Chapter 694: Reaction to Michael

Outside the station, the story of Michael Erickson was already moving beyond the financial records that had first drawn public attention. For years, he had been described as a difficult but successful music executive, a man who controlled one of the largest record labels in the world and had the influence to make careers or bring them to a halt. Now reporters were examining allegations that reached far beyond his business decisions, including financial fraud, abuse of power, sexual misconduct, and other possible criminal activity.

The allegations were not all established facts, and several investigations were still underway. However, the evidence being reviewed by authorities had encouraged former employees, artists, and people who had previously avoided speaking publicly to begin sharing their own accounts. The result was a growing public question: how had one man held so much power for so long without facing serious scrutiny?

A British news site published an article late that afternoon under the headline, "Michael Erickson's empire faces its biggest test as hearing approaches." The report described the upcoming hearing and the financial investigation, then examined the growing number of complaints from people who had worked under his leadership. It noted that some allegations had been made privately years earlier, while others were only now being discussed openly.

One former employee told the outlet that complaints had often been treated as career problems rather than matters requiring investigation. The employee said that people who challenged Michael's decisions risked losing access to projects, having their work reassigned, or being quietly excluded from opportunities that had once seemed secure. The report did not claim that every complaint had been verified, but it made clear that investigators were now reviewing more than the financial trail.

A separate report in the United States focused on artists signed to Michael's label. Several had begun speaking publicly about their experiences, while others had asked lawyers to examine whether their contracts could be terminated. Some said they had been pressured into decisions that benefited the company rather than their careers. Others described being discouraged from working with certain producers, changing their creative direction against their wishes, or remaining silent because they feared the consequences of speaking out.

One artist, who had released several successful albums through the label, posted a statement that spread rapidly across music forums.

"I have been waiting a long time to say anything about what happened while I was signed there. People saw the awards, the videos, and the money, but they didn't see what went on behind closed doors. I was afraid that if I spoke, I would lose everything I had worked for. I am grateful that someone finally brought evidence forward and that people are now looking at what happened. I hope the other artists who are still afraid understand that they are not alone."

The statement did not name the person who had supplied the evidence, and the artist did not claim to know who had done so. Nevertheless, the reference to someone bringing evidence forward drew immediate attention because it suggested that the public allegations were connected to a larger body of information already under official review.

Another artist, who had been signed to the label for several years, said in an interview that the company had made it difficult for musicians to challenge decisions made by senior management. The artist was careful not to describe every disagreement as criminal conduct, but said the imbalance of power had made it difficult to refuse requests or complain about treatment. A lawyer representing several artists confirmed that contract reviews were underway, though the lawyer declined to discuss the details of any individual agreement.

The label responded through a short statement saying it was reviewing the concerns raised and would cooperate with relevant inquiries. It did not address the individual allegations. Several senior staff members also declined to comment, while people who had once appeared beside Michael at public events began removing old photographs from their social media accounts.

The response did little to quiet the questions. By evening, the story had spread across entertainment news, business reporting, and online discussion spaces. People who had once treated Michael's label as an unavoidable part of the industry were now asking whether its success had depended on practices that artists and employees had been too frightened to challenge.

On one music news programme, a presenter asked why so many accounts were emerging only after Michael lost control of the company. A former industry manager explained that people often waited until they believed they could speak without immediately losing their livelihood. The manager did not claim to know which allegations were true, but argued that the number of people willing to come forward deserved a serious response rather than automatic dismissal.

The same question appeared beneath nearly every article: how could so much have gone unnoticed?

Some readers pointed out that Michael's power had been visible for years. His label controlled major releases, had relationships with broadcasters and promoters, and could offer artists access to opportunities that were difficult to obtain elsewhere. Critics argued that people had been willing to overlook troubling reports because the company was successful and the people benefiting from it did not want to risk their positions.

Others said the allegations should be investigated carefully and that a public hearing was not the same as a conviction. They warned against treating every online account as proof. That argument had merit, particularly where individual claims had not been independently verified, but it did not prevent people from asking why earlier complaints had received so little attention.

