Michael Jackson Nonsense

[mimartin]

Since this thread is dealing with the media coverage of Michael Jackson death. I will stand by my comparison to how Princess Di’s death was handled by the world’s media. My statement had nothing to do with who deserved the coverage more.

[urluckyday]

Please tell me you know who Princess Diana was and how influential she was to the world? Because the boiled down comparason of "Her death was televised a lot just like MJ!" by Mimartin is frankly rather insulting.

 

I'm pretty sure that I know all about Diana...

 

But you finding it insulting is almost reinforcing the point of this thread. Isn't there something amiss from a professional singer that had an extremely controversial lifestyle that gets just as much if not more media coverage than a princess that helped thousands around the world?

[Darth_Yuthura]

This thread is likely not going to have much in the way of sites, so I'll try and make this as worthwhile as I can.

 

I can only speak as to my opinions of MJ and I would say that based on what I've seen of him, that he was a freak. Other people have seen him from a time earlier in his life and I would not be surprised if those people have a different opinion of him. However I would ask that people not make an idol out of this person because he stopped being an idol at some point in his life and wasn't taken seriously anymore. All the plastic surgeries, child abuse charges, and controversial lifestyle dilemmas just don't make him a likable person.

 

That's why I judge him harshly, because he hasn't given anyone any reason to be concerned with him anymore.

 

The war in Iraq that the US is fighting my father was there and i dont know why so little people even know there is a war it discusts me

 

This thread is not directed to attack the relevance of the Iraqi war, but whether the presence of Jackson in the media is proper. I absolutely agree that those who risk their lives for this nation should be the first ones recognized; not media parasites like Jackson.

[Web Rider]

Since this thread is dealing with the media coverage of Michael Jackson death. I will stand by my comparison to how Princess Di’s death was handled by the world’s media. My statement had nothing to do with who deserved the coverage more.

For entirely different reasons, MJ is covered a lot because people who have no life other than music are quite numerous. Diana was covered a lot because she made a huge impact on the world. The media is covering MJ because they're attention #*$(@s, the media covered Diana because she was a role model, she helped people, she was all sorts of things that MJ never was. The media covered her because people genuinely cared about the things she did. The media is covering MJ because people who love him that much have no life and the media know they'll watch it and get good ratings.

 

Not to mention that her funeral got even MORE press because of the way the British monarchy handled it. I mean, gawd man, the reasons MJ is being covered and the reasons Diana was covered are worlds apart.

 

I'm pretty sure that I know all about Diana...

 

But you finding it insulting is almost reinforcing the point of this thread. Isn't there something amiss from a professional singer that had an extremely controversial lifestyle that gets just as much if not more media coverage than a princess that helped thousands around the world?

 

Yes I don't like that, but that wasn't his comparason. His comparason was that the reasoning behind covering MJ's death and Diana's death was the same. The media likes to whore out a death.

[Lord of Hunger]

You know, I loved The Daily Show's reaction to the whole thing (for those of you watch it, you probably know what I'm talking about) True, there is the crowd mentality going on, but this was about the media talking about...themselves.

OMG!

Like, we know!

 

To put this in a droid perspective:

 

Mockery: Oh master, a major celebrity meatbag has died! I will now proceed to talk about my insignificant feelings on that matter as if I was your best friend, despite the fact that I am a professional news reporter and you will not give a ****. But given that you are a meatbag you will watch me anyway and my ratings will skyrocket. I will also omit the fact that a Presidential meatbag in Honduras was removed by a military coup, since that is obviously worth your time to know about.

 

To put it bluntly, Michael Jackson's death is not what this about. This is about the media and the crowd having an emotion fest. Just like Madoff's trial, or anything significant that the media does report. A coup in Honduras, what's there to get worked up about? Only a democracy activist would care enough to get emotional about it, so they only report about it because they have to. They report Michael Jackson's death, Madoff's trial, that French flight that crashed, or a murder case, because you get emotional about it. Emotion generates devotion, devotion generates ratings, ratings generates money, money generates jobs, jobs generate stability, stability generates some degree of normality, and normality is what everyone wants.

 

Why read 1984 or Brave New World? This planet is filled with small dystopian situations already.

[mimartin]

You are completely wrong about my reasoning and since you wish to assign your own meaning to the words I have written down I give up.

 

I’d say that the problem with the media and paparazzi in particular is not merely an American phenomenon. Let’s not forget in 1997 a non-American death was all over the media and that funeral was also televised world wide.

 

While I suspect you might have been able to make a good point about overzealous paparazzi with that, comparing the world'obsession with Princess Di to the media's obsession with Michael Jackson is like comparing a paper cut to a hole in the head.

media =/ world's

[Jae Onasi]

I'm pretty sure that I know all about Diana...

