|
CNN TALKBACK LIVE
What Does America's Global Image Look Like?
Aired December 4, 2002 - 15:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
ARTHEL NEVILLE, HOST: Hello, everybody. Welcome to TALKBACK LIVE. I'm Arthel Neville.
Well, people all over the world have opinions about Americans: the way we live, how we act, and what we do. Well, I have the just- released Pew survey of what the world thinks. We'll find out who likes us, who doesn't, and whether you should care.
And then stay tuned, because we're going to Philadelphia, where some University of Pennsylvania students are charged with beating up a member of Princeton's debate team and threatening to set him on fire. You don't want to miss that.
And then, later, we'll talk to California attorney Gloria Allred about her feud with entertainer Michael Jackson.
But first: A just released Pew survey of 42 nations worldwide shows America continues to enjoy favorable ratings in 35 of those 42 countries. However, true dislike and even hatred of America is concentrated among Muslim nations in the Mideast and Central Asia. And there appears to be a love-hate thing going on in many of the nations, where people decry U.S. cultural influence, while embracing all things American.
CNN's senior political analyst Bill Schneider has been studying the survey results and joins us in Washington.
OK, Bill, what's the news out of this poll?
WILLIAM SCHNEIDER, CNN SR. POLITICAL ANALYST: Arthel, it's growing anti-Americanism.
In 19 out of the 27 countries where they could make comparisons, pro-American feelings have slipped over the past two years. That's especially worrisome in some countries that are supposed to be key allies of the United States in the war on terrorism: Turkey, Pakistan. Both of those countries show growing anti-Americanism. And, in fact, support for the United States, favorable opinion of the United States is very low in both Turkey and Pakistan.
The one country that's really bucked the trend is, of all places, Russia, where support for the United States, friendliness to the United States, has grown very strongly.
NEVILLE: Isn't that ironic?
Well, so, does most of the world dislike the U.S.? SCHNEIDER: No.
As you said, most countries are favorable to the United States. But their favorability has been slipping in the past two years. The one part of the world where anti-American sentiment is most pronounced, and, in fact, where there is dislike, the authors of the report say even hatred of the United States, is in the Muslim world, the Middle East and Central Asia.
Countries like Jordan, Egypt, Pakistan, Lebanon, even Turkey, are all strongly anti-American. There's only one exception in the Muslim world. And that's Uzbekistan, which used to be part of the Soviet Union.
NEVILLE: Well, is the war on terrorism the main sort of growing anti-Americanism?
SCHNEIDER: Well, in the Middle East, yes, but not in the rest of the world.
In the Middle East, you find that countries, people surveyed in countries across the Middle East do not support the U.S.-led effort against terrorism, because, in those countries, they see it as a war on Islam. The rest of the world, in Europe, Asia, Latin America, they all are with the United States in the war on terrorism.
One interesting exception, though, is South Korea. Now, remember that President Bush, in his State of the Union address last January, put North Korea on the axis of evil. And a lot of South Koreans are very nervous about that. And, ever since this summer, there's been a big protest movement in South Korea against the presence of American troops in their country. So, they are the one country, along with the Middle East, that does not support the United States in the war on terrorism. The rest of the world does.
NEVILLE: So, then, if most of the world is with the U.S. in the war on terrorism, then what is the source of growing anti-Americanism?
SCHNEIDER: Well, in a word, Arthel: unilateralism.
While people support the war on terrorism, growing numbers of people all over the world, the majority in most of the countries surveyed said that, when the United States makes international policy decisions, it does not take the interests of their country into account. Now, Americans say, "Yes, we do."
Well, there's a good example of this. It's very dramatic. And that's the case of oil. They polled people just last month in Europe. And they found out that, while most Americans say, if the United States takes military action against Iraq, the purpose would be to preserve world peace, most Europeans, the French, the Germans, say that the reason Americans would be doing that would be to protect its sources of oil and even to get Iraqi oil.
Even the British, our closest allies in the action against Iraq, are divided. The rest of the world, they see the United States acting for oil -- not in the United States.
