opinion web
Liberal Opinion Conservative Opinion
diane dimond
Diane Dimond
6 Feb 2016
Personal Responsibility From Public Servants -- Too Much to Ask?

The law says dangerous or illegal actions have consequences. Countless U.S. citizens enter the justice system … Read More.

30 Jan 2016
Juveniles and the Justice System

Everyone knows youngsters aren't mentally or emotionally equipped to make good decisions. That's why most … Read More.

23 Jan 2016
The Supreme Court Decision That Could Change the Presidency

It will be a monumental decision either way: one that has the potential to shape national politics and public … Read More.

Fair Trials in the Information Age


We are presumed innocent until proven guilty in this country. We are guaranteed a fair trial by an impartial jury. That's the bedrock of our justice system.

But what about the high-profile defendant who lives through months and sometimes years of sensational media coverage before their case comes to trial? The potential jury pool in their community can become saturated with negative news about the accused, leaving people to justifiably ask how in the world a fair trial can be conducted.

The upcoming capital murder case of 25-year-old Casey Anthony of Orlando, Fla., makes my point. Now, she might well be the cold-blooded killer of her 2-year-old daughter, Caylee, whom she had lost track of for more than a month before police were notified. But what if she isn't?

Almost every week for nearly three years — sometimes every day — local TV and radio stations have been running stories about the so-called "Tot Mom." Newspapers all across the state have covered the case constantly. And the disappearance of Caylee Anthony captivated a national audience, as well, when cable TV talk shows dedicated to crime took notice.

Since July 2008, potential jurors in Florida have consistently heard the words "Casey Anthony" and "murder" in the same breath. It's not beyond belief that a permanent and horrible image of the defendant is already burned into the collective psyche.

Among the media's revelations: Dozens of racy photographs of the young single mother drinking and partying during the month she said her daughter was missing. Casey's claims of a kidnapping nanny named Zanny were found to be completely false by detectives who concluded no such person existed. Anthony's abandoned car was picked up by her father at a tow lot, and both her parents described it as smelling like there had been "a dead body inside." During the long search for her missing child, Casey Anthony was charged with forging checks she'd stolen from friends and family. And it turned out that the job at Universal Studios Anthony had bragged about for years never actually existed.

In December 2008, six months after Caylee was reported missing — not by her mother but by her grandmother — the child's remains were found with a remnant of a Winnie the Pooh blanket and with layers of duct tape wrapped around her head, covering her tiny nose and mouth. A crime scene report revealed a smiley sticker had been placed over the child's lips.

Crime pundits on TV speculated these kinds of loving gestures must have come from someone close to the girl and were not the hallmark of a stranger murder.

The anti-Casey Anthony revelations piled up as the days wore on. Most disturbing was video of the elder Anthony's fending off groups of screaming protesters outside their home. They hurled curses at the baby's grandparents, and at one point a small child appeared holding a sign reading, "Will you kill me too?"

It would be easy to blame the media for the tone surrounding this case, but that's not fair.

Florida has the most liberal Sunshine Laws in the country, which means that whenever the police or prosecution developed information about Casey Anthony — from detective's interviews with witnesses to videotaped prison visitations she had with her parents — it was promptly released to the public. The media wouldn't have been doing their job if they hadn't reported this information.

Transparency of government is a positive thing, generally speaking, but we can't forget there are pitfalls, too.

Casey Anthony's defense team asked Superior Court Judge Belvin Perry to move the trial out of Orlando in an attempt to mitigate all the pre-trial publicity. Judge Perry refused the request — but, oddly, he agreed to try to choose a jury from an outside county. Once chosen, these jurors would be bussed back to Orlando and sequestered in hotels for what's expected to be a two- to three-month-long trial.

It is rare to sequester a jury for the entire length of a trial because it takes such an emotional toll. It seems like a double whammy for this defendant. Think about it. The jurors will be plucked away from everything familiar — work, friends and family — and they will be held in near isolation. They won't be allowed television, radio, newspapers or Internet. They won't be allowed to speak to anyone, and there will be no unescorted exercise or walks around the block.

The group may have to change hotels if those determined protestors calling for Casey Anthony's conviction show up.

