There was no use stopping it. There was no use writing a post during it. It was like watching a friend make a fool of themselves at a bar after their tenth shot of tequila—let the insanity take its course; reason and logic won’t apply until the morning after.
But now it is the morning after the orgy that was the Michael Jackson farewell coverage, and it’s time the media, now sobering up after having drunk the Michael Kool Aid, be held accountable for all the hype. Afterall, the second biggest story that no one in the media has been addressing has been the media itself, and its behavior has brought up a slew of questions about what it (and not necessarily what we as viewers) values as news and who we value as important.
On the morning of Michael Jackon’s death, the biggest story was the death of another entertainment icon, Farah Fawcett. In her case, the 70’s pin up star had waged a very public battle with cancer, raised awareness about an under researched disease with a documentary not only about her illness but also alternative treatments, and had brought to the surface a serious problem in patient confidentiality. (Her medical records were repeatedly accessed unlawfully and leaked to the tabloids). All noble life indeed. MSNBC had even devoted large chunks of air time to repeated airings of Farrah’s Story, a documentary chronicaling her life and struggle. Then Jackson died, and Farah and a majority of her programming was dropped like a cheap date. Even the magazines, which probably had prepared to run full pages images of her, ran instead small passport sized shots of her in the corners of some magazines and some dropped her photo entirely. And while Jackson was a bigger start (that’s a given), the media communicated to the world that this person fundamentally was worth more. But why? Fawcett as of late had been a champion for cancer research and survivorship. Jackson grabbed his crotch and hung babies out the window. What kind of value system does this communicate? Fight hard against a disease of which you are a victim and raise awareness for a cause or have body issues, act erratically, and have a slew of legal problems?* In the end, the media rewarded the latter. And that says something not about the two subjects, but about the media itself.
The coverage of Michael Jackson’s death was even bigger than the Pope’s, maybe even Princess Diana’s. He may have been the “King of Pop” but that was according to him…not any outside source and especially not the media who oft referred to him as “Wako Jacko” in lieu of anything else. Why the sudden change? The royal treatment has been disingenuous. It’s straight up bandwagoning. Instead of being a leader in the news, the news is following right along with the rest of the flock. Independent it is not.
Meanwhile, Iran, perhaps the biggest threat to the United States currently other than North Korea, is going through the most important election in Middle East let alone Iranian history, and the United States is officially leaving Iraq! While this perhaps is a political godsend for both Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Barak Obama who are able to skate through such controversial and major events without scrutiny, the media has kept us in the dark about these much more important developments and instructed us that debating the significance of the glove is much more important than our own national security. If the media is supposed to be a cornerstone of democracy and one of their core values is to minimize harm and tell the truth, they aren’t living up to their function. They’re harming our society by informing us that mere fame is more important than struggle, and that glitz is more central to our understanding of ourselves and our society than our international struggles and revolutions.
When a famous person the likes of Michael Jackson dies, the media has no choice but to cover his death and to cover it with some depth. But the media does have a choice in how they cover it and against what other stories will they give it preferential treatment. And when they do give it such preferential treatment, they better have a strong case other than a case for ratings that is in line with their mission. Sadly, with Michael Jackson, I don’t think they have one.
There’s no use arguing with a friend on a high. But now that the dust has settled and Michael is in the ground, let’s hope the media comes down to earth and while on it’s walk of shame home from the party, take stock of what it should value rather than what it currently does.
Copyright David R. Norton 2009
