O'Reilly Has Rep. King, Rev. Sharpton Discuss Michael Jackson

Last night, Bill O'Reilly had two very vocal figures discuss Michael Jackson on his show last night—Rep. Peter King (R-Long Island), who blasted the media attention devoted to a "pedophile" "lowlife", and Rev. Al Sharpton, who told Jackson's children that there was "nothing strange" about their father. First, O'Reilly had King on; O'Reilly pointed out that Jackson was acquitted of molestation charges and that settling the other case "doesn't mean you're admitting anything" (which the talk show host knows about first hand). King responded:

Bill, I would say an adult male who sleeps with young boys is a child molester. If nothing else, he's molesting and abusing their psyche. How are those children going to possibly grow up normal after spending nights in bed with Michael Jackson? So — and I would say also there's not a daycare center in the United States that would be allowed to hire him...

Listen, if Michael Jackson had died, it got one or two days of coverage, that would have been fine. But the way it went on and on with this wall to wall, round the clock coverage, and at the same time we have Americans dying in Iraq and Afghanistan, we have the president in Russia trying to negotiate arms control, nuclear arms control. To me it was a real reflection on the culture of our country.

[Video of King's segment, as well as video of Sharpton's after the jump.]

Then Sharpton was brought on—and it's a shame that he was on separately from King. Sharpton had fierce criticism of King, "The issue is that it is totally irresponsible for a lawmaker to disregard the law. Charges were made against Michael Jackson, a mostly non black jury, you talked about 9 out of 10, let's try 12 out of 12 in a jury said he was not guilty of child molestation. That's all. And it's reckless and irresponsible to say he's a child molester, as it would be for me to come on here and say Dick Cheney shoots his friends hunting." Ha!

Then O'Reilly asked Sharpton about Jackson as an African-American icon and his children:

O'REILLY: Answer me this. I heard a lot of people yesterday — and I think you were one of them, but correct me if I'm wrong — saying that Michael Jackson was some kind of African-American icon.

SHARPTON: Yeah, he was.

O'REILLY: Well, then why did he have white children?

SHARPTON: What does that have to do?

O'REILLY: What does that have to do? He chose to have in vitro by a white woman and a white man. What does that have to do?...

SHARPTON: Well, we didn't say he was an African-American — father of African-American children. We said he was an African-American icon.

O'REILLY: An icon? But why would he have white kids then?

SHARPTON: What he did in his personal life and his personal — has nothing to do with his iconic status.

O'REILLY: It doesn't?

SHARPTON: If I said that Bill O'Reilly has a hot television show, does that mean I have the right to go to your house and say but how come his kids chew bubblegum?

Here's the full transcript.

King on the O'Reilly Factor:

Sharpton on the O'Reilly Factor:

Contact the author of this article or email tips@gothamist.com with further questions, comments or tips.

By Jen Chung in News on July 9, 2009 6:31 PM

Comments [rss]

Luke M

Not guilty in the courts is not the same as being a model for others.

So much money was paid by bishops for priests who were not found guilty in the courts.

Guest

So, let's compare apples and oranges...

Luke M

Not guilty in the courts is not the same as being a model for others.

So much money was paid by bishops for priests who were not found guilty in the courts.

Luke M

Not guilty in the courts is not the same as a model for others.

So much money was paid by bishops for priests who were not found guilty in the courts.

JacqueMehoff

O'reilly's was raised in a sundown town

and peter king is a racist.

glennQNYC

I suspect Mr. King shares the opinion of the vast majority of Americans.

We have our President (using almost the exact Bush-era technique that he criticized so adamantly) surging troops into Afghanistan; SOFA being implemented in Iraq; G8 leaders meeting to discuss their (ridiculous and insincere) intent to try control the globe's temperature through massive taxation/behavior modification; all while N. Korea threatens to shoot ballistic missiles towards the United States! Yet the wall-to-wall news coverage is trying to sell us the idea that we should honor the death of an entertainer that, AT BEST; had extremely odd behavior and questionable relationships with countless pre-pubescent boys!

The guy was a musical talent... Maybe even a genius... But he was far from a hero that we need to honor and suggest as a role model for our children to look up to.

MySay

I grew up with a saying "Tell Me What You Know and Not What You Heard". What odd behavior you know of that Michael Jackson has.

Because the only ones I know of are what the tabloid and main stream media refers to which have been proven to be lies.

texinyc

Right, but it's certainly ironic when a government official gets on TV to complain about private media companies giving someone too much attention.

