(I did an upgrade on the post I wrote last week concerning the coverage of Michael Jackson's death for my column in this week's Newton County News.)
When Elvis Presley died 32 years ago next month, Walter Cronkite almost did not put the item on the CBS Evening News.
That would have been a mistake. Not only was Elvis a cultural icon, but he was directly responsible for the merging of black and white music that helped spark the success of rock and roll in the mid to late ‘50s. He also was the first to successfully mix rock and video through his movies.
But Cronkite correctly did not lead with Elvis’ death. It was the second story that night.
The days of Walter Cronkite on the evening news ended 28 years ago. If Elvis died today and he didn’t lead the story with it he probably would have been fired…and that does not say much about the media.
Neither does the overkill in coverage we have seen since Michael Jackson’s death Thursday night. I can certainly understand the news value. Not only was Jackson a major recording artist and cultural figure from 1969 on, but he has also been a fixture in the tabloids and the courts. His name has never been out of the public eye for long. And let's say what most of the network commentators appear to be doing their best to avoid saying- the Michael Jackson coverage is not about the legacy of his music. That would have warranted considerable coverage but nothing like the 24-hour-a-day coverage we are getting now.
No, Michael Jackson is being covered because of his freakish behavior of the past two decades...and, of course, because he died at a relatively young age.
If it had just been about the music, then the 24 hour news cycle would have been dominated a couple of years back when Ray Charles died.
And it wasn't just Michael Jackson. The overkill was there, though to a lesser extent, for Farrah Fawcett. Her most newsworthy accomplishments were one year on "Charlie's Angels," (33 years ago at that) and a pinup that was the most famous since Betty Grable's in World War II. Otherwise, she has existed primarily in celebrity and tabloid coverage.
I wonder what would have happened if someone whose life was not a tabloid fixture, but whose life was marked with groundbreaking accomplishments had happened to die on the same day as Michael Jackson and Farrah Fawcett. Someone like Neil Armstrong, Henry Kissinger, John Glenn, or Colin Powell. Or Walter Cronkite for that matter.
Since there is no controversy surrounding Neil Armstrong (other than the conspiracy freaks who think he never actually stepped foot on the moon) and he has led a private life, my guess would be he would get a segment on the evening news, perhaps a special (if no celebrity died the same night) and then that would be it.
Even Kissinger, whose time in public life has been steeped in controversy, but who was responsible for major accomplishments (and a couple of major debacles) in foreign policy during his time as national security advisor and secretary of state, would probably not receive much more.
Think about the coverage of those who have died over the past several years. The big headlines and 24-hour coverage have been afforded to Princess Diana, John F. Kennedy Jr and Anna Nicole Smith, all of whom were tabloid fixtures.
The only one I can think of right offhand who actually merited blanket coverage and received it was Ronald Reagan.
Even people like Mother Teresa and Gerald Ford did not have the coverage their lives and accomplishments merited. Not even Pope John Paul reached heights of Michael Jackson, Princess Diana, JFK Jr. or Anna Nicole.
Sadly, in this society if a John Glenn, Colin Powell, or Neil Armstrong died last Thursday, we still would have heard and read far more about the deaths of Michael Jackson and Farrah Fawcett.
That is not only an indictment of our media, but it says a lot about how superficial our society is becoming.
That depends on one's definition of "superficiial." Michael Jackson had been a star since 1968. Five of his solo albums are the biggest sellers in history. His trial on a morals charge--which ended in six not-guilty verdicts--captivated the nation (and probably did not deserve the coverage his death has received). He is a member of the Songwriters Hall of Fame. His planned tour had already sold $90 million in tickets. Elvis Presley and Jackson were forces both inside and outside the world of entertainment. Their early deaths (Presley was only 42) pose questions about the price of fame, and the all-pervasiveness of drugs they both received legally, with the help of the people Jackson's ex-wife aptly terms "leeches."
ReplyDeleteTo leave it to journalists, even Cronkite, to decide what is "important" and what is not exults scions of a profession that celebrates the superficial every day. The death of Michael Jackson is "news": Both the Globe and the Springfield paper were quite right to put it on page one.
Remember too, that today there are hundreds of TV networks/offshoots purporting to report "news" -- which more correctly is the mere dissemination of information that very often is inspecific, slanted, unexamined and incorrect.
The thing that you forgot is that we all have the power to change the channel (we have hundreds to choose from), turn off the tv, throw out the paper, not read what we don't want to, or don't buy it in the first place. This is America, we all have our rights and freedoms thanks to our soilders who probably listen to a lot of Michael Jackson music.
ReplyDeleteAs someone who always liked Michael Jackson's music, I have to agree the coverage is excessive. He was planning a comeback which probably would have been successful.
ReplyDeleteWas he weird? Definitely. Were there reasons? If stories about vitiligo were accurate and given his excessive desire and probable dependence on changing his face and now obvious dependence on painkillers, I would also say yes. Outside of his music, more tragic than anything else.
Farrah did have a couple of movies dealing with spousal abuse which were heavyweight acting. That said, she may have had some real life first hand knowledge of the subject.
Given the state of our space program and their personal longevity, I tend to believe Neil Armstrong and John Glenn probably won't get much coverage. Colin Powell should get noticed but I would think on a limited basis. Like Armstrong and Glenn, the majority of the public is unlikely to remember far enough back to know anything about Kissinger and his successes and failures. I doubt he gets much more coverage than Karl Maldin did.
Princess Diana was something of a mystery. Who or what was the cause? Was the Royal Family behind it? (wiggling my eyebrows) An up and coming JFK Jr.? Again, something of a mystery with traces of Camelot and the tragedy that has always been part of the Kennedy legacy. Anna Nicole Smith, the air head/one half step above prostitution? A total waste of air time.
Face it Randy. We're getting o-l-d.
On that last point, I will agree with you. And you are right about how well those people are remembered. That being said, I contend that it is the news media's duty to make a younger generation understand the importance of these people. Not with wall-to-wall, 24-hour-a-day coverage, but by devoting enough time and space to allow these lives to be fully appreciated///even by those who don't necessarily have any idea of the role these people played in changing our society.
ReplyDelete