Bill O’Reilly: Off the wall — race and Michael Jackson
Like Elvis Presley before him, the demise of Michael Jackson has engaged the entire world, and the parallels are spooky. Both Presley and Jackson lived isolated, somewhat bizarre lives, eventually destroying themselves with drugs administered by doctors on their payrolls. This was a proven fact in Presley’s case; there is strong evidence in Jackson’s.
But while Presley was mourned primarily as a great entertainer, Jackson is being sold by his supporters as much more. In fact, if you listen to Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson, the troubled singer was the second coming of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. At Jackson’s memorial service earlier this week, Sharpton put forth that Jackson brought blacks and whites together, teaching us all how to love.
Wow, who knew?
A Pew Research poll shows that African-Americans are far more interested in the Jackson story than are white Americans, and some speakers at the memorial referred to Jackson as a black icon. But how can this be? Jackson bleached his skin to make it lighter and presumably paid white men to donate sperm for his three in-vitro children, at least two of whom were carried to term by a white woman.
Does that sound like a black icon to you? What is really going on here?
My colleague Bernard Goldberg says this is an example of a minority group sticking together, rallying around one of their own. It is true that many African-Americans celebrated the acquittal of O.J. Simpson of murder, as well as a jury finding Jackson not guilty on child molestation charges.
I guess it’s natural to root for the home team, especially when history has been brutally unkind. Black Americans well understand the injustice of the past.
But the truth is that Jackson’s contribution lies in entertainment and little else. He is not a role model. His admitted conduct with children is simply unacceptable for any adult. His use of cosmetic surgery is troubling to say the least. And the enormous amount of money he spent on prescription drugs speaks for itself.
Of course, the corrupt media are driving the deification of Jackson. Rather than challenge the St. Paul-like portrayal, the media are cynically exploiting it to the fullest.
Remember, these are the same people who covered the molestation trial gavel to gavel. When Jackson was found not guilty, did the press label him a hero? They certainly did not. But now that he’s dead (very possibly from an accidental drug overdose), Jackson has become a hero. How does that happen? What kind of media con is this?
I’d like to put that question to every single national anchorperson who sat there doing play-by-play at the memorial service, but I do not believe I’d get a cogent answer.
I have no desire to intrude on anyone grieving for Jackson, especially the people who truly loved him. But the entire planet is watching this play out, and there is such a thing as truth in this world.
We should be telling it.
Veteran TV news anchor Bill O’Reilly is host of the Fox News show “The O’Reilly Factor” and author of the book “Who’s Looking Out For You?” To find out more about Bill O’Reilly, and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate web page at www.creators.com. This column originates on the Web site www.billoreilly.com.
INDenverTimes now provides daily Opinion columns from Michelle Malkin, Michael Barone, Susan Estrich, Diane Dimond, Joe Conason and Dennis Prager.
More from INDenverTimes
- Painting the Right as an undifferentiated blob of evil
- Concierge doctors — the future of primary care?
- Dimond: The Addict, the Enabler and Us
- Is Obama wrong? Critics from the left
- The Nation’s Strangest Race: Does Tancredo Love Hick?
O’reilly is so naive and ignorant in regards to race and its impact on society. His commentary is downright disgusting and troubling in the wake of the death of an American icon. This cretin, O’reilly is framing Jackson under assumptions and misleading accusations. He infers that Jackson is not an African American icon because ‘he bleached his skin white’ and that he adopted white children and further alludes that Jackson is some kind of sell out? If the halfwitted O’reilly really cared about informing his idiotic audience he would of checked his facts. If the vile Oreilly reported accurately he would of reported that Jackson ‘bleached’ his skin in response to his DISEASE, Vitiligo. Without skin therapy, Jackson’s appearance would of been abnormal and bizarre with dark and white spots, But instead O’reilly smears a victim of Vitiligo to be a self hating African American. And then there are the kids of Mr Jackson. O’reilly indicates that if a black man has biracial children or adopts white children that he is somehow a self hating racist??? Who cares who his children are. Many families are biracial or adopt children of other races, and there is nothing wrong with that. The facts indicate that we do not know anything about Jackson’s children. We don’t know if Jackson is the father any better than if we know if Oreilly is the father of his children. It’s all speculation and the distasteful Oreilly comes to his idiotic conclusion based on the appearance of his children. And finally for O’reilly to report that Jackson is not an icon or a AFRICAN AMERMICAN HERO is disrespectful and dishonest. His legacy in music and American culture transcends his bizarre behavior, surgeries, awkward appearance, or the accusations of child molestation of which he was never found guilty. By the way if we are going to judge people on accusations, How do we judge mr Oreilly, the guy who sexually harassed one of his female producers?? But anyway Michael Jackson’s music was about breaking down social barriers and united people through music and dance. He was one of the first Black artists to be popular among all demographics, unless you are a republican as statistics indicate that only 33% (including o’reilly) like the man’s music. He was also the first Black artist to get airtime on Mtv. He sold the most records for an album in history. He innovated music videos as we know them to today. He also helped those in need through charity, more than oreilly could ever imagine. There is no question, Mr Jackson’s contribution through music is epic and has broke down racial barriers, and he is therefore an American icon and hero. If anything Oreilly should of portrayed him as a tragic hero. However oreilly is despicable and should of never opened his mouth on this issue…As a catholic myself I am ashamed of Oreilly who claims to be catholic. Whatever happened to not judging others and boosting about one’s self??? He is a political hack and an hateful person.
