert Kelly was found 'not guilty' on a technicality (a full warrant also was not produced for a search; also, crucial witnesses would not testify), and the prosecution from Michael's trial was discovered tampering with evidence. If there was a wealth of evidence uncovered that Michael Jackson was indeed a predator, you can guarantee that we will be doing an episode about it, rescinding our defense of him.  As for now, we have not seen this wealth of evidence.

The fact that statements of Wade Robson and James Safechuck are the primary ones, after years of opportunity of exposing his predatory behavior are suspicious to us.  We recognize how insidious predators are- they are in our families, they are out here in these streets- but to defend people so hard for so many years, and to expose someone years later (and asking for large sums of money in the process) is suspicious.  The addition of Adrian McManus (and her interview with an Australian network) is suspicious as well, given that she had a court order to pay Michael Jackson back (after stealing items from Neverland), and never did so.  She claimed there were incriminating tapes, but actually never looked at the contents of the tapes.  She was also found to be lying under oath.  If you are going to state serious claims or accusations against someone, it is crucial you have all the evidence lined up.  McManus worked for him for four years, yet did not report anything she claimed to have seen? Like many celebrities Michael Jackson notoriously made people sign NDAs; NO AMOUNT OF NDAs would make us stay quiet if indeed predatory insidiousness were occurring.  If McManus saw this going on and did not report it, she should be charged with endangering children. 

Also...  As secret as Michael Jackson was, why would he leave incriminating evidence for any old person to see?  If all of these claims are true, how were they missed in the years the man was searched by federal, state and local organizations?  How did he have evidence of things lying around, but NOTHING in ANY of the computers they searched? 

It is crucial to question everything.  Because (once again) Michael Jackson is seen as 'weird' it's very easy to sway opinion in the favor of those who have not done research, thereby 'manufacture consent' to attack a guy who's long decomposed in his mausoleum. 

Jesse/Jester and jamilah have another commentary on the various political situations occurring (connecting with the overall theme of 'manufacturing consent'), and of course we speak about this situation in relation to Safechuck and Robson.  Honestly, we only scratched the surface. 

We would love to thank Michael Dean, Purple Underground, Charles Thompson, Joe Vogel, Nightchild Ethereal, and the countless podcasters, bloggers/writers, vloggers and creators who came before us and beside us, doing this work sincerely, and with love.

For questions, comments, etc.  you can reach us here:  instagram.com/music_wejj/

and here: musicandwejj@gmail.com