Taj Jackson recently had a press regulator complaint rejected regarding a Mail on Sunday article about Michael Jackson’s alleged “child porn stash.”
The Mail on Sunday reported in April that Wade Robson and James Safechuck, who have accused Michael Jackson of abuse, wanted a cache of photos, allegedly containing nude images of Jackson’s victims, to be unsealed by the court.
Taj Jackson, Michael Jackson’s nephew, lodged a complaint with the Independent Press Standards Organisation (IPSO), arguing that the story misleadingly suggested the Jackson estate accepted that the files contained child pornography, a claim he strongly disputed.
Jackson argued that it was a matter of public record that the allegations of child pornography were false, and that this was an “inarguable matter of fact,” according to IPSO.
He also contended that the newspaper had breached the Editors’ Code of Practice by not contacting the Jackson family for comment before publishing the story.
In response, the Mail on Sunday said that allegations against Michael Jackson had been widely reported for decades and that “any reasonable reader would understand that he and his estate denied all allegations of wrongdoing,” making further denial unnecessary in the story.
The newspaper added that it had reported the child pornography claim as an allegation made by Robson and Safechuck, not as established fact, and had made clear that these claims were currently part of ongoing litigation.
The Mail on Sunday also argued that since the litigation was ongoing, the matter was not settled as Jackson had claimed, and therefore reporting on the allegations was not inaccurate.
IPSO’s complaints committee ruled that it was clear from the article that the claims were made by the accusers and were not established as fact.
The committee also found that the article did not imply that the Jackson estate accepted the existence of files containing child pornography.
The ruling noted that the article accurately reported that the estate opposed unsealing the file and set out its position that the accusers’ application had an ulterior motive.
Finally, IPSO stated that there is no requirement in the Editors’ Code to contact involved parties before publication, and since it found no inaccuracies in the article, it was unnecessary to do so in this case.
On social Media, Taj Jackson stated: “Although this did not go in our favor, I will keep fighting for my uncle no matter how rigged the system is against us. It’s time to expose all these lies about Michael Jackson and hold the media accountable for spreading them.”
SOURCE: Press Gazette
For the media, freedom of the press means freedom to act foolishly. This must change.
I think Taj needs better legal advice when taking these actions (which, of course, I wholeheartedly support!). But you have to know how to play the legalities game the right way to get anywhere.