Above all this, jurors will take on one of the toughest assignments a citizen can perform: They'll be asked to listen to a murder case, to view gruesome crime scene and autopsy photos of a little girl. And at the end, they will have to make a life-or-death decision.

Can they really be impartial? Will they be able to focus while enduring the hardships of sequestration? Can there be a fair trial here?

I'll be in Florida covering this case. I'll let you know what I discover.

Diane Dimond's book, "Cirque Du Salahi — Be Careful Who You Trust," can be ordered at Visit Diane Dimond's official website at for investigative reporting, polls and more. To find out more about Diane Dimond and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate website at



23 Comments | Post Comment
Diane Dimond says:

"We are presumed innocent until proven guilty in this country. We are guaranteed a fair trial by an impartial jury. That's the bedrock of our justice system."

No truer words stated, honestly. However, since when has your conscience had a change of heart? Truly, Ms. Dimond, your past reputation precedes you, as you spent years of your life maligning Michael Jackson's character, even after he was proven innocent by a jury of his peers.

Does the mindset that you embrace include apologies for those errors in judgment that contributed to the denigration someone's character? If so, please share those remorseful thoughts with us. It is never too late to have a change of heart, they say.

Comment: #1
Posted by: justicepending
Sat Apr 30, 2011 11:36 AM
The irony of the first two paragraphs of this piece seems marked considering that Ms.Diamond has founded a career on the wanton destruction of Michael Jackson, an innocent, kindly man, and a father, brother and son. Ms. Diamond despairingly describes "the high-profile defendant who lives through months and sometimes years of sensational media coverage before their case comes to trial." Yet her coverage of Mr. Jackson's 2005 trial served more as a mouthpiece for the prosecution than an accurate, fair and balanced portrayal of what actually took place within the courtroom. Even after Mr.Jackson's full acquittal on all charges, (a verdict amounting to a total vindication,) Ms.Diamond continued to print salacious details about his life which had no basis in fact or truth. The printing of such gross inaccuracies contributed greatly to the painting of Mr.Jackson as an irrational caricature and led to him having to bear the burden of perpetual vilification in the public's collectively conditioned mind. Ms.Diamond states that "we are presumed innocent until proven guilty in this country." That, in a just society, certainly should be the case. How tragic then that such a basic right was never extended to Mr.Jackson. Through the manipulation of fallacy into fact, Ms.Diamond presented him as guilty before the trial had begun. Even after his acquittal she continued to peddle cruel and unfounded rumors which sought to tarnish the reputation of an innocent man. In doing so, she helped contribute to one of the most appalling character assassinations, and attacks on a kindly individual, in modern history. The irony of her current words is, indeed, tragically marked. Because of Ms.Diamond's irresponsible and unethical approach to journalism "a fair trial" on Mr.Jackson's behalf was never "conducted, "and he sadly, could never fully appreciate the feelings of vindication he so gloriously deserved.
Comment: #2
Posted by: Tori Tompkins
Sat Apr 30, 2011 2:11 PM
Dimond wrote: But what about the high-profile defendant who lives through months and sometimes years of sensational media coverage before their case comes to trial? The potential jury pool in their community can become saturated with negative news about the accused, leaving people to justifiably ask how in the world a fair trial can be conducted.