NEVILLE: Bill, interesting, interesting study. What I would like, if you would stand by for us, because I want to bring in some guests right now to go ahead and discuss some of the things that you just told us.
Joining us now is Hussein Ibish, communications director for the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee. Eleana Gordon is the policy director for the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies. And Sue Ellicott is a contributor to National Public Radio.
I want to welcome all of you. How are you today?
HUSSEIN IBISH, AMERICAN-ARAB ANTI-DISCRIMINATION COMMITTEE: It's great to see you.
(CROSSTALK)
NEVILLE: Good.
Hussein, you're up first today.
The U.S. has the highest unfavorability rate in the Arab world. So, do they hate the U.S. over there? And if so, why?
IBISH: No.
I think there's nothing whatever in these findings that reflects that. I think that what's reflected is anger in the Arab world and among Muslims. But I think it's not primarily about the war against terrorism, especially insofar as that involved actions against al Qaeda, who are seen as fringe fanatics.
I think that the question that was not asked here in this poll is the question about the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. There's no doubt there is a mountain of evidence, poll after poll, across the Arab and Muslim world over the past two years that shows that, even in places that were very, very friendly to the United States, like Kuwait, anger, not hatred, but anger at American policies of unconditional support for Israel and apparent disregard for the plight of the Palestinians has really worsened the American image in so many of these countries.
And people are confused by our policies. They see our president and secretary of state endorsing a Palestinian state at least 12 times over the past year. But then our de facto policy is of unconditional support for Israel. It confuses them and it makes them angry.
NEVILLE: Bill, I want to get you back in on this. What do you have to say? Are there any numbers that support what Hussein is saying?
SCHNEIDER: In fact, there are.
In a lot of the world, especially, of course, in the Muslim world, but even outside, in Europe, Asia, Latin America, people say that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict should take priority over the war against Iraq, that that should be the principal concern. And, certainly, they feel that way in the Muslim world.
But, notwithstanding that, the question remains, that people were asked all over the world: Do you support or oppose the U.S.-led effort in the war on terrorism? And most people in the Muslim countries surveyed in the Middle East and Central Asia said, no, they oppose the U.S.-led war on terrorism.
NEVILLE: Then, Hussein, why do you think the answer is no?
IBISH: Well, because I think that the way the war on terrorism has been presented involves things like an American attack on Iraq for reasons that people don't see as justified and involves a kind of rhetoric that people have seen that makes people in the Muslim world, in the Arab world, feel that this is targeting them specifically and is sort of a generalized attack against Arabs and Muslims, etcetera. I think we need to do better...
NEVILLE: Hussein, what do they say when most of the September 11 attackers were from that
(CROSSTALK)
IBISH: Right. Right. Well, I think that's a very good question.
The initial reaction among a large number of people was such shock and such horror that there was a kind of neurotic denial that was very unhealthy. And I think that that has really gone away.
(CROSSTALK)
NEVILLE: But now that the dust has settled, though, have they had a chance to sort of analyze and take...
IBISH: Right.
I think yes. And I think that it's clear that most people take an extremely dim view of al Qaeda and the who were people involved in the September 11 attack. The problem is that the way in which the war on terror has been presented by our government seems to go far beyond al Qaeda and taking us into adventures in Iraq and adventures around the Middle East and the Muslim that seem, to most people there, to involve very different motives. And if Europeans believe that the war in Iraq is about...
NEVILLE: Different motives like what, Hussein?
IBISH: Well, exactly.
If Europeans believe that the reason that President Bush wants to go into Iraq is to control Iraqi oil, then how do you think it looks from the Middle East? It looks even more like an attempt to secure control over the region to control the oil resources. And that, of course, brings resentment. And, right now, American foreign policy seems wholly negative from an Arab point of view. The people are looking to see: Where's the benefit? What does this bring positively to us? And particularly given the suffering of the Palestinians, the answer at this point, unfortunately, is: not much.
NEVILLE: OK, Sue, I want to go to you now. What about Europe? Is America losing ground over there?
