What were you thinking? What ARE you thinking?

© St. Petersburg Times
published February 20, 2003

[AP photo] Michael Jackson

Dearest Michael:

Even though I can't imagine you'll ever see this, I feel compelled to offer this open letter to a man I once regarded as the King of Pop -- who now seems on the verge of a complete, media-fed meltdown.

Your interview with the British reporter Martin Bashir -- broadcast Feb. 6 on ABC to a whopping 27-million viewers -- was only the start. Dateline NBC's special, Michael Jackson: Unmasked, continued the frenzy Monday, and now the network of Joe Millionaire and Temptation Island is offering you a forum to make your case at 8 tonight.

Once again you're wading into this morass with the two-hour Fox special Michael Jackson, Take 2: The Interview They Wouldn't Show You, compiled from video you taped of Bashir filming you answering pointed questions.

The mind boggles.

On behalf of all your fans, past and present, I've got to ask:

Why are you doing this?

I also wonder why we still care. I asked Stuart Fischoff, a professor of media psychology at California State University, and he called you a "Shakespearean tragic figure" that draws our attention like a horrible car wreck.

You might remember Dave Marsh -- a co-founder of Creem magazine and former Rolling Stone critic, he wrote Trapped: Michael Jackson and the Crossover Dream in 1985. He sees you as the ultimate showbiz tragedy, noting, "The guy's 44 years old, and he's still a child star. This is a situation where, literally, this guy who seems so devoted to innocence . . . has corrupted everything he touches."

Like you, I'm a child of Gary, Ind. And like you, I grew up perfecting my James Brown impersonation before the family phonograph, dreaming of the day when I might do it for real -- except I also had a scratchy 45 of your Jackson 5 hit ABC as further inspiration.

Once upon a time -- right after the release of your latest recorded disappointment, Invincible -- I told anyone who would listen that your career wasn't beyond hope.

If only you could cast away all that showbiz nonsense: ditch the cast-of-thousands dancers, the towering, self-aggrandizing statues, the surgical masks and hyperbaric chambers. If only you hit the road with a slick, seven-piece band and a taut album, you might remind folks why they fell in love with you in the first place.

Now, that hope seems a distant fantasy.

"The whole thing was a ritual public celebration of . . . invasion as entertainment," said Murray Pomerance, chair of the department of sociology at Ryerson University in Toronto. "The one thing I found interesting was that he collaborated in this invasion himself."

Even though officials from Fox and NBC declined to comment to the St. Petersburg Times, we know why the TV networks care. This is, after all, the all-important February "sweeps" ratings period.

Never mind that we seem to be on the brink of war with Iraq, and that the government may be broadcasting terror alerts based on bad information. ABC News devoted six hours in prime time over the last two weeks to dissecting you, Michael, and Fox and NBC this week will each spend two hours on the same subject.

Is it comforting to know that some experts think this is all about distracting the public?

"The news media at this moment does not want us paying attention (to) . . . our buildup to a war with Iraq," said Linda Robertson, a professor of media and sociology at Hobart and William Smith Colleges in Geneva, N.Y. "This (Jackson coverage) gets high ratings, so of course it inspires copycat coverage. But it's absolutely irresponsible journalism to condemn by innuendo and inference."

Dateline's interviews included a police detective who investigated the 1993 sex abuse allegations against you (to see them in excruciatingly explicit detail, check out www.thesmokinggun.com). Oh, they also quoted a writer from Rolling Stone -- we never were told whether he's actually interviewed or even met you -- who called you "functionally insane." Given this level of media coverage, I can't help wondering if you're the only one who's lost his mind.

What about race?

It's one of the things we're bursting to know about you: Do you want to be white?

Dateline NBC and ABC's coverage floated this idea, something many folks back in Gary -- continually insulted by your refusal to return and honor the town -- have bought into.

But Fischoff wonders if you're not rejecting something more fundamental: yourself.

