Michael Jackson ceremony coverage

Go ahead and tell yourself that's what NDub meant.
BTW, did I kick your dog or something, dude?

 

OK, so let MTV own the story.

I watched two hours of the Today Show waiting for my wife to have a routine test done.

Excluding weather breaks, they did about 7 minutes on Palin, about 5 minutes on other news and all the rest was Jackson.

Idiots.

 

Honestly, Jacko gives perverts a bad name...

 

Let's see ...

World superstar.
Changed music.
Controversial life.
Controversial death.
Memorial service attended by thousands.

I agree, what is the media thinking covering such a story?

 

That is what NDub meant. His music was an inspiration to some and enjoyed by some. Not all. Notice I didn't put a percentage on some.

Spending all resources and time on Jackson coverage was unnecessary. They were talking, reporting and covering from like 6 a.m. on. Shit, it was, what, 3 a.m. in LA at that time? Is that REALLY necessary?

The man was a pervert, a pill popper and married, what, three times? What kind of message does that send when such a person is glorified as some saint by every national TV medium in the country?

 

Michael Jackson ceremony is what people are talking about (the vast majority anyway).

Coverage reflects that.

 

So should we not cover pro sports? Lots of pill poppers and perverts there.

Also, the coverage since his death has been pretty even. Lots of stuff about his financial problems, drug habits and legal problems.

Today was his memorial service. It was a news event, and I'm guessing for many, whether you like it or not, a once-in-a-lifetime event. Covering it ipretty much was a no-brainer.

 

I'll be interested to see whether the coverage dies off after the funeral. My guess is that it will a little bit but will still dominate the TV.

Me personally, I was interested in the story the day he died and would like to know what caused his death. But much of the coverage has been "experts" speculating about the entire situation. Lots of "we think this is what happened" and very little "this IS what happened." More fluff than substance.

 

Interesting to me that -- for him, against him -- a lot of people who were never in the same room with Michael Jackson seem to know with certainty what he did, what he did not do.

And if someone is looking for TV networks to give them the news, then maybe that should be revisited. You're many, many years too late with that wish.

 

I know I'm plenty late with my frustrations, JD. Part of why I hate the 24-hour news cycle. Always have to find something about which to talk, even if it's pointless babble. But it still bugs the hell out of me.

 

Judging by apparent resistance by some in the House to go along with Sheila Jackson Lee's attempt to pass an honorary resolution for Jackson, I'm guessing CNN, FOX and MSNBC will be able to get a second wind on this one.

 

Going a little off topic here, but I was a bit troubled by some of Sharpton's comments, something like "to his 3 kids, just know there was nothing weird about your dad, the way he was treated was weird" (don't remember the exact wording). Look, it's one thing to gloss over a man's flaws at his funeral, no problem there, but the revisionist Jacko history seems to me a bit troubling. I respect Sharpton's lifelong commitment to social justice, but I think he lost a lot of cred on that one.