SUE ELLICOTT, NPR CONTRIBUTOR: I think it depends on which countries you look at.
I think that there is, there has always been, traditionally, kind of a very negative view of pretty much all things American, whether it's foreign policy or American ideas in the form of cultural export in somewhere like France. And Italy has a very strong anti- institutionalism. They don't like sort of looking as though they're being dictated to by the United States.
I think that Europe has its own problems inside Europe. You have countries like Spain and Portugal who want a stronger Europe to look as though -- so they can stand up to a big power like the United States. And people are worried about American foreign policy. At the same time, their feelings about the United States are incredibly contradictory. People are obsessed with wanting to come to America, to visit America, to shop in America.
NEVILLE: You have a lot of entertainment over there abroad.
ELLICOTT: Absolutely. And people, by and large, in Europe really love American music. They love American movies.
NEVILLE: Movies.
ELLICOTT: They love all American TV shows.
NEVILLE: Yes.
ELLICOTT: Except in France, which is somewhat -- they are always the strongest of the anti-Americans in Europe. But I have friends who
(CROSSTALK)
NEVILLE: Yes, but even in France, even in Paris, they have a McDonald's on the (SPEAKING FRENCH).
ELLICOTT: Yes, that's what I'm saying.
They love it and they hate it. It's always a kind of -- you know, they want to embrace the efficiency and the modernism and the sort of forward-looking side of America, but they're very conflicted about it. It makes them kind of uncomfortable and perhaps it raises feelings of insecurity.
(CROSSTALK)
IBISH: A lot of that applies to the Arab world, too, by the way.
NEVILLE: OK. Listen, I do have to take a break.
And, Eleana, I have not forgotten about you. Of course you will get in when we come back. I want to hear from you.
ELEANA GORDON, FOUNDATION FOR THE DEFENSE OF DEMOCRACIES: Good, because I have a lot to say.
NEVILLE: Oh, and I want to hear all of it.
And John is standing by on the phone in Kentucky.
And I want to know if you care what all these countries think about America? Go ahead and give me a call: 1-800-310-4CNN. Or, of course, you can e-mail me at TALKBACK@CNN.com. I'm going to take those calls next.
And then later: Of course, debating isn't exactly a contact sport, right? But wait until you hear what happened to a member of Princeton's debate team.
It's all ahead as TALKBACK LIVE continues.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
NEVILLE (voice-over): Right now on TALKBACK LIVE: What do people in other countries think about Americans?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: People are actually obsessed with themselves, you know, how you look, how you dress. And it's getting more and more ridiculous.
NEVILLE: Then later: What's going on in the Ivies? Five University of Pennsylvania students are charged with beating a member of Princeton's debate team and threatening to set him on fire. We'll have the details.
TALKBACK LIVE continues after this.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Everything there, it's like a job they have to do: to get married, have to have kids.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: It's the American dream. That's what you sell us here. They show us this nice house with this microwave and this thing and this TV and this technology and all the nice clothes and everything. Of course you want to have that. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: They have not been really educated internationally. They are very knowledgeable about their own affairs and all that, but they are very localized.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Very parochial.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Very parochial?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I think I would like to say to them that I adore them, that I adore America as a whole.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
NEVILLE: I want her. She's beautiful.
All right, listen, welcome back, everybody.
We're talking about a just-released Pew report on world opinion. And we're focusing on what people in other countries think about us.
Eleana, should America care?
GORDON: Should America care?
I think that America should care about what is happening in the Muslim and Arab world. But I think America has to realize and think about how public opinion is formed in the Arab world. The Arab world is probably the only part of the world where there's still state propaganda and not true freedom of the press. And, for 60 years, governments have been using anti-Americanism to deflect criticism of their own societies.
So, whenever we hear about the anger towards American policies, we also have to understand how American policies are distorted and not presented in a fair light. And to just give you one example: When we went to Somalia, we really did do that for purely humanitarian reasons. And this was to help Muslims. But that's not the way our policy was presented. It was presented as an imperialist action.
