It's his fame that permits his activities to be viewed - period. It is my opinion that if it's the job of the makers of the show to create a sensational story, to include their comments as truth, it certainly is a dirty job. It would have been a strange enough story without the creative commentary.

If it weren't for his fame and wealth, I doubt he would have ended up so weird in the first place. It seems to me he's trying to remain in a childhood he never had. Maybe I'm wrong, but my opinion of molesters is that they're usually into the power thing, the control. They don't see themselves as one of the kids but the one in charge. One of the things that struck me was that the only people who treated Jackson like a person were the kids. Fans acting wacky, paparazzi acting wacky, interviewer acting insincerely respectful simply to gain trust (IMO) and employees, but the kids just acted like normal kids around him.

As far as who's in danger, let's face it, our opinions are based mostly on gossip, rumors, and television interview programs which augment the facts with opinions designed to get ratings. I wouldn't trust any of these things. "No favors are being done anyone at real risk" - from whom? From child molester or a mob? Who decides where the risk lies? The best thing that could happen for anyone at real risk would be if an attempt were made to portray truth as imparially as possible, and that did NOT happen.

Maybe it's because I read this thread before I watched the show, but there was a very obvious gap between what I was observing and the assumptions and conclusions the interviewer voiced. Frankly, I don't trust anyone who tries to not-so-subtly guide my feelings about what I'm seeing. Maybe it's just me. I don't like Jerry Springer either.