Ohmigod, do they give an Academy Award for Most Unmitigated Gall by a Yellow Journalist? If so, then Diane Dimond wins!!!
Comment: #3
Posted by: LibelFreeZone
Sat Apr 30, 2011 6:03 PM
Ms. Dimond opens her piece with these words:
"We are presumed innocent until proven guilty in this country. We are guaranteed a fair trial by an impartial jury. That's the bedrock of our justice system.
But what about the high-profile defendant who lives through months and sometimes years of sensational media coverage before their case comes to trial? The potential jury pool in their community can become saturated with negative news about the accused, leaving people to justifiably ask how in the world a fair trial can be conducted."
I really wish Diane Dimond had lived by these rules in the years she dedicated to reporting on the activities of Michael Jackson. High profile defendant he was but the prosecution in his trial violated his rights, fabricated evidence, and hounded Michael Jackson for many years. Diane Dimond's reporting on that case blatantly supported the prosecution having already decided herself that he was guilty. Ms. Dimond and the rest of the media ignored the facts being presented in the courtroom. The trial transcripts are available and dispute the media's claims about Michael Jackson. Most people believe that celebrities can get away with anything but in many cases, such as Michael Jackson's, celebrity and the media's constant scrutiny seek to find a crime where there is none. Thanks to Tom Mesereau, Jackson's attorney who believes in his innocence to this day, and an incorruptible jury, Michael Jackson was acquitted on all counts.
I truly hope that Ms. Dimond has had a change of heart.
Comment: #4
Posted by: ChrisB
Sat Apr 30, 2011 6:05 PM
Dear"A Syndicate of Talent "., oh really ?
You consider Dimond talented ? Well, if manipulation and false reporting is talent, than she fits the bill.
Not to mention that her ego is somewhat inflated.
Imagine that a person goes to extreme measures, by accompanying a known corrupt police officer to scrape up anything they could find in order to try & prove an innocent man guilty.
Then imagine that this same person continues to slander the person they attempted to condemn is found innocent by a federal court based upon hard, cold evidence. Then imagine that this same person is so sickly driven that they continue to slander the innocent person following his passing. Yes, I am referring to a FACTUAL story regarding this self-proclaimed "investigative reporter".
Oh yes, please do check out Dimond's latest book but do your self a favor and see the reviews at amazon first.
Comment: #5
Posted by: cawobeth
Sat Apr 30, 2011 6:15 PM
One would think Diane Dimond the least qualified person to quote the adage “innocent until proven guilty”, based on her past exploits, in particular her treatment of the late Michel Jackson.
For some reason only known to herself, she was fixated on the idea that Jackson was a monster, going out of her way in 1993, when he first became the victim of an extortion attempt, to look for supposed victims and unsubstantiated evidence to present to the public. She was inevitably duped by someone looking for a pay-off and subsequently her “evidence” was discredited. But she had already made her mind up about Jackson, and at the time of his trial in 2005, she appeared have collaborated with the DA's office, by revealing confidential pre-trial information, before spearheading the ensuing media witch-hunt, which did immeasurable damage to Jackson's public image and personal well-being. At various times she claimed to have seen incriminating letters, viewed damning video tapes and interviewed victims – none of which have ever materialised.
Justice did prevail on that occasion, despite the malign intervention of the media, and Jackson was acquitted of all charges - but if Ms. Dimond and her cohorts had had their way – the outcome would have been very different. Ms. Dimond, however, continued to discredit her victim, pouring scorn on his lifestyle and even questioning the paternity of his children. She has never had the grace to acknowledge or apologize for her outrageous behavior nor to admit she was in the wrong.
Reading her article here, let me give HER the benefit of the doubt – perhaps she has seen the error of her ways at last – that being so, perhaps she might like to deliver that overdue apology to Michael Jackson's family, friends and supporters. We wait with bated breath…
Comment: #6
Posted by: Pen Dragon
Sun May 1, 2011 6:42 AM
Look who's talking about fair trials in the information age! WOW! Diane Diamond, aren't you ashamed of yourself? This is unbelievable really. Didn't any of these words echo in your ears while writing them? Couldn't you remember what you did some years earlier while covering the Michael Jackson case? Did you remember how your performance then failed miserably to reflect anything of what you claim to believe in here? You built your whole career on destroying an innocent person, then you come today with statements such as this: "We are presumed innocent until proven guilty in this country. We are guaranteed a fair trial by an impartial jury. That's the bedrock of our justice system." Oh, what schizophrenia you have!
Comment: #7
Posted by: Nagla
Sun May 1, 2011 3:26 PM
It seems as if Ms. Dimond has finally "got it". If a person is to be a credible journalist, one must search for the truth. The phrase “fair and balanced” reporting is something that, in my opinion, has been sorely lacking by Ms. Dimond in the past. It is never too late for her to say "I was wrong. I'm sorry. I was young and made mistakes and from this day forward I intend to follow journalistic ethics." It takes a strong person to admit when you are wrong. People who are willing to admit past mistakes shows integrity.