So, I think we have to be very concerned, because it's a growing part of the world. There are a lot of young people. And there really is true anger. But we have to understand that it's not foreign policy and that the anger towards the Arab-Israeli conflict is something that Arab governments have been manipulating and using with their people. So, I think we have to pay a lot of attention to that.
As for Europe...
NEVILLE: I don't know. But if misconceptions about America is what is prevailing, then how can the United States government change that?
GORDON: Well, that's a great question. And I think we're starting to think about it with our public diplomacy. And we need to think about it a lot more seriously. But I'm not sure that we fully realize this. I don't think we have fully realized how public opinion is being manipulated. And I'll just give you one example. Mr. Ibish said that the denial that's taking place in the Middle East about who was responsible for 9/11, and, therefore, reactions to the war on terrorism are abating -- but, only last week, the interior minister of Saudi Arabia said that he did not believe that 15 Saudis were involved and that this was a Zionist plot. So, this is coming from the highest level of government.
I think that, first of all, just understanding that should make us be careful about reconsidering our policies. I think we have to do a lot more to publicize what we have done for the Palestinians. The American policy is not anti-Palestinian. It is supportive of Israel, but it is not anti-Palestinian.
IBISH: Well, I think that's wrong. I think that Arab people have a very good understanding of what American foreign policy means in terms of uncritical support for Israel.
(CROSSTALK)
IBISH: Hold on.
Arab have a great deal of access to other kinds of information from the BBC, Arabic-language radio service, Radio Monte Carlo. People are not dependent on state-run media. That's a myth.
ELLICOTT: Arthel, I think, just getting back to one important thing, and you asked: Should Americans care about what people around the world think about them?
I think that, yes, they should care and that we could all start with children in schools, everywhere, that what emerges from this study, which was quite striking to me, is that there seems to be a big communication gap, that Americans, I think, don't realize that there's a poor perception of them. And they are quite upset and shocked when something like this study comes out. And their feelings are very hurt.
And they don't understand, "Well, why are we this misunderstood?" And perhaps people who don't understand that -- forgetting the Iraq and the Palestinian-Israeli issue now, people don't understand why other parts of the world feel let down that the United States or that George Bush reneged on the Kyoto agreements on carbon dioxide emissions, for instance, or that there's disagreements among NATO countries, which are basically U.S. allies.
So, there's defense and environmental and other issues that precede all of the recent 9/11 and al Qaeda stuff. And that's a sort of very rocky foundation on which to build strong international support for a potential war against Iraq.
(CROSSTALK)
NEVILLE: I'm running really, really tight on time here. I promised John from Kentucky I'd let him get in. So, John, get right to the point for me. Go ahead.
CALLER: I just think that the reason why Americans are hated is because we don't have no direction about what's really going on and why we are fighting and why we continue to keep fighting and why we're going to fight again.
I think, if we had people that truly could understand and tell the American people and other people from other countries what is really going on, instead of having people that -- our government hides stuff from us, just like their government hides stuff from them.
NEVILLE: John, I think you're just actually confirming what Sue Ellicott just said.
IBISH: That's right.
NEVILLE: We are indeed out of time.
Hussein Ibish, Elena Gordon, and Sue Ellicott, thank you all for joining us here on TALKBACK LIVE today.
IBISH: Thanks. Such a pleasure.
ELLICOTT: Thank you.
NEVILLE: We'll see you again.
IBISH: See you next time.
NEVILLE: Oh, absolutely.
And still ahead: The Ivy League is stunned after a visiting Princeton student is attacked at the University of Pennsylvania. We'll have all the details.
And then: Who should be punished when a college campus is used to make a porn film and the students are involved? You're going to want to see this, so stick around.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
NEVILLE: And welcome back, everybody.
I think I see Charles Barkley over there. He is getting ready to join us. You'll have a chance to talk to him in just a few minutes.
But first, though, here's something you might not expect from the Ivy League. Five students at the University of Pennsylvania are charged with attacking a member of Princeton's debate team.
We're going to get the details right now from CNN's Kathleen Koch in Philadelphia.
Hello, Kathleen. What is going on?