By night, the comments sections had become a record of public disbelief, anger, and argument.

One user wrote, "I knew the music industry could be bad, but I honestly didn't think it could be this bad. All those years of watching him talk about building artists, and now we're hearing what some of them say happened behind the scenes."

Someone replied, "People have been talking about powerful executives for years. The problem is that nobody listens until the person has already fallen."

A third commenter added, "I used to think the artists who left his label were ungrateful. I owe some of them an apology. We had no idea what was happening inside that company."

Not everyone accepted the reports. One account posted, "This is getting out of hand. People are accusing him of everything now that he can't defend himself properly. Wait for the hearing before deciding he's guilty."

The response arrived within minutes. "Waiting for the hearing doesn't mean pretending the evidence doesn't exist. Investigators have records, and artists are speaking about their own experiences. Let the process happen, but stop acting like every person who comes forward must be lying."

Another user wrote, "The financial evidence alone was enough to make people ask questions. Now there are artists saying they were scared to speak. If the claims are false, investigate them. If they're true, investigate those too. What exactly are people defending?"

A supporter of Michael replied that the company had given many artists successful careers and that the public was ignoring the good work the label had done. Several people challenged that point, arguing that commercial success did not erase possible wrongdoing. One comment that received thousands of likes read, "A company can release good music and still treat people badly. Those things can both be true."

As the arguments continued, the people defending Michael found themselves answering more questions than they could settle. Some insisted that the timing was suspicious, while others pointed out that the timing made sense if artists had feared professional consequences for years. A number of commenters shared older interviews and public disputes that had once seemed like ordinary industry disagreements. Others warned that those old clips could not establish criminal conduct on their own, even if they gave investigators useful leads.

The conversation grew beyond Michael himself. Fans began asking how record companies should handle complaints, why artists could find it difficult to leave restrictive contracts, and whether executives had been allowed too much control over the careers of the people who depended on them. There were also arguments about the anonymous source whose evidence had helped move the investigation forward. Some praised the decision to expose the alleged wrongdoing, while others wondered why the information had taken so long to reach authorities.

No one online had a complete account of what had happened, and most did not know how much evidence investigators already possessed. The public was reacting to fragments: news reports, statements from artists, financial records described by journalists, and claims that still needed to be tested. Even so, the image of Michael as an untouchable executive was becoming harder to maintain.

Inside the police station, Michael knew none of this would make his hearing easier. He had been told that the matter was approaching its next stage, and his lawyer had spent much of the day preparing him for the questions that might follow. The new message from his powerful contacts remained in his thoughts, but the news reports added another concern. If more artists and former employees continued speaking, investigators might discover information that did not depend on his cooperation at all.

He had chosen to protect certain people because he believed they could still help him. Yet he could not know whether their promises would survive the attention now gathering around the case. Their names had not appeared in the message, and no one had offered him a guarantee that they would stand beside him publicly. They had simply reminded him of what they expected in return for their assistance.

Michael had spent years believing that influence meant never having to face a problem alone. Now he was depending on people who had reasons to keep him quiet, and he had no way to tell whether they wanted to protect him or merely protect themselves.

The hearing was still ahead of him. His lawyers would challenge what they could, investigators would present the evidence they believed mattered, and the court would have to decide the issues properly before it. Michael was not yet convicted, whatever the public had begun to believe. But the world he had controlled was already changing around him, and every new statement from an artist or former employee made it harder for him to believe that the people offering help would be able to restore the life he had lost.

He returned to the message in his mind once more, remembering the careful wording and the promise that he would not be left alone. He had accepted the offer because he was afraid of what awaited him if he stood entirely by himself. Whether he had made the right decision, he could not yet know.

For now, he had chosen what he believed was the safer path. He would keep cooperating where it served him, protect the people he thought could still help him, and hope that the damage could be contained before the hearing forced him to answer for more than he had prepared himself to admit.

My bad for not uploading yesterday here's an extra