[78-L] Michael Jackson. A Balanced View.

[Donna Halper]

>it was said--
>
>He is being beatified in death in a way that cheapens those who
>contributed far more. I have seen reports about how much did for the
>third world and famine relief with USA for Africa via the record We
>are the World. One news story as much as suggested that he was the
>end all to be all in that effort. IMHO, had it not been for the
>efforts of Bob Geldof and Midge Ure via Band Aid and Live Aid, the
>whole event would never have taken place.

And that has long been a pet peeve of mine.  Not about Michael per 
se, but about what has been called (accurately) by other posters to 
this thread our celebrity dominated culture.  McLuhan was right about 
TV contributing to shorter attention spans.  I mean, Farrah Fawcett 
(another celebrity) dies in the morning and all the major TV outlets 
stop to mention and mourn her passing.  But by dinnertime, she's 
yesterday's news and everything is all-Michael all the time.  Okay 
fine, his story is perfect for the tabloid nature of cable-- it has 
mystery, scandal, and a protagonist who (like him or hate him) was a 
bit eccentric.  But what I found odd was how NEWS people and 
POLITICAL commentators were forced into overdrive to suddenly treat 
this like the most important thing that ever happened.  I mean Keith 
Olbermann and David Shuster doing 4 hours each (!) of live Michael 
Jackson coverage?  Anderson Cooper pausing to remember how he saw 
Michael at Studio 54.  OMG OMG OMG.  Reporters (and fans) talking 
about Michael as if he had been some kind of saint who walked among 
us.  Even if his life had no scandals at all, he was in fact NOT the 
saviour of mankind and NOT a major factor in world events.  Yes, he 
made a lot of people happy and he sold a lot of records and he 
absolutely did a lot of charity work.  But 24 hour coverage of his 
passing and its effect on people?  Oh please.  I was not a fan of 
Ronald Reagan, but I understood the need to do thorough coverage when 
he died.  I'm not a Catholic, but when the Pope died, I totally 
understood why this was an event worthy of lots of attention.  But 
Michael Jackson?  Not so much.

And somewhere in South Carolina, Governor Mark Sanford was feeling 
very lucky, since his own scandal got pushed off the front burner, 
and whether the media should have given that so much coverage is an 
open question as well.  (Disclaimer-- I never liked the guy, never 
thought he was a good governor, and when my friends on the right talk 
about how Republicans are the party of Family Values, my eyes glaze 
over.  BUT, once the scandal had unfolded, I kind of felt it was time 
to move on to whatever the next thing was.  My sympathies are with 
the governor's wife and kids, none of whom, I am sure, ever wanted 
their personal problems made fodder to cable news...)

But what really annoys me is that many of these cable channel and 
newspapers have cut back their international coverage and closed 
their international bureaus to save money.  Cover Iran?  Can't do 
it-- paranoid regime, and the few reporters still there got tossed 
out. Cover Africa?  No thanks.  Viewers don't care, or so we are 
told.  Cover Latin America?  Yeah, if Hugo Chavez says something 
crazy, we'll be there.  And if drug lords in Columbia are caught, 
we'll parachute some journalists in to report, and then parachute 
them back out again.

And the most frustrating thing of all-- Michael Jackson coverage got 
Fox (!), CNN and even MSNBC some of the biggest ratings the three 
have had since the presidential election.  People say they are 
shocked and disgusted by all that tabloid coverage, but boy howdy, do 
they all watch it!!!