PDA

View Full Version : Michael Jackson Nonsense


urluckyday
07-07-2009, 06:56 PM
Well, by now, it's still all over the news and everywhere else, but I find myself wondering where all this "support" is coming from. I fully understand his amazing impact on the music industry forever, but I also find myself agreeing (to a point) with Peter King's statement on Jackson...

I mean, everyone knows about his outlandish plastic surgery, the treatment of his children (especially dangling a baby over a balcony), the treatment of children other than his own, etc. Since I was never around during his most popular days, I've only ever known him as a creep, and while some people may think that I can't possibly know his impact on music as a whole...I do. However, doesn't anyone think that this media coverage, recognition, public support, goes a little too far for a guy that had many abnormalities in the physical and social sense?

I applaud MJ for going on so long with the hateful and cruel rumors that tarnished his name, but I also don't think that he was still a "good" person because of it.

This idea in America and around the world that professional singers, actors, sports stars, etc. are immune to just about every mishap (including the alleged pedophilia and related problems) continues to astound me. It's the same situation with steroids in sports. You cheated, but you are still able to return. Now, if I was to cheat in college, steal or lie in a job or something like that...I'd be kicked out or lose my job in an instant, and I'd be hard-pressed to find another place to go...it's the same thing with MJ's child problems...first of all...I'd go to jail, but that aside...I'd be stuck without a job and yet, he can make millions and receive that much reaction at the time of his death. It's always sad when someone dies...but people should be remembered by their lifetime of achievements and legacies and not just their most memorable or appealing moments.

For example: If a rapist had donated to charities, helped out in the community, etc. