Posted by: eratigan | July 12, 2009

Pay no attention to the man behind the glove

I was talking (bitching, actually) to my mom  about the amount of MJ coverage, and was surprised when she admitted to lapping it all up. Michael Jackson’s music, and the memories tied to it, meant a lot to her. She said the tribute stories, all the coverage of memorial services, etc. were giving her and her generation a chance to remember their youth.

Which may explain the fascination the country has had with MJ’s death. News shows’ recent ratings prove that people are still watching the coverage; why not give the people what they want? Yes, there are much more important things deserving of full media coverage. Yes, it’s fluffy. It’s also selling.

(Not my mom)

(Not my mom)

So I think we need to ask the true purpose of the media: Is it to inform the people or serve them? I think it could be argued that the media is offering its viewers a shiny object (the infamous sequined glove comes to mind) as distraction from bigger issues.

Is the public mourning, or are we copping out on the issues by focusing on MJ’s death? Is the media listening to its audience, or doing us a disservice by offering a way out? My mom would say the media is just letting viewers pay tribute to an unarguably brilliant performer.



  1. I think that the media overdid MJ’s death-yes he was a fabulous performer and extremely talented, but it was every where! But i know for a fact that people tuned in to see what was the latest on MJs death. And his records and everything MJ is at its highest record yet. So not only are the news getting the ratings, MJ’s music, shirts, and so far are selling, so he is still making money after death. And there are only a few people who have passed who are still making money after their death and MJ is one of them. But going back to media, MJs coverage was rediculous (and im fan) because there are real issues going on in the world that people should know about, but the question is, would the majority of people seriously listen to the serious news when something fluffy is being shown?

  2. Agreed. MJ died and we are all sad, but it has really gone too far. After about a week or so, I don’t want to hear about who/who’s not is in his will, autopsy results, memorial lottery tickets or the true identity of Blanket’s mom. If we (the media) wanted to respect him in an honorable way, I don’t think all of the scandals surrounding his life and death should have been covered to the extent they were.

  3. The overhaul proliferation of scandals surrounding Jackson’s death do not do the late singer’s memory any justice. Maybe if these gossip reporters looked at it from the perspective of MJ’s young children, they would think twice about reporting on the same topic for the upteenth time this week. I highly doubt that any child mourning loss would want to hear about his/her father’s alleged drug problem or undisclosed private life. As for public mourning, no doubt many people out there felt close to MJ, as if he were a genuine aspect of their lives. Music transcends that sort of power. So for some individuals, this media coverage may be a sort of closure for them, a final farwell if you will.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: