Peter King’s whiny outburst against the media for covering Michael Jackson has been joined by the likes of Sean Hannity and Bill O’Reilly. Sitting here, watching Fox News, in just thirty minutes, the meme — why are we covering Michael Jackson so much when our troops are the real heroes? — has been repeated multiple times.
It’s, quite frankly, rather repulsive to watch the mere cynicism with which our soldiers are used as political shields like this.
News isn’t necessarily about heroism or goodness, but about notoriety. What would the coverage O’Reilly, King, and Hannity advocate look like? Non-stop coverage of every soldier who dies? The disregarding of every entertainer who passes away because they weren’t “heroes”? Everyone sane knows that our military is admirable and often very heroic — but there was only one Michael Jackson. He was a towering cultural figure; a once-in-a-lifetime sort of entertainer. He sold hundreds of millions of records and was among the most recognizable people on Earth.
The detractors of the coverage know this, and really just wish that the media would cover something else. They find the Jackson coverage boring. So they’re rationalizing it away — hey, aren’t our troops heroes? Dammit, where’s their 24-hour coverage? And no one is supposed to want to argue back because it’s taboo to be seen in any way to criticize the troops.
But calling out King and Hannity’s cynical commentary for what it is in no way diminishes the heroism of the American military. It’s simply to understand the actual purpose of the news.
July 7th, 2009 at 8:18 pm
Alex,
I think part of their indignation is how much people wrap themselves up in these celebrities. I heard a woman on the radio (just a fan- no relation or friend) who was so distraught and inconsolable she basically passed out after the interview. And so I think it makes thinking people say, “what is wrong with these people?”
Not to devalue Jackson’s life, but if some of these hysterical fans cared as much about their families, faith, communities, and work as they do about some celebrity, America would be a much better place. I think it’s the cult of personality that makes some of these guys bristle, even if they don’t express it the right way. Of course, being professional talkers, they ought to be able to express it the right way…..
July 7th, 2009 at 8:20 pm
Those are megafans; they’re few and far between. I wouldn’t judge the media coverage based on an interview with a megafan…LOL.
July 7th, 2009 at 8:27 pm
Alex,
My criticism in #1 wasn’t so much the media, but the more dysfunctional corners of American culture.
However, I heard Charlie Gibson criticizing his competitors (NBC and CBS) saying that on the day unemployment hit 9.5 they lead off with Jackson, even though there wasn’t any “new” news. Then on the day that Obama is negotiating nuclear weapons, they lead with Jackson again.
I think that is fair criticism.
July 7th, 2009 at 8:32 pm
3 – Certainly. That’s a fair criticism. But the whole “they’re covering Jackson instead of the troops” thing is just nonsense.
July 7th, 2009 at 8:32 pm
Quinnipiac Ohio Poll
Obama’s approvals/disapprovals go from 62-31 in May to 49-45 in July.
US Senate Seat Vacated by Voinovich:
Brunner (D) leads Portman (R)- 35%-34%
Fisher (D) leads Portman (R) – 37%-33%
Link: http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x1284.xml?ReleaseID=1347&What=&strArea=;&strTime=0
July 7th, 2009 at 8:33 pm
Alex,
Agreed.
July 7th, 2009 at 8:42 pm
What annoys me is the adulation of Michael Jackson.
This guy is a twisted weirdo suspected (including by his sister) of pedophilia. I can understand the spectacle. It goes beyond that.
At work today some of my African American co-workers were huddled around the TV absorbed in the Jackson memorial. I don’t know why he’s being appropriated so forcefully and positively by African Americans.
July 7th, 2009 at 8:46 pm
Doug,
” I don’t know why he’s being appropriated so forcefully and positively by African Americans.”
Not being black or terribly in tune with the black community, I’m just speculating here, but I would say it has something to do with him “beating the system” by being a major success with crossover popularity. Some also think he was persecuted for being a black success (Al Sharpton was playing on this theme).
July 7th, 2009 at 11:07 pm
It’s worth noting that if you think coverage of Michael Jackson’s death is bad, then surely coverage of people complaining about coverage of Michael Jackson’s death is even worse.
July 7th, 2009 at 11:09 pm
What about the people complaining about the people complaining about the coverage of Jackson’s death?
July 7th, 2009 at 11:40 pm
I think these pundits rightly point to the forgotten men and women of the country who quietly do their duty in collectively doing exponentially more good than Michael Jackson could ever hope to do. I actually join with them in lamenting how intellectualy weak some over-entertained Americans are to fuel the non-stop coverage of someone who had such a wasted, tragic existence.