I've read many people here talking about Mr. Jackson. I am merely an observer, but I cannot believe what the media put that man through for the last years of his life. I never met the man, saw him perform, etc. but that doesn't mean I didn't care about him as another human being on this planet. A man who seemed to only want to do good in the world and put his money where his mouth was. I admire him for this and for his gifts as an entertainer.

I remember the trial in 2005. I am still appalled at what transpired during that fiasco. The district attorney at the time, Tom Sneddon, sent more people to Mr. Jackson's home to raid it than they would have done for a mass murderer or terrorist. It was ridiculous and a waste of taxpayer's money. There was all this gnashing of teeth and Mr. Jackson was totally vindicated. He went to trial as an innocent man, and came out one as well. It is a shame as it seems that trial almost destroyed this kind and gentle man.

Ms. Dimond, if you really have had an epiphany and after some soul searching now realize how the media can destroy, and perhaps, just perhaps, you were a part of that machine of destruction, then I'm sure his family and especially his children, would love to hear you say, "I'm sorry."

I've seen his children on TV and they seem to be highly intelligent, well-mannered and determined to continue their father's legacy of giving back. Mr. Jackson would be proud of what they are doing. They are truly a testament to his parenting skills and love. I guess "Wacko Jacko", as the media loved to call him, wasn't so "wacko" after all.
Comment: #8
Posted by: beagleladywv
Sun May 1, 2011 4:26 PM
Dear Ms. Dimond,
I find it interesting that you now seem to be a sympathetic journalist. For years you have destroyed Michael Jackson. You never treated him as a human being, you just went for tabloid sensationalism.
I think you should apologize to Michael's children, who are brilliant and as we all know he was a wonderful father, you can see that in his children. I think you should apologize to Mrs. Jackson, who had to listen to all the lies being told about her son who she loves very much and you should apologize to all of Michael's fans........for your twisted opinions.
Michael was the most decent, loving, kind generous man in our generation. Yes, he was a brilliant entertainer, but more than that he was kind and loved all people and our planet. You said so many hateful "opinions" which were yours and yours alone just for really need to apologize to everyone publicly and be accountable for what you personally did to Michael Jackson. Until then I hope you can sleep well, if you do you are sleeping with the devil. Please do the right thing and make a public apology for all the wrongs you have done, you will be forgiven, but do it now, now is the time for the TRUTH!
Comment: #9
Posted by: Kathy Orozco
Sun May 1, 2011 7:02 PM
Did you think we would not notice?, did you think we would forget?, how could we forget what you and others did during the trial of Michael Jackson, you dug up trash and hurled it at him,you abetted liars by bringing their false accusations to the trial, accusations that were founded on lies and financial gain.Now you have found integrity?now you have found your ethics??.
Your new found work ethic comes too late to redeem yourself, forever you will be known as a trash tabloid reporter who stooped to the lowest of lows to bring down a man who had nothing but love in his heart, you are an evil foul human being and i hope you spend eternity thinking of what you did to him and his children,his family and his fans.
Michael Jackson's memory and legacy lives on even though the likes of you tried very hard to destroy it, who will remember you?
Comment: #10
Posted by: Stella
Sun May 1, 2011 8:06 PM
what do you know about the word FAIR? just apologise for what you did to michael jackson, so that you can sleep at night and your conscience will not bother you everyday in you life.
Comment: #11
Posted by: marcial
Mon May 2, 2011 3:25 AM
When I did read the first sentences I was simply speechless, then I started laughing. What hypocrite words out of this womans mouth. Does she ever realizes the contradiction between her honourable words and her own media hunt and spreading lies about Michael Jackson, even after he was aquitted of all charges. No mam, I really don´t believe a single word anymore, that comes out of your mouth ! Does it mean that you thankfully will not cover the Murray-Trial as an "expert", cause you wrote that you will cover the other case. I´ll hope you do better to the other family, and if not my heartfeld condolences to them !!!
Comment: #12
Posted by: Manuela
Mon May 2, 2011 8:17 AM