KATHLEEN KOCH, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Hi, Arthel.
A very bizarre story. Apparently, it was nearly three weeks ago when there was a group of Princeton students who came here to the University of Pennsylvania for a debate, a tournament, about 15 of them. And a couple of them were asleep in a large room, sort of a lounge, in one of the dormitories, called a quadrangle, on that Saturday night.
And a group of University of Pennsylvania students came in, started switching the lights on and off. One of the students said the Princeton student, 19-year-old John Brantl, jumped up, objected, said, "Go away." They did. But Brantl says that, then, about 3:00 a.m., some of those students came back and had some friends with them.
There were about five of them, at which point they told him to get on his knees. They started kicking him and beating him. And then he says they poured motor oil over his head and threatened to light a match. Now, he was not seriously injured, but the five young men are now facing a number of charges, ranging from aggravated assault to criminal conspiracy.
They were in court today. There was supposed to be a preliminary hearing, but it was delayed. So now that's not going to occur until probably after the New Year, in January or February.
We've got to understand, Arthel, that this is an Ivy League school, the University of Pennsylvania, founded by Benjamin Franklin. And the students here are very upset about what happened, very shocked, and also disturbed about the amount of attention the incident is getting.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Stuff like this must happen on a daily basis at other campuses around the country. I'm in no way condoning their actions, but I think it's blown out of proportion because it's Penn, Princeton and Ivy League kids.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: It's definitely gotten out of hand. I never thought anything like this would ever happen, ever.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: To expel them I think is the right move to show that it's not acceptable, it's not acceptable behavior.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KOCH: And the University of Pennsylvania is conducting an internal investigation. And one of the possible ramifications is that those five young men could be expelled -- Arthel.
NEVILLE: I can't believe this story. Any motive or just late- night craziness?
KOCH: Well, apparently, one part of the story is that, when those people came in initially and were flicking the lights on and off, and Mr. Brantl told them to leave, that he shoved one of the students. Then they shoved him back. So there was a slight altercation before all this began.
But, also, there's a lot of speculation that, it being a Saturday night on a college campus, that alcohol had to have been involved.
(CROSSTALK)
KOCH: There's another issue, too, Arthel, that's interesting.
NEVILLE: Go ahead.
KOCH: These young men, some of them are members of a secret society called the Owl Society, sort of an underground fraternity, though not sanctioned by the university and not part of the Greek system. And three of these young men were members of that society. And two of them were trying to pledge. So, also a bit of speculation
(CROSSTALK)
NEVILLE: Hazing.
KOCH: ... as to whether this was some sort of hazing or pledge activity.
NEVILLE: OK, Kathleen Koch, thank you so much for that update.
And what we want to do now is bring in the attorneys.
Gloria Allred is a Los Angeles lawyer who handles harassment abuse and civil rights cases.
Hello, Gloria.
GLORIA ALLRED, ATTORNEY: Hi, Arthel.
Also, I'm a proud graduate of the University of Pennsylvania. And I can assure you that this is not the kind of conduct that would be condoned by students or by university officials at the university. And it's not what usually goes on at the University of Pennsylvania.
NEVILLE: And joining Gloria, Paul Diamond is a former assistant district attorney in Philadelphia. He is now a criminal defense attorney.
And, hello, Paul. How are you?
PAUL DIAMOND, FORMER PHILADELPHIA ASST. DISTRICT ATTORNEY: Howdy. I attended the University of Pennsylvania Law School. And I'm not proud of it today.
NEVILLE: Paul, you know, these students are facing all sorts of charges, from aggravated assault to making terroristic threats. Do you think all of these charges will stick?
DIAMOND: If the facts are as they were described, yes, I do.
They poured gasoline on a kid, flicked a cigarette on him, beat him up, and threatened to set him ablaze. That is felonious behavior. And I don't think it's too much to ask from kids whose parents are paying $40,000 a year that they comport themselves within the law.
These kids did not -- they probably should be convicted of these crimes. They probably should go to jail. They certainly should be tossed out of the University of Pennsylvania. It is a privilege they no longer should be allowed to exercise.
