The MJ coverage begins to take a toll on CNN
July 08, 2009 5:22 pm ET by Eric Boehlert
As a rule, I think the less said about the excessive Michael Jackson coverage in recent weeks and days, the better. It goes without saying that the spectacle has morphed beyond news into something else entirely. And if Wolf Blitzer and Brian Williams and lots of other 'serious' journalists want to pretend, day after day, that Jackson's June death continues to constitute breaking news, then that's their problem.
But I think that this CNN chyron from late Wednesday afternoon does deserve comment, as it seems to have crossed all kinds of decency boundaries. And yes, it read, "What are Jackson kids really like":
Honestly, WTF? It's creepy enough that serious journalists chew up airtime discussing the custody possibilities of Jackson's kids. But to now poke and prod around the lives of elementary school-aged kids of a dead celebrity in hopes of finding out what they are "really like"? (Note that CNN had no interest in the kids when their father was alive.)
It's just beyond the pale for any mainstream news org. And CNN, for one, needs to rethink where it's going with this often pointless Jackson coverage.
I wonder if most people would quit watching it if they realized what kind of scavengers are putting it on the tv for them...
Watched alot of cspan because the news - outside of PBS - was barely watchable.
I did see Franken's swearing in,however...
And Demint's rant against Obama and Honduras and few other repubs trying to take up the cause.
And they just grew and grew, until they devoured each and every cable network, transforming everyone within into these cartoonish ghouls that have lsot all sense of propriety and perspective.
Wanna know what is so abyssmal about cable news?
One need only tune in the past 2 weeks.
The only thing that will change the coverage is if the networks discover a plane that can't land because the wheels are stuck. Well, that should be good for 8 hours, anyway.
I don't think that's true. "Michael Jackson" was one of those names, like "Bill Clinton" or "Britney Spears," that simply induces Pavlovian media responses. I remember reading stories a few years ago on no topic other than where Michael Jackson allegedly was at the time. (Not that they knew where he was, but the idea that he might be in a new place was enough to move the newswires.)
Therefore, I think that they had plenty of interest in his children before his death, but simply believed they had no way of finding out anything about them, and definitely no way to photograph or interview them. Now, they're probably thinking, "Hey, maybe now we can talk to them! Or people we know can!" And the craziness continues.
AP moved a story on Tuesday with the headline "Michael Jackson won't be out of the headlines anytime soon." Since AP makes the headlines, and decides what moves on its wires, it can only be interpreted as a threat: "We're not going to stop writing about this. Get used to it."
This voyeuristic tabloid culture is really just too much...