Well, obviously Ms Diamond, a fair trial CAN'T be conducted when YOU are "reporting" it! YOU are among the ones who judge people BEFORE they've had their "fair" trial and then tries to convince the rest of the world that you've made the right judgement! WHO exactly is presumed innocent until proven guilty, in your point of view? Who exactly are you trying to fool now? Truth is an unknown concept to you as you are completely alienated from the concept of impartiality! Trying to make anyone believe that you've seen the light? Come on, Ms Diamond! Everyone sees your canines now! They're dripping blood...the blood of the ones whose trials you made your best NOT to be fair! And of course you know I'm talking about the Michael Jackson trial, as everybody is here! You know, some people have a conscience and they have a memory! Did you really think you could erase our memories with a cheap rubber? Well, you can't! I still couldn't figure out the reason of the hatred you so widely displayed towards Mr. Jackson, but I'm starting to guess it was a question which solution could easily be found inside a bedroom...;-) Know what I mean? Don't worry, we know how attractive he was! I pity you Ms Diamond! I pity the fact that you have to put up with yourself everyday!!
Comment: #13
Posted by: Toti65
Mon May 2, 2011 8:25 AM
I don't believe one single words, that came out of Ms Dimonds mouth.I remember the Michael Jackson trial 2005, where was there fairness?Only prejudice,false reports,shameful.
Comment: #14
Posted by: Martin Pagels
Mon May 2, 2011 3:57 PM
How quickly media shape-shifters change their roles, their costumes, and their scripts. The reinvented Diane Dimond now criticizes sloppy, irresponsible journalism that forever damages people's lives. Actually, this makeover launched a while back with a book she penned about the misfortunes of two White House party crashers. It's a sad tale of an intellectually light but socially bright party couple with a few ugly skeletons to hide. They go to the White House dinner and are enveloped in a maelstrom of avoidable miscommunication and press furor. Don't bother to look for the book. Like the protagonists, it sank without trace. Besides, the book and the couple were mere set decoration for The Faces of Diane Dimond, one of the longest-running character studies in tabloid history.
The latest installment, Diane Dimond Reborn, explores the Fourteen Carat Dimond Flip Flop. We see the lady fervently attack the nasty Media Machine that nourished her in a previous incarnation when she gleefully peered into and smeared lives for profit and ratings. Now, the born-again Dimond, all fairness and honor, is appalled by a same merciless media shredding reputations at will. Is this a genuine Epiphany? Divine Intervention? Or, is it the Old Fashioned Flim Flam starring the Newly-Minted Quick Change Artist? Let's see.
There's a certain very big story in the wind featuring one of her favorite celeb-targets from the old slice-n-dice tabloid days. Dimond will probably cover this story. The question is: Will she apply the lofty media standards which she now espouses -- OR revert to type? Stay tuned.
Comment: #15
Posted by: Judson
Fri May 6, 2011 2:04 PM
Well, Ms. Dimond, seems as if you've drawn the ire of those 'crazy' Michael Jackson fans once again. Thing is, I don't
read anything that could possibly be construed as crazy or 'out to get you' in these comments. My thought is that
you are very well aware of your complicity in what happened during 2005. And I suppose you may very well believe in what you say in your article...except when it comes to Jackson. I clearly recall much of what you had to say in your
coverage of that trial based on sources you could never identify or stories never confirmed and frequently dismissed as erroneous. A full year after his death you were still so concerned over the genetics of his children; why is that?
So, we will see, won't we? We will see how you report on Murray's trial and where your focus will be. Jackson is not on trial this time and his history has no place in the determination of Murray's guilt or innocence. There is more than enough fodder to draw on when it comes to Murray's lifestyle, irresponsibility in all money matters, multiple liaisons,
judgement vs. a hugh paycheck, negligent medical care, etc. I won't be holding my breath because this reader remembers and remembers well the 'negative news' that you helped saturate media outlets with a short 6 years ago.
Let's see how much your words will be reflected in your behavior.
Comment: #16
Posted by: Layne
Fri May 6, 2011 4:31 PM
The hypocrisy here took my breath away. I too remember the perpetual innuendo, the "sources tell me." the "I am hearing... but of course I can't prove it.." I remember the tabloid nature of Ms. Dimond's reporting and TV personna.