NEVILLE: OK, listen, we have to take a break right now.
And up next, we keep the campus theme going on here and wonder how a California company thinks it can get away with using college dorms as pornography studios.
Also, Gloria gets a message from Michael Jackson. We'll tell you what he said.
And then I want your calls and e-mails. Do you think child protective services should investigate Michael Jackson for dangling his baby over a balcony?
We'll be back in a moment.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(WEATHER)
NEVILLE: Now back to the show, everybody. Should a pornographic moviemaker be allowed to shoot films on college campuses and use students in supporting roles? Well, Indiana University is trying to decide if a California porn company broke any laws when it showed up on campus, filmed a movie at a college dorm and hired students as actors.
A spokeswoman for Shane Enterprises says the students all signed releases and were at least 18. And the university is demanding the film company remove any references to the school or its logo. It also warned that if a film crew shows up on campus again, it would be charged with trespassing.
All right, Paul. No charges have been filed at this point, but does the university have any recourse?
DIAMOND: I think the first thing the university should do is take a serious look at its own students. If a kid drinks too much and falls out of a fraternity window, everybody says to the university why weren't you watching? You take the place of the parents when we put our children in your care.
That's what was done here, and apparently 10 or 20 young men thought that reading and writing and arithmetic -- which I'm old enough to think is what you go to college to learn -- includes making a pornographic film, and I think it's appalling. I think it is just appalling.
As for whether this film company, if that's what it is, has any right to film on the University of Indiana campus, to me it's a no brainer. Of course not. Of course it does not. By the way, the Supreme Court has repeatedly said the first amendment does not protect pornography. And I understand, this was pornography.
NEVILLE: But Gloria, so I ask you, can the parents sue the university for not properly policing the students?
ALLRED: Well, first of all, the issue of whether or not there is a school rule or policy that prohibits such activity on campus. And apparently that's not clear at this point. So they're going to have to review that.
NEVILLE: But I guess, who would actually put that in the school legal laws? I mean, like, OK, no porn on campus. I mean who would think that would happen? Would even be an option?
ALLRED: Or whether they can even do that or whether they have a need to do that is an issue. But, also, the fact that the students are over 18 presents a problem.
NEVILLE: Exactly.
ALLRED: And does the parent have a right to sue for the child? Was the child injured by this? I mean I think pornography is harmful, frankly, to the women who participate in it, even if they do so voluntarily. And often they do so to make money, because they don't have a lot of other ways to make that kind of money. But, still, it's something that should be of concern to parents.
NEVILLE: You know, so what's going to happen to Shane Enterprises then Paul?
DIAMOND: Well, Shane Enterprises is probably guilty. I'm not an Indiana lawyer, but I imagine prostitution is illegal in Indiana. Criminal solicitation is illegal in Indiana, criminal conspiracy is illegal in Indiana. Public indecency is illegal in Indiana. And they could very well be facing criminal problems themselves.
I hope that the adverse publicity they get will keep them off college campuses. But my fear is, the way things work in this country, it will lionize them and make them heroes to a certain select group of people who enjoy this kind of movie.
NEVILLE: OK. Listen, we have to take another break right now. Charles Barkley is ready to join us. So we'll talk to him after the break. And then we'll look at the troubled world of Michael Jackson. Spiders, lawsuits and a California lawyer who wonders what kind of father he is. TALKBACK LIVE continues in a moment.
(APPLAUSE)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
NEVILLE: And welcome back, everybody. I'm Arthel Neville. Making his weekly visit with us now is CNN contributor Charles Barkley. Hello, Mr. Barkley. CHARLES BARKLEY, CNN CONTRIBUTOR: Hey, girl. How are you doing?
NEVILLE: Nice to see you today.
BARKLEY: I'm glad to be back. Got a little tan. A little tan.
NEVILLE: You got a lot of stuff on your mind?