 

But you finding it insulting is almost reinforcing the point of this thread. Isn't there something amiss from a professional singer that had an extremely controversial lifestyle that gets just as much if not more media coverage than a princess that helped thousands around the world?

I find it just as disappointing that the woman who died about the same time as Princess Diana, Mother Theresa, was virtually a footnote in the news in comparison. I think it speaks to our priorities, unfortunately.

 

 

Not to mention that her funeral got even MORE press because of the way the British monarchy handled it. I mean, gawd man, the reasons MJ is being covered and the reasons Diana was covered are worlds apart.

The reason both funerals were covered with worldwide coverage is because the media knew the public would eat it up and they would gain ratings. Pure and simple.

[Master Shake]

Musician's death>everything else.

[jonathan7]

He was loved by many like Princess Diana was loved, to give you some UK perspective. He was someone who grew up in the media and lived a life many would dream about--being a rock star. He was a troubled person, which drew entirely too much attention from many who were only interested in sordid details, but it also drew sympathy by many who could relate to the fact that underneath the publicity veneer, he was an imperfect human like everyone else. Losing someone who had the impact on the music community to the same degree as the Beatles or Elvis is hard. Losing someone at his relatively young age is even harder. Those of us who grew up with him have lost a part of our youth.

 

Jae, I have several issues with this, firstly I never agreed with the scale of upset over Diana's death - but she was an awful lot more philanthropic than MJ, and did an awful lot more for good causes than he did. I'm a massive MJ fan, I got History as soon as it came out as a kid - but that still doesn't change the fact that a child dies ever 4 seconds in the 3rd world, and that's something we can actually change...

[igyman]

My impression about the US media is that everything has to be a show, which is why it's not surprising that they'd devote a lot of their airtime to things like this. It's not about objectivity and reporting the actual news, it's about reporting anything scandalous.

 

For example, I remember when Kosovo declared independence and there was a huge peaceful protest here in Belgrade (don't remember the exact number, but it was several hundred thousand people). Unfortunately, there were also some fourty-fifty idiots who thought it would be smart to get drunk and attack the US embassy. Guess which event got covered by CNN. The huge peaceful protest was mentioned once or twice in passing, but footage of the attack was shown for hours and reported upon as if it were the only reaction to Kosovo's independence. I get it though, action and scandal get better ratings than a huge amount of people standing still in one place.

[adamqd]

I think it's fair to be Honest, and quite funny to witness, I'm a big MJ Fan (Early Career), and I've watched the media Slander and destroy the man for 20 years. People refused to affiliate themselves with him, Went on TV saying he was a Child Molester, a title which his peers found him innocent of, yet met no lawsuit. Many a time a much more important news article has been sidelined for "MJ has another Nose Job :o", now the same is happening now he has died... to sell newspapers.

 

What I find most Disgusting is that the People who made a living from slandering the guy, are continuing to do so by reporting on his death, yet now its all "King Of POP, R.I.P :(".

 

The media are Parasites, and I have just as little respect for the Faux Mourners who have come out of the woodwork now that his Death has wiped the (alleged)Pedophile slate clean.

[JediAthos]

Jae, I have several issues with this, firstly I never agreed with the scale of upset over Diana's death - but she was an awful lot more philanthropic than MJ, and did an awful lot more for good causes than he did. I'm a massive MJ fan, I got History as soon as it came out as a kid - but that still doesn't change the fact that a child dies ever 4 seconds in the 3rd world, and that's something we can actually change...

 

Michael was known to have donated millions($300 million according to this article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_philanthropists) to various charitable foundations. He was the driving force behind the United Support of Artists for Africa campaign which raised over $100 million to help famine in Africa.

 

I think it's kind of apples and oranges to compare Diana to Michael in that they were two different types of people with two very different positions in society. I do remember watching Diana's funeral on television, and at the time I was studying journalism and don't remember thinking of it as sensationalism.

[mimartin]

Anytime the media goes 24 hours a day on one subject they resort to sensationalism to keep their viewers entertained (notice I did not write informed). I only stated that the Princess Diana’s funeral was also televised, I did not write nor did I imply it was sensationalized. However, the media coverage during that time was sensationalized with the speculation about her death without considering the facts. I remember that speculation even included stories of her possible assassination by the Royal Family. That was real comforting information to be put into the public eye when you think about all her children were dealing with.

[JediAthos]

I see what you're saying mimartin...and now that you've pointed it out I do remember the wild speculation about the cause of the accident etc...I suppose its similar to the speculation regarding factors in Michael's death(involvement of drugs etc...)

[Totenkopf]

The media built up her image and was equally ravenous to tear it down. If it bleeds, it leads is like a dogma for the modern media. I have to wonder about the people they use to gauge their ratings. If talking about something other than the latest celebrity scandal causes a drop in ratings, perhaps those people should be removed from the ratings equation.

