Michael Jackson ceremony coverage

It was gratifying to see that today's Boston Globe ran only one column on the Jackson ceremony buried inside.

 

I thought the same thing. There was no need for Sharpton to go there. He has no credibility in my mind. Jackson brought most of his troubles upon himself - and race had nothing to do with how the media covered or treated him.

On another note: Isn't it ironic that the same media that ripped Jackson apart before, during and after the child molestation cases - and even branded him "Jacko" - is now proclaiming that he was a great entertainer AND man?

Guess ratings will make TV folks do anything.

 

I think somebody said Larry King said he thought the ceremony was fine but puzzled why Michael was there (in the casket). I hope I heard it wrong and Larry didn't say that, cause I love Larry King. But WTF? It was a memorial service/funeral deal! I thought it all was fine. If somebody, anybody dies and people will pack an arena, go for it, networks and print publications. Cover it and cover all of it.

 

I know what you're saying, and to me, all the Jackson coverage was overkill, but I guess that's what happens when some of his stature dies. But the editor in me as to point out ....

Diana technically or otherwise was not a head of state.

 

The quote by Sharpton was "I want his children to know there was nothing strange about your daddy, it was strange what your daddy had to deal with."
And I understand where he's coming from. Michael Jackson was an oddity that stood out. Granted he did bizarre things to draw attention to himself, he still was a human being. He had feelings. Now, he's toes up just like we are all destined to go. Somehow, people forgot that the King of Pop was simply a human being who entertained people for a living.

 

I get hammered for posting non-sports subjects, but Michael jackson gets a pass?

 

Huh?

 

Why is there a thread about Michael jackson on sportsjournalists.com?

 

A.) the ones on sports and news are news.

B.) this one is about the coverage therein, making it a journalism topic.


What's confusing?

 

I started a thread once about biased coverage in favor of Obama and railed some about his hypocritical politics, and got swarmed by folks here blasting me for starting a non-sports thread. Guess you gotta be careful about what topic you bring up here, huh?

 

Was it on politics? Or did you start it on like sports and news?

Because that would be, I'd think, either politics or journalism topics only. I don't remember the thread. But bringing up that fight on this thread, which is a logical discussion on the right board, seems weird.

 

Was it this thread: http://www.sportsjournalists.com/forum/threads/62895/

which contained this:

And this:

First of all, you didn't start the thread. And then, when you did enter on page 2, it was with absolutely nothing objective about the coverage.