Michael Jackson's $1 Million Interview Deal (CBS 60 Minutes)

[RamboLiberal]

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/31/arts/31JACK.html?hp

Michael Jackson struck a deal with CBS to be paid in effect an additional $1 million for both an entertainment special to be broadcast on Friday and his interview on "60 Minutes" this past Sunday, part of yearlong negotiations between CBS and Mr. Jackson, a business partner of his said on Tuesday.

A spokesman for "60 Minutes" denied that there was any payment for the interview, saying, "CBS News doesn't pay for interviews."

But Mr. Jackson's business associate, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said that the "60 Minutes" interview was part of what was originally a $5 million deal to put on an entertainment special for CBS during a sweeps period and that CBS had already advanced the singer $1.5 million of that fee.

CBS postponed the special, which was incomplete, after the authorities issued an arrest warrant for Mr. Jackson on multiple counts of child molesting. But the Jackson associate said that in renewed negotiations, CBS agreed to pay another $1 million to the star to grant the interview so that the network could finally broadcast its entertainment special. It is now scheduled to be broadcast on Friday evening.

[PartyPooper]

1. This guy is in a heap of trouble.

But, I saw most of his interview on "60 Minutes"...and, I still believe he is innocent. (BTW, I'm not a fan of his.)

I hope he can use this money to defend himself. Too bad, under different circumstances, he might have been able to channel the funds to help needy, underprivileged children.

[RamboLiberal]

2. What frosts me is even the hint that 60 Minutes paid for the interview

I thought they were the last bastion of journalistic integrity in the TV media.

[dbt]

3. Oh, but they ARE!

Scary, eh?

:evilgrin:
dbt

[priller]

6. 60 minutes has been but a shadow of its former self

for years now. When the higher ups caved on the tobacco lawsuit, it knocked the wind out of their sails. Haven't been the same since.

[sendero]

4. for the life of me...

.... I'll never understand why anyone gives a rat's ass about MJ. Musically, you could stick a fork in him as early as 1990, he has done nothing compelling in over a decade. And the period of his career where his music did matter was only a few years.

I have no real opinion about his legal troubles, except that when a man in his sexual prime has no women around, only boys, it does not look right to me. The "asexual" act doesn't carry much weight with me, I've heard his song lyrics.

I'm think he's more boring than Brittney Spears, and that is a low bar to limbo :)

[MrPrax]

5. I Keep telling myself this as well...

MJ seems to be popular in the Media, but nowhere else...
"Musically, you could stick a fork in him as early as 1990, he has done nothing compelling in over a decade."
Yup...he hasn't had a hit in years and quite honestly he has been untouchable since his first 'payoff'.
The dude's poison...which makes you wonder, why is this creep being foisted onto the public?
Is Big Business trying to get it's money back? He did sgin some of the biggest contracts in history with Sony, before he self-destructed.
Really a low point for a deeply corrupt entertainment industry...