[igyman]

Yeah, but if they do that, they'll lose money - in the end that's what it's all about.

[mattig89ch]

*shakes head* i do I agree with the original point.

 

Like a few of you, I only really like thriller. Everything else is 'meh'.

 

So he did do alot to pop, but there's no reason to be crying over this. While is molestations were never proven in court, doesn't mean he didn't do it.

 

*Shrugs* thats my two cents.

[JediAthos]

*shakes head* i do I agree with the original point.

 

Like a few of you, I only really like thriller. Everything else is 'meh'.

 

So he did do alot to pop, but there's no reason to be crying over this. While is molestations were never proven in court, doesn't mean he didn't do it.

 

*Shrugs* thats my two cents.

 

 

"Meh" perhaps to you...but Dangerous, Bad, History, and Invincible all debuted at number one.

 

No reason to be crying would be a matter of opinion I would think...as Michael's friends, family, and devout fans have lost someone dear to them at a young age and very suddenly.

 

Do I believe the media coverage is overblown...most likely...I have an extremely low opinion of the media in general and to think I wanted to be a journalist at one time...*sigh*

[Pho3nix]

And I'm not letting my personal feelings get in the way. I am making my contempt for Jackson very apparent in this, but it does not influence my opinion, as my contempt came from my opinion of him. Jackson was an entertainer who I might have respected, had he continued being the charismatic and amazing guy I heard him to be in the late 80's and early 90's. All I've ever seen him to be is a media junkie who acted like a child misbehaving in order to get attention. I didn't like him shoving his face in front of everyone's camera, but now every media network is shoving it beyond his grave.

Media junkie? I'm not sure where you're getting these claims from. He had been a celebrity since the age of 5, he was well established in media and pop culture around the world -- I don't think he could do much to avoid the media. And I doubt he wanted more attention than he was already receiving.

Every headline out there? So when President Obama goes to a summit in Russia to begin to mend our ties w/ the country and people hardly know about it because MJ has died...does that seem right to you?

snip. Every headline in the entertainment section perhaps?

[Darth_Yuthura]

snip Every headline in the entertainment section perhaps?

 

No, virtually every headline + the entertainment section.

[Astor]

Media junkie? I'm not sure where you're getting these claims from. He had been a celebrity since the age of 5, he was well established in media and pop culture around the world -- I don't think he could do much to avoid the media. And I doubt he wanted more attention than he was already receiving.

 

As i've said, i'm not a huge fan of Jackson, but I do agree on this - being in the spotlight was the only thing Jackson knew from an early age - which is why he became a recluse when he grew up (so much so that he reverted to a child-like state), so i'd hardly class him as a 'Media Junkie', especially when he spent most of the past decade trying to escape from the media.

[Darth InSidious]

He also had a screwy upbringing, too, and no-one, apparently, bothered to teach him restraint. An awful lot of his behaviour was childish, literally - if you look at what Neverland was, it was a giant kid's playroom.

[Q]

^I think that said screwy upbringing contributed more to his freak status than anything else. I think that the guy had little if any chance to ever be normal. Few people could grow up in such an environment and come out reasonably sane, and obviously he couldn't.

 

I almost feel sorry for the guy, or at least I would if I didn't believe that the first accusations of pedophilia (when he fled the country like Roman Polanski and then paid off the alleged victim) had some basis in fact.

[Darth InSidious]

^I think that said screwy upbringing contributed more to his freak status than anything else. I think that the guy had little if any chance to ever be normal. Few people could grow up in such an environment and come out reasonably sane, and obviously he couldn't.

Agreed, and the combination of that and stardom, super-wealth, and no-one around to say "no" to him I think are what screwed him up.

 

I almost feel sorry for the guy, or at least I would if I didn't believe that the first accusations of pedophilia (when he fled the country like Roman Polanski and then paid off the alleged victim) had some basis in fact.

I don't know; I'm quite convinced by the idea that he really didn't - like I said, there was something quite childish about the man, and I can well believe that he didn't touch them, even if his behaviour regardless crossed boundaries of acceptability. I also think that some people might well have tried it on... settling out of court is suspicious, though.

[Darth_Yuthura]

He also had a screwy upbringing, too, and no-one, apparently, bothered to teach him restraint. An awful lot of his behaviour was childish, literally - if you look at what Neverland was, it was a giant kid's playroom.

 

I had trouble taking the guy seriously as well, considering that he really was put into situations where he had to grow up early. To those who knew of him from an early age, was he immature, or did he display a good public image? Anyone who knew enough to show a different image to the public should have been mature enough to behave like a responsible adult. I think he acted more his age at 30 than at 45, but I could be wrong.