I am just stunned. And the audacity in calling out the media for assuming someone changed with a crime guilty of that crime before and during what should be an impartial and lawful process! Tell something over and over, discuss it ad nauseum in the media and it becomes the truth when there was not truth to it.

People are irreversibly harmed and even die from media bullying-- Princess Diana, Patsy Ramsey, Richard Jewell, the Mc Martins. It has got to stop!

If this is truly a turnaround how does one forgive or trust again? Yes the media and some unscrupulous "journalists" have truly irreversibly harmed people who indeed were innocent. And yes, Michael Jackson definitely comes to mind. I wondered how a man charged on 14 counts could be found not-guilty on all of them! If there had been somethign to the molestation charges, he would have been convicted on one count at a minimum. Not even Clarence Darrow could pull that not guilty verdict off with a guilty man.

The facts show that he was being exonerated daily in cross examination but the media did not tell us that. In fact, I recall some of the footage from Ms. Dimond who insisted he was guilty. That is why this is so bitter to swallow.
Seems to me Ms. Dimond had something to do with how people are treated in the media when charged with a severe crime. In Jackson's case it's too late and now his innocence and true nature is being revealed. It's too late to apologize, to make it right, or bring Jackson back. It is definitely too late, to cynical and to hypocritical to call "foul" on others when one is culplable oneself.

I just don't know what to think. I'm stunned.
Comment: #17
Posted by: Paul
Fri May 6, 2011 6:57 PM
Would the real Ms. Dimond please stand up! Really, your words here hold no value or worth. Perhaps you have forgotten that you aided and abetted the prosecution in Jackson's 2005 trial and were a front-runner in the media's crucifiction of an innocent man. You led a witch-hunt Ms. Dimond, and nowhere during that time did I see the words "innocent until proven guilty" written by your pen. Rather, you did everything in your power to prove Jackson's guilt through salicious innuendoes, allegations and the misrepresentation of the truth even before the jury had reached it's verdict. May I point out, Jackson was found innocent and cleared of ALL 10 counts. Perhaps it was disappointment or maybe that you had to save face by continuing the smear campaing on Jackson's name after the trial concluded. Perhaps it was just a matter of your nature.
So now I ask you, in light of your shallow words here, have you gained a concious Ms. Dimond? What is your real purpose? Will you affront Conrad Murray the right to remain innocent in causing Jackson's death? If you did, then that would be a contradiction in terms wouldn't you agree? I guess, as one commented below, we will wait and see.
Comment: #18
Posted by: Jack Anderson
Fri May 6, 2011 7:10 PM
The problem with this essay coming from the pen of Diane Dimond is that Dimond, of all people, is one of the members of medialoid (she's not really a journalist) most guilty of NOT contributing to "Fair Trials in the Information Age." Unless she has had a change of heart since 2005--and I see no evidence that she has--she has written this essay from within the cruel depths of sickening hypocrisy.

For Dimond to acquire any credibility whatsoever, she needs to PUBLICLY (1) declare that she has changed her tune; (this is called repentance); (2) apologize to the Michael Jackson famiy, especially Mr. Jackson's children; and (3) apologize to the public at large for the years of duplicity and malice with which she wrote numerous articles of pure degradation.

Everyone--even Diane Dimond--is deserving of forgiveness, but she must seek it. Otherwise, she's just another wolf in sheep's clothing, and I wouldn't trust a single word she writes. Ever.
Comment: #19
Posted by: LibelFreeZone
Sun May 8, 2011 3:24 PM
Ms Dimond wrote, "Since July 2008, potential jurors in Florida have consistently heard the words "Casey Anthony" and "murder" in the same breath. It's not beyond belief that a permanent and horrible image of the defendant is already burned into the collective psyche."