I paid for this news service to be able to read the writers and columnists of the Rocky, not to watch you buy columns from O’Reilly. If I want O’Reilly, I’ll get him on TV. I was hoping my money was helping to support local news people, not someone who really doesn’t need it, because, believe me, I don’t have it to throw around. If you continue to buy material instead of hacking it out yourselves, you’ll have a much harder time getting me to renew with you.
I really don’t mind reading a center-right independent guy like O’Reilly for a change.
I used to have to put up with Mike Littwin. Thank god that is over with!
O’Reilly makes some serious points that those who came to adulthood in the 60′s and 70′s will understand.
First, Jackson was by no means the first true cross over artist. How about Louis Armstrong whose What a Wonderful World is still getting airtime today on several different types of stations, years after his death? Black, White? Both seemed to like his music.
Then their was Paul Robeson with songs like “Old Man River”? This conservitive listens to his wonderful voice even though he was an ardent proponent of Communism whose political views were even too liberal for the NAACP. However, it is undeniable, that he was one of the agitators in breaking the color barrier in Major League Baseball thereby opening up a whole new vista for literaly thousands of youths. Unfortunately, this would be a false dream for all too many who put all their hopes in this basket, but that was not Robeson’s fault. Finally, Robeson, because of his International Fame, took a leading role in correctly branding lynching as Genocide, even though it cost him professionally and forced travel restrictions on him in the 50s.
Given these relative amounts of service to the Black Communities, it is a little suprising when one considers that few Black leaders risked showing up at Robeson’s funeral in 1976.
Other early cross over entertainers would need to include the likes of Sammy Davis Jr., Flip Wilson, and of course Dr. William Cosby.
The dam was permanently shattered when Barry Gord;y started Motown. There was such a large stable of stars coming out of Motown that any list will be partial — Marvin Gaye, the Supremes, the Temptations, Stevie Wonder, Matha and the Vandalas, Four Tops, Gladys Knight and the Pips, Isley Brothers, Rare Earth, Tammy Terrell, Mary Wells, and some unknown group called the Jackson 5. Barry Gordy’s instincts were the sledge hammer that broke down a large part of the wall for good.
Finally, in 1993 Mr. Jackson did have a severe problem with the kid. Nobody pays $15 million unless they are forced into paying the money. As noted, Mr. Jackson did have a splotchy skin pattern, one correctly described by the boy regarding Jackson’ genitals. I do not think that the recent charge had the same credibility, but there is no mistaking the earlier one, and it put a giant crimp in Jackson’s career.
Good analysis. I still disagree. Those motown artists you mentioned did get airtime, but they did not cross over as much as Jackson did and they were not as innovative as Jackson (dance, videos, pop revolution, record sales). I am glad that you are aware that Jackson is an icon in mist of his flaws, O’reilly some how doesn’t understand that. You mentioned that 15 million dollar settlement in 1991. How much did O’reilly pay for his settlement for sexual harassment? Under that logic, O’reilly is a perverted snide individual who is obviously guilty due to his settlement. I don’t think O’reilly should be preaching to us about morals and judging the flaws of others when he is in fact a troubled man himself.
david gee,
you must not seen many differences between sexual relations with a adult and sexual relations with childrens of youth. one was accused of things with adults the other with things with children yet you talk of them as equal.
art
No you got it all wrong, my friend. They are not equal, but they are both despicable none the less. That’s like disavowing an illegal act, such as selling marijuana because there is a difference between slinging mary j and crack. A guy like O’reilly has no bounds to judge someone that was not charged of no wrong doing (just accusations) as he is someone that was accused of a similar, not equal, but similar proceeding in the law. More importantly, People like O’reilly who value the American system of law should respect courts decisions, he can disagree but stating the otherwise as if where a fact is wrong for a guy who claims to be a journalist.
