It was not possible to broadcast any of that because of an agreement between Jackson and the family. Our legal advice was that we could not broadcast it.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
I was for many years myself a journalist and it is not appropriate to say a programme should not be broadcast.
What's happened to broadcasting is that broadcasting really used to be... it used to have a very clear public service quotient. And it's more or less now. And it's been lost.
The judge gave Michael permission to issue a statement. I think Jackson went way outside the bounds of the judge's intent. It will be interesting to see what the judge does tomorrow in court.
It was very hard to get any records, so the only source for us to really hear what was happening was listening to the Voice of America. We would be taping all the broadcast and then sharing the tapes and talking about it.
There are obviously legal restrictions on what you can do on TV in the States, as there are everywhere.
For years, broadcasters didn't get a nickel out of retransmission consent. But broadcast content is what the cable industry was selling to customers.
News events cannot be controlled, nor can newscasts be mapped out like entertainment shows.
There was no television, so the radio provided you with everything.
Broadcasters have a responsibility to serve the public interest and protect Americans from objectionable content, particularly during the hours when children are likely to be watching.
I was not so interested in night-after-night coverage of Michael Jackson's death or Britney Spears' latest breakdown - topics that were 'breaking news' at the time.
No opposing quotes found.