"If there's one thing he's trying to get away from, it may be that image of himself when he was young," the professor said, referencing your revelations that dad Joe Jackson often beat you. "Whether or not Michael is trying to become white, or just trying to become something other than Michael Jackson remains to be seen."

You say you've only had two cosmetic surgeries, both on your nose. But Dateline NBC, 20/20 and even our local WFTS-Ch. 28 dug up plastic surgeons who are convinced you've had many more -- slowly removing visual elements of your ethnicity until you seemed a totally different person.

Eric Rosen, a Palm Harbor-based psychologist who has worked with patients who struggle with appearance issues, noted that many events you've already admitted to -- breaking your nose in a fall, having an overbearing father who ridiculed your nose, burning your hair while filming a Pepsi commercial -- are traumas that can lead to an unhealthy preoccupation with appearance.

"Sometimes, people may use surgery to self-medicate a soul that is deeply wounded," Rosen said. "If someone were to change their color or got to the extent of changing features that characterize their culture, you can ask how they feel about who they really are."

What about the kids?

The other question on the public's lips must be painful for you to hear: Are you a pedophile?

Certainly, you don't see it that way. "The most loving thing to do is to share your bed with someone," you told Bashir, explaining why the kids who visit your Neverland ranch sometimes sleep in your bedroom. "Always give the best to your company."

But Louis Penner, a professor of social psychology at the University of South Florida, said your public statements about children have an uncomfortable ring.

"Pedophiles have these great explanations and justifications for what they do," said Penner, who once conducted research on the self-image of those who are sexually attracted to children. "(Saying), 'This isn't sexual, this is an expression of love' . . . his explanations sound like the explanations a pedophile would give."

Still, Fischoff had a different view, noting that some of the collateral signs of a pedophile's activity -- defensive mechanisms among the children you befriend that indicate abuse, obsessive secrecy in contacting children -- are not present in your case.

"He might be an emotional pedophile . . . wanting to commune with young people because he sees them as his peers," the professor said. "But he doesn't look like he's interested in anything sexually."

I wonder if you think about the affect you may have on these vulnerable children; setting them up for future abuse by teaching them to trust a fortysomething guy willing to share his bed.

What about the journalism?

Bashir blew it, too. Whether it was his allegiance to the British tabloid tradition or a genuine hope to nail you, his report was far too judgmental.

He should have let the images speak for themselves: your binge-shopping for outrageously expensive items you barely looked at; holding hands with a needy 12-year-old boy; insisting that sharing a bed with the Culkin brothers wasn't unusual; maintaining that your facial evolution to ghostly, nose-challenged apparition was the result of just two surgeries.

Self-righteous and overbearing, he polluted any truth his work might contain. Dateline's work, puffed up with your career history and filled with sources who didn't have much direct knowledge, didn't add much, either.

"What you really want to know about is what we're not seeing -- the producers of ABC and NBC News (and their) decision-making process," said Ryerson University's Pomerance. "It's just singing and dancing and playing with someone's face and desiccating an individual."

The bottom line

In the days following ABC's broadcast, people asked a simple question:

Why would a millionaire pop star who has been a celebrity practically all his life allow a reporter to document his eccentricities for eight months?

I'm no psychologist, and I've never met you, but I have a theory: I don't think you believe you're all that strange.

The children, the shopping, the ex-wife who gave up her kids to you, the face that has changed too many times to count -- you thought you could explain it all away. You think it's normal.

But you gotta know, Michael, it's not normal. And we're not just reacting to media manipulation. We're reacting to the words that have come straight from your mouth.

In the end, I fear we won't know the truth about you until you're gone -- once the nondisclosure agreements expire and you're not around to sue.

Maybe I'm wrong and we'll see a different truth on Fox tonight. But given all the faces you've shown to the public so far, I'm not counting on it.

- To reach Eric Deggans, call (727) 893-8521, e-mail deggans@sptimes.com .

© St. Petersburg Times. All rights reserved.