July 8th, 2009 at 12:31 am
I was going to comment here after a long time to rebut what Alex said, but to say that Michael Jackson had a ‘wasted’ existence is a falsehood. He made music that others could only dream of making, and he was a unique entertainer with nary a peer.
He was also a little crazy. Personally, I never bought into the pedophilia thing. If you want to judge him based on rumors, fine, but the guy WAS acquitted of the charges brought against him. That should have SOME meaning these days.
July 8th, 2009 at 4:32 am
His own sister didn’t question his pedophilia, and she was a little closer to the situation. He himself admitted that he slept in bed with kids when they came over…..that’s weird enough, and disgusting even if there was not more to it than that.
July 8th, 2009 at 7:13 am
How easilly is the fickle common mind transfixed by transient fame. Red Skelton was also a unique entertainer with ‘nary a peer’. How many 20-year-olds know who he is? How many people will be listening to M.J. after 150 years when the nostalgia of his 80s hits has died out with his fans? He will be remembered as a good entertainer who had a deeply troubled, sick personal life. Very little about his personal life inspires. Bush and Obama will be remembered and books will still be written about them in 150 years. I’m not sure the same will hold true for M.J.
July 8th, 2009 at 8:10 am
Almost no one of the youngsters out there now know anything about Elvis. Jackson will be a nobody in 50 years.
He was a scumbag freak and the world is better off without him.
July 8th, 2009 at 9:27 am
#14 – Red Skelton didn’t sell more albums than any artist of his time and isn’t an appropriate analogy in the way you want it to be, and by the way – Bush and Obama are hardly ‘forgotten men quietly doing their duty for their country.’
While I’m not a fan of the insanity that is the press coverage on his death, people are watching, and they’re watching for a reason – not b/c of the little boys half of them think he slept with, but b/c of Thriller, and A, B, Cs.
July 8th, 2009 at 9:28 am
#15 – I would disagree, I think more people than you’d expect know who Elvis is.
July 8th, 2009 at 9:57 am
ABC led with Obama and Putin last night.
#17 – everyone knows who Elvis is – he was Michael Jackson’s father in law.
Jackson’s life became a train wreck. Drugs will do that to you – which is
why Lisa Marie was initially attracted to him and why she ran away eventually.
Imagine, however, if they had stayed together. Imagine the combined
worth of the music catalogue the kids would have inherited. It boggles
the mind. Even without the Elvis catalogue, much of the major musical
intellectual property generated in the 20th Century is now owned by the
Jackson family estate. This is why it is everyone’s news. If you like
Motown, the Jacksons or the Beatles, guess who owns the folio rights? (not
the recordings, but the lyrics and music).
The sad thing is, much of the Motown catalogue represents deals where
the original authors really got screwed. The standard Motown contract
really did steal away some of the best work people had. The estate now
owns a share of this. In another life, one would hope that Jackson or his
estate would restore some of these rights to the original artists – although
considering the debt load of the estate, that won’t happen just yet.
July 8th, 2009 at 12:53 pm
#18 – All great points, and yet another result of the crap his psyche broke down because of – financial irresponsibility! Rah rah conservatism!! lol
July 8th, 2009 at 1:54 pm
In terms of value to society, I think Michael Jackson contributed a lot more than many soldiers. As someone who worked himself, literally to death, to satisfy consumer demand, Jackson was infinitely of more value to society than Rep. Peter King, who merely sits around on his fat ass thinking of new ways to tax and regulate successful businessmen like Jackson, while living in high style off the taxpayer dole.
July 8th, 2009 at 1:57 pm
Ryan,
I think the government/legal system is far more at fault for Jackson’s financial troubles than Jackson himself. Had it not been for the fraudulent lawsuits leveled at him, he wouldn’t have wasted all the money he did on trying to fight legal battles, and, of course, it wouldn’t have hurt his image (and hence his sales) so much.
July 9th, 2009 at 12:10 pm
I wouldn’t blame government, I’d blame greed and opportunistic individuals trying to capitalize off his insanity by using the government and court of public opinion to demolish his reputation and get some money out of it.
July 9th, 2009 at 2:42 pm
Ryan,
Greed and opportunism are a basic facet of human nature. The fact that the horribly-structured government court system affords humans the opportunity to milk innocent people of their property is not the primary flaw in why travesties like those committed against Jackson occur?