Isn't he contributing to the amount of hype just by coming on a major network and essentially acting as a pundit on the subject?

whitecastlerock

Has Reverend Al settled his tax issues yet?

valeriob

Lol I'm pretty sure you've posted that Q on each MJ blog... Doesn't anyone know how to answer this?

I'd really like to know too.

JenChungsBaby

It's fair to assume that MJ had sexual contact with children. Prosecutors didn't prove it to 12 particular jurors beyond a reasonable doubt in criminal court, but the preponderance of the evidence points in that direction -- which is probably why he settled a civil suit, where the standard for liability is preponderance of evidence.

The point King makes about culture is true. A few days of MJ coverage is understandable. But there are wars going on, the president in negotiating nuclear arms treaties, the economy is a mess, etc. Too bad he didn't just stick to that point, because by getting into MJ character assassination he attracts flies like Sharpton.

blkiznewprez

Incorrect. There was insufficient evidence for the prosecution to criminal charges during the 1993 allegations, which is why the family sued in civil court for millions (but they were planning on doing this anyway). Civil litigation can drag out for years and is extremely costly; Jackson's many legal advisors suggested he settle so that he could put the issue behind him. Reaching a settlement in a legal dispute is in no way an admission of guilt, and is actually encouraged by the civil lit system to keep court costs down.

As for the 2005 trial, the prosecution went on a witch hunt to gather enough evidence to bring criminal charges (the DA even said "We got him this time" on the record). The kid's family said they'd drop the charges in exchange for money, but Jackson went through with the trial to prove his innocence. Which he did. In a court of law. The kid gave inconsistent testimony and there was not enough evidence to presume any lewd conduct with kids. So he had nudie mags, what man doesn't? Also, considering how his staff is now saying Jackson downed 10-30 Xanax/night in the 2000's, how the hell would he be able to lift a muscle to molest a kid?

If he had been convicted or if the evidence had *really* pointed to his guilt (coughOJcough), then we could speak with certainty. But let's stop tarnishing an innocent man's reputation, dead or alive!

JenChungsBaby

Civil litigation may cost money, but not anywhere close to $20 million. You'd think if the case was really bogus he'd gladly pay the legal fees just to protect his reputation.

Criminal charges can't be dropped by anyone except the state. And all that was proved is the state couldn't meet the burden of proof. Did OJ prove his innocence?

He said himself that he slept in the same bed with many children, and more than one kid has accused him of molestation. The preponderance of the evidence is against him. But like I said, Peter King should have just stuck to his original point that we all have more important things to worry about.

Guest

Really? I guess that's how the people who killed all of those 'witches' in Salem were able to sleep at night.

"Oh well, that woman had a black cat and didn't go to church and invited all manner of whoremongering into her home and stayed up at all hours of the night and ate things that civilized people just don't eat, so she is TOTALLY a witch."

JenChungsBaby

Yeah, that makes a lot sense. Like I said originally, it's fair to assume he had sexual contact with children. I didn't say put him in jail or that the jury was wrong or that he should be burned at the stake, just that it's a fair assumption. If you disagree that's OK. But in the court of public opinion he's guilty and the people who feel that way are not being unreasonable.

MySay

It's the stupid one who assumes.

Guest

Although they may not be being unreasonable, we don't live in a country where the court of public opinion matters when determining a person's guilt. So, legally, MJ is not, nor was he ever, a pedophile. That also means that anyone who calls him one is committing libel or slander.

The problem with 'it's fair to assume' is that it's a biased assumption. Why not just give him the benefit of the doubt? It's the best way of avoiding bias AND it just happens to be the way our system of justice works.

valeriob

Right, he wasn't innocent, he just wasn't found guilty.

Now if you'll excuse me, I have to paint the word "CANDY" on my van and pick up where he left off.

texinyc

For once, I agree with Sharpton.

O'Reilly having a politician on turns this into a political issue, which it isn't, unless you're talking about the bankrupt government of Cali being expected to fit the bill for the wake that Michael's family decided to hold for the public.

A political figure making speculations about someone's lifestyle based on a privately settled court case for the purpose of bolstering his numbers is dispicable.

And O'Reilly then attacking African Americans for looking to Jackson as an icon is tantamount to saying 'black people are dumb and it's up to us to explain to them why'.

I don't personally enjoy MJ's music as much as many seem to, but I can still understand the idea of idolizing an artist for his art and not his personal life choices.

Do I really have to make a list of other examples?

O'Reilly once again misses the mark by so far that even Al Sharpton can run circles of logic around him. The most ridiculous aspect of this is that O'Reilly thinks that he's in the right because he's got an idiot to back him up in King but all he's doing is adding to the cacophony of bigoted idiocy that somehow Sharpton manages to stay out of for once.