BARKLEY: Yeah. Number one, Enron, happy anniversary. It's been a year since you all stole all that money and nobody's in jail. And I always tell these kids, if you're gonna steal money, steal a lot of money, because they won't put you in jail. They'll put you in jail if you steal a little money. But if you steal a lot of money, you'll get away with it.
NEVILLE: All right. And you know what, Charles, we want to hear what you have to say about this story. It seems the media just can't get enough of Michael Jackson. Today Michael limped into a Santa Maria, California court again to testify in a dispute over no-shows at a couple of concerts. It seems he's nursing a nasty spider bite that left his leg swollen.
And you might remember last month, when Michael dangled his infant son over a balcony at a hotel in Berlin. And the incident prompted attorney Gloria Allred to ask for an investigation into whether Michael endangered his youngest child. Here's what Michael had to say to Gloria.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: What do you have to say about Gloria Allred?
MICHAEL JACKSON, ENTERTAINER: Who's that?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: She (OFF MIKE) calling for an investigation by Children's Services as a result of the...
JACKSON: Ah, tell her to go to hell.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
NEVILLE: All right, Gloria, you heard it. Michael Jackson says you can go to hell. What do you say?
ALLRED: Well, Arthel, he wants me to go to hell, but I want Michael Jackson to go to parenting classes to learn how to protect rather than endanger his babies.
NEVILLE: So is that the motive behind your public outcry? Because apparently officials in California can't do anything, this is out of their jurisdiction. The incident took place in Berlin.
ALLRED: I don't think that's correct, Arthel. I think that the district attorney of Santa Barbara probably does not have jurisdiction to criminally prosecute Michael Jackson on a charge of child endangerment. However, I do believe that Children's Protective Services and the dependency court do have jurisdiction, because their jurisdiction is over the child, not over the parent. And they have a duty to protect the child.
Now, Michael Jackson may be surrounded by an entourage of certain people who may agree with him, but I want Michael Jackson to know that I'm not part of his entourage. And I'm concerned about the safety of that child. No one should dangle a baby over a fourth-floor balcony, which could subject the child to great bodily harm or even to death. And I don't think that he has a proper awareness of the risk of harm to which he subjected that baby.
NEVILLE: Gloria, you can't see Charles Barkley, but I can. I think you're making his head hurt.
ALLRED: Well, I'm not concerned about his head. I'm concerned about that little baby who can't speak for herself or himself and can't protect himself. And any person in this country, Arthel, who witnesses an act that they believe might endanger a child, or might be an act of cruelty toward a child, or an act of abandonment, abuse or neglect of a child, should do exactly what I did, which is report it to Children's Protective Services in their county. And I know a lot of people have done that in their counties and do take that responsibility seriously.
BARKLEY: First of all, lady, you act like you ain't got nothing better to do than worry about Michael Jackson and his kids. He's apologized. He said that he's wrong. And I'm pretty sure there are some other kids out there in L.A. who probably really do need your help. But you just want to be on television and talk about Michael Jackson.
It's none of your business, basically. He made a mistake and he apologized.
ALLRED: Mr. Barkley...
BARKLEY: Every time some high profile case breaks out, you jump on television and act like you're god. Only god can judge other people. Why don't you go back to your office, wait on another case, and shut the hell up?
ALLRED: Well, Mr. Barkley, you know something -- you know, I wish you would send the same amount of energy protecting this baby as you have just spent on...
BARKLEY: He's not your baby.
ALLRED: ... attacking me. I'd like the opportunity and the courtesy of your being able to give me a chance to respond to what you just said. This baby cannot speak for himself or herself, cannot protect themselves. And any person should do what I did. And I think that Mr. Jackson's attacks on me are not serving the best interests of the child. What he needs to do is get out there and learn how to be a parent who protects, not endangers his child.
That's what this is really all about. You shouldn't be defending his actions.
BARKLEY: I'm not defending his actions. The man apologized. What more do you want him to do? He apologized. When a person makes a mistake, they apologize. He apologized, he said he made a terrible error.
What more? We've been talking about this for three weeks now. He apologized the next day.