Ms Dimond, these words were instigated by folks in the media and John Q Public was just mimicking what he/she heard reported. I agree that it is wrong and so sad to have the media decide on the innocence or guilt of defendants before they ever see the inside of a courtroom. This reminds me of the horrific media coverage, including your coverage Ms Dimond, of the Michael Jackson trial in 2005. You and other unsavory "journalist", a term I'm using loosely, had Jackson convicted of a crime he did not commit before he ever entered the courtroom, and thus a" permanent and horrible image" of him has been "burned into the collective psyche" of many people. We can, however, thank God there were jurors who had the good sense to examine all the evidence presented and render the verdict of not guilty on all counts.
Comment: #20
Posted by: Patricia Young
Sun May 8, 2011 5:48 PM
I recently sat on a jury for a simple possession of less than 1 gram. Three jurors, in an effort to persuade another, shouted things like "You know he's guilty or the cops wouldn't have arrested him", "His lawyer didn't prove he was inocent", and "He didn't testify so he must be hiding something."

I thought I was beyond shock about the rot present in our judicial system, until then. This was a low profile "nothing" case compared to some (like the Anthony trial) and jurors stomped constitutional rights so easily . . . heaven help an accused sex offender or assault defendent . . . .
Comment: #21
Posted by: cara jones
Mon May 16, 2011 4:15 AM
When I read the first two lines of your article, I literally choked on my beverage. What utter gall and hypocrisy you have, Ms. Dimond, for daring to write this article. Your past misdeeds are an example of how a person cannot get a fair trial in this age of yellow, tabloid journalism. You my dear are the queen of the tabloid bullies. You have destroyed lives with your pen and microphone. Yet, you have the audacity to raise an indignant voice and champion our justice system. You have no credibility until you have publicly apologized for your unethical behavior in the past and make major improvements on how you report in the future. Karma is hard to escape unless you are genuine in your attempt to change and atone for your shameless behavior.

Comment: #22
Posted by: VeteranTeacher
Tue May 17, 2011 11:46 AM
Ms. Dimond, I am confused about your fair trial article. Why would you write with such an indignant voice about something you are guilty of doing only years ago? Your hypocrisy is palatable. If you have had a change of heart for your past misdeeds that is wonderful. Hopefully you will apologize for the havoc you have reeked on an innocent man's life. Apologize publicly to his family, his mother, his children, and his admirers. Only then will you appear credible. Negative karma is quite hard to avoid unless you are serious about changing your spots. You know exactly who I am referencing here.
Let's see your m.o. is to now dismiss me as a nutty Michael Jackson fan by calling me "crazed." "fanatical," or "delusional." Or, maybe this time, you will use the words "obsessed," or "irrational." "You think you can cry victim and whine that you are being abused and stalked by the very people who try to call you out on your unethical, unscrupulous, and sensationalistic tabloid tactics. However, these strategies are just not working for you anymore. You have no credibility or relevancy in a world that is becoming acutely aware of bullies, especially tabloid bullies.
I am a 26 year veteran teacher who is National Board Certified in the US. I have a Master's and Bachelor's degree in Educational Technology and Elementary Education. Do not dismiss me as some mindless, obsessed "fan." Admirers of Mr. Jackson number in the millions and are global. We come from all walks of life.
If you really believe in your article, and have had a change of heart. I commend you. We will see if you adhere to your new ethics. We will see how you report on upcoming future events, especially those events with Michael Jackson's name associated with them. I sincerely hope you take the opportunity to cleanse your guilty conscience, if, in fact, you have one.
Comment: #23
Posted by: Tess Greenwood
Tue May 17, 2011 8:22 PM
Already have an account? Log in.
New Account  
Your Name:
Your E-mail:
Your Password:
Confirm Your Password:

Please allow a few minutes for your comment to be posted.

Enter the numbers to the right: comments policy
Diane Dimond
Feb. `16
Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa
31 1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
28 29 1 2 3 4 5
About the author About the author
Write the author Write the author
Printer friendly format Printer friendly format
Email to friend Email to friend
View by Month
Veronique de RugyUpdated 11 Feb 2016
Larry Elder
Larry ElderUpdated 11 Feb 2016
Matt Towery
Matt ToweryUpdated 11 Feb 2016

6 May 2011 After Bin Laden

3 Jun 2011 Constitutional Immigration Reform We Can All Embrace

9 Aug 2014 Preparing Students to Protect Themselves