Be Careful Who You Love: Inside the Michael Jackson Case [ペーパーバック]

First, I am a fan of Michael Jackson's music and have been since I was a kid. Also, I was too young to really remember much about the 1993 settlement and in 2005 I was busy in college and didn't follow the case much. Aside from a few random stories on TV news and in newspapers and watching a little bit of the Bashir doc, this book is really the only info I have on the case.

That said, Diane Dimond's bias shown like an impossible-to-ignore glare off a TV screen. It was hard to focus on anything she was saying because her choice of language and the things she seemed to gloss over were so distracting.

1. Language: Repeatedly using terms like "OSS Agents" and "Jackson Operatives" both dehumanize Michael and make it appear that he has formed his own literal army. Diane Dimond would have us believe that a specialized group of men are at Jackson's disposal to harrass, threaten, and even attempt to kill accusers.

Supporters of Michael Jackson (not fans, but employees, friends, and family) are all labeled as "Jackson loyalists" in a weak attempt to discredit them. Anything Jackson's managers and lawyers did is repeatedly referred to as "attacks" on the accusers rather than as defense of the accused.

2. Glossed over facts:
After being portrayed as victims who were harrassed and threatened and either wrongfully fired or forced to quit, it is mentioned only in a single sentance that two of the former employees lodging complaints against Michael and his "agents" were found guilty of stealing from Neverland and selling the goods for thousands of dollars. Diane trys to discredit the idea that these employees were money-hungry and disgruntled, but it appears some were just pissy that their flow of free cash was cut off.

Dimond tries to portray the accusing kids as far too young and innocent to ever make up such sexually graphic charges while at the same time giving Jordie Chandler some praise for helping his dad and another screenwriter write the script for "Robin Hood: Men in Tights." Dimond totally ignores the obvious: 13 and 14 year old boys often know about sex, usually more than their parents give them credit for, and for a 13 year old boy who is also a budding writer, Jordie was certainly capable of making up lurid tales. (This is not to say it was made up, but that an unbiased reporter could certainly see the possibility, but Diane didn't).

When a kid denied that Jackson ever touched him, Dimond points out that the language the kid used sounded too adult, so perhaps it was coached. But later, when Jordie gives his accounts, the language is even more sophisticated. Dimond totally ignored that Jordie used language like "it then graduated to tongue-kissing" and "Michael Jackson had sexual contact with me on several occasions". Either Dimond didn't mention that these statements were prepared by adults and not in Jordie's own words or she decided not to draw too much attention to his writing abilities. It seems odd either way that one kid would be called out for sounding too grown up while another is totally ignored.

3. Editing: Nothing makes a book harder to believe than poor editing. Dimond loves to repeat herself, sometimes mentioning the same stupid fact several times in the same page (like mentioning that Adrian McManus was Jackson's personal chambermaid three times in less than 2 pages after already mentioning her previously in the book). There are random spots with misspelled words or improper grammar that make it hard to take Diane Dimond seriously as a reporter or author.

I did laugh when it became clear how much Diane loves herself. No sentence was written with such clear delight as "On November 18, 2003, at exactly 9:21 A.M., I was on the air, on location--live--to break the news of the raid." Perhaps she was just over excited at finally having a fact that could be backed up.

Over all, the book is interesting, but don't expect to take it seriously or to get any answers. Instead be prepared to hear a woman rave for over 300 pages about Michael Jackson being an evil super-villain complete with a fake voice, evil henchmen, and psychotic fans ready to go to battle for their star.

But if you are a tabloid Junkie---this is the book for you. Though Dimond trys to sound un-biased she de-humanizes Mr. Jackson by using the term "Jackson team" and believes every person she interveiws even after stating their financial intentions.She gives Jackson very little sympathy and believes him to be a molester based on interviews with poeple that were mysteriously fired or supoosedly quit or they really didn't even know Michael at all.
Lets face it we are going to believe what we want to believe, and Ms. Dimond wants to believe he is evil.
So I'll say it again...
This book is cheap and I am ashamed I read it.

During the trial, Dimond was all over the place. Larry King, CourtTV, just everywhere. Everywhere with the same slant: Jackson is guilty. Dimond achieved fame and fortune over her sensational accusations and dramatized "first-hand" court experiences. Were Jackson to be convicted, Dimond would have probably been offered a prestigious position on one of the big news shows and respect among the journalism community and the general public.

This did not happen. In fact, the opposite. CourtTV ripped the magic carpet right out from under her. I mean, you have to be pretty awful to not reach CourtTV's standards. Without a job or any stich of credibility, Dimond composed "Be Careful Who You Love," despaerate effort to salvage her image and career. Sad.

Today she writes for a site called "True Slant." Oh, oh, the irony. My suggestion, for those interested in Jackson's child molestation charges, is to go directly to the primary sources. Court transcripts are available online. There you will find a word by word account of the three ring circus that California tax payers paid $2.7 million dollars for.

I'm a fan of open-mindedness and honor. Unfortunately, these are concepts Dimond seems totally unaware of.