ALLRED: Here's what's more. Because what he said was that he didn't intend to harm the child. That's not relevant on the issue of child endangerment. All that's relevant is, did he willfully take that baby and dangle that baby over the balcony? That's what's relevant. The fact that the child might not have been injured is not relevant. The fact that he endangered the child is what's important. And...
(CROSSTALK)
BARKLEY: The fact of the matter is that's the only time you've ever seen Michael Jackson with his kid. Am I right? So you're just going to go by that little synopsis he's a bad parent?
(CROSSTALK)
NEVILLE: OK, I'm jumping in here now because we have to take a break. And I want to know if you think Michael Jackson should be investigated by Child Protective Services. You can give a call or e- mail right now. I know Bob (ph) in Texas is standing by on the line, as well as Rich, who has written in an e-mail to us. TALKBACK LIVE continues in a moment.
(APPLAUSE)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
NEVILLE: OK. We're talking about basically Gloria Allred versus Michael Jackson. And we're going to Texas now, where Bob (ph) is standing by on the phone. Go ahead, Bob (ph).
BOB: Good evening. This is Bob (ph) from Tennessee, actually.
NEVILLE: Oh, Tennessee. Go ahead, sir.
BOB: How are you doing today? I just wanted to make a comment that Gloria's more interested in her own self-promotion than the welfare of those kids. I'll ask Gloria, what would you do in all of a sudden everyone stopped listening to you? Would you finally just go away.
ALLRED: Sir, I frankly feel that I have a moral duty to speak out. That I should not be silent in the face of a significant risk of harm to a child. And I know that many others feel the same way. That they would not turn their backs on a vulnerable baby who is at risk.
I think what Michael Jackson did, what we saw in that video was reckless, it was irresponsible. I don't know any of us who would give our baby to him to dangle over a fourth-floor balcony. And I think that action, if it were not by a celebrity, would be condemned, would be criticized and would be investigated.
NEVILLE: OK. I have an e-mail coming in now from Rich in New Jersey. He says, "Good for Gloria Allred. If anyone thinks that these kids are in danger now being with this nut, wait eight or ten years."
OK. And, Paul, we haven't heard anything from you on this particular subject. Do you have anything to say?
DIAMOND: Well, I don't think this is about Gloria Allred. I think this is about the question Ms. Allred has raised. And the question she has raised is, is Michael Jackson a fit parent?
Michael Jackson thrusts himself on us every day. He thrusts himself into the public eye. And he names one kid Prince Michael I. He names another kid Prince Michael II. He's got more plastic in his face than a model airplane.
His kids are swabbed in what looks like what Woody Allen would say somebody puts on to drive through plutonium. You really have to wonder whether he's all there and whether he's a fit parent. And I think that's all she's asking, and I think it's a legitimate question.
NEVILLE: That is...
ALLRED: I'm only concerned about the baby, not what Michael Jackson thinks, how he dresses. I'm only concerned about the safety of the child.
NEVILLE: Gloria Allred and Paul Diamond, thank you both for joining us here today. Charles, stick around, please.
Up next, I'm going to take those calls and e-mails on whether Michael Jackson should be investigated by Child Protection Services. Back in a moment.
(APPLAUSE)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
NEVILLE: And welcome back, everybody. Time for the question of the day. Should child protective services investigate Michael Jackson? And in the audience, Mike (ph) says what?
MIKE: I don't see any real basis for it. I don't condone what he did. I think it was a stupid act. He agrees it was a stupid act. But I think it's blown out of proportion.
NEVILLE: Thank you very much, sir. Do we have time for an e- mail here? It's coming in from Jay in Illinois. He says, "Michael Jackson should have charges filed against him. Just because someone is famous it doesn't mean they should be able to get away with a stupid act." Listen, Charles Barkley, we are out of time. So good to see you.
BARKLEY: Good to see you, girl.
NEVILLE: All right. I'll see you next week. And I hope to see you back here tomorrow. I'm Arthel Neville. So glad you could join me, and join me again tomorrow at 3:00 Eastern, 12:00 for you West Coasters with more TALKBACK LIVE.
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com
|
