https://www.mediaite.com/tv/michael...hbos-leaving-neverland-would-still-be-unfair/
Here, Leaving Neverland fails on both counts.
Part one, broadcast for two hours Sunday night, completely withheld all potentially problematic information from the audience, as Robson and Safechuck were given about an hour each to tell their stories in the most sympathetic light imaginable. There was not one remotely skeptical question, any semblance of a constraint on what they could say about Jackson, and absolutely not even one second for what passed as a rebuttal to the horrific allegations being made against him.
It wasn’t until part two, Monday night, when Reed finally let his audience, which has already become emotionally invested in his subjects, know the following facts, for instance, about Robson:
- He testified on Jackson’s behalf in a civil matter when he was about 12, which he now says was five years into his seven years of continual sexual abuse.
- He testified on Jackson’s behalf in the criminal trial when he was about 22, and a celebrity in his own right.
- His mother and sister also strongly testified on Jackson’s behalf at the criminal trial.
- Both his mother and his then-soon-to-be wife asked him point-blank before the criminal trial if Jackson had ever done anything wrong to him, and he completely convinced both of them that he had not.
- When Jackson died, he issued a glowing statement of extraordinary praise of Jackson and attended his funeral.
- His story only radically changed four years later when he filed a lawsuit against Jackson’s estate, which failed on statute of limitations grounds.
None of this proves that Robson is lying, and the story of abuse that Robson tells now is extremely graphic and seemingly credible. But that’s not the real issue.
The problem is that allowing someone with that factual background to tell their story essentially unedited, without a hint of scrutiny, without a shred of corroboration, about an un-convicted dead man, is both wrong and treacherous. Quite simply, you can’t have a “he said, he said” situation about such an incredibly inflammatory charge, especially when one of the two people who were in the room is dead, and the other one told the 100% opposite story while under oath, twice (and, if you do, you should damn well interview some people representing the other side, which Leaving Neverland does not).
While Oprah (who, it should be pointed out, played a key role in the Michael Jackson hype machine back in the day) at least made meager efforts to promote some semblance of fairness by reading a blistering statement for the Jackson family, and gently asking a couple of half-way decent questions, she was very poorly positioned to take part in this project. Oprah — an abuse victim herself — has championed this cause, and comes off as too invested in believing all abuse allegations to give stories like these the scrutiny that a journalistic endeavor should demand, regardless of how politically incorrect it may be to do so, or how truthful those stories may end up being.