David,
Perhaps it may be because you were not there, but to say that a fellow like Sammy Davis Jr. was not a successful cross over is ignorant of history. Start with the environment he came up in. I can remember when Mr. Davis was allowed to perform on the strip, but then was “politely” asked to go over to the Moulin Rouge in North Las Vegas to stay and party after the show. He notes how Sinatra invited him over for some drinks, and he showed up and sat at the table, only black face in the place. Then Joey Bishop and a couple of others came to his table because Frank and them wanted to see if he had the guts to move forward. That is how he joined the Rat Pack.
Musically he was a crooner like Sinatra, but he also showed up on the Rock/Pop charts with songs like the Candy Man. He was a talented dancer who branched out into choreography, though he never did get around to the moon walk. As an actor, Sammy appeared on numerous TV shows, and several movies including both dramatic and comedy roles. While it is true that his record sales did not come close to matching Jackson’s; it is strongly arguable that his acceptance into multiple facets of society greatly exceeded Micheal’s.
I chose the Robeson example because in the 1950′s Communist’s in America were perhaps even less popular than child molesters are today. Remember that this was the age of the Red Scare and far from denying he was a Communist, Robeson was preaching it’s values. I have no desire to make a martyr of him, but the fact is this caused him a large chunk of his career. The man also had a god given talent of one of the richest bass voices we have ever had. Some folks felt that they wanted to keep buying records showcasing that talent. More folks felt that there were other talents that did not come with so much baggage and stopped purchasing his records.
Isn’t what happened with Robeson similar to what happened with Jackson? There was no Conservitive Talk Radio or TV back then, but if so, “mindless” conservitives such as myself would have probably made points about Robeson.
Lloyd, I am not saying Sammy Davis was not popular or a cross over artist, but Jackson was more mainstream. Davis was still overshadowed by other icons, while Jackson was the biggest star in the music business. Jackson’s legacy spread to other countries around the world, I don’t remember youth in Japan and Germany imitating the Sammy Davis look like they did with Jackson. Jazz music and motown where great foundations for Black music to spread racial barriers, but it was not until Jackson that a black artist became mainstream in American culture.
But this popularity discussion is a sideshow to what my main point on this article was. I believe it is despicable for the likes of oreilly to question this man’s place in history and to question his black identity. Mr O misleads conspiracy as it were fact, and furthermore he is blind to the impact of Jackson’s contributions through music and popular culture.
You know I watched the OReilly tape, and I did not see as much in it as you indicate is in there. Jackson of 93 was a troubled character. I listened to an interview with the Dermatologist, who with no reason to lie, stated that the boy in the 93 case accuractely described the variations in Jackson’s genital area. In this case we are talking about a grown man and a young boy, not two consenting adults, hence Jackson’s swift and sudden fall from grace.
I also saw Geraldo stand up for Jackson as being a loving and caring father who was the primary care giver to his children and categorically state that the 2001 case was pure trumped up charges. This was also presented on OReilly’s show so he did present multiple facets on what must have been a troubled man.
In the end, as in any good Greek Trajedy, Michael’s skills seem to have bought more happiness and joy for others than they ever accomplished for himself. He died deeply in debt, in a rented house paid for by the tour promoter that now stands to make even more off of his death if they get the family to carry out the concerts.
Given all of the money Jackson made, why did he end up so far in dept — I have heard numbers in the $400 to $450 million dollar range? Was this a case of juvinille ecentrincies coming out, or was merely the failure of Michael to obtain appropriate financial investment advice. This is a serious issue as when you are playing with that type of money you always raise the spectre of murder. To this day, I have trouble reconciling whether it was a sophisticated hit, or merely a suicide/run down body failure.
I think that these questions will be with us until we get to the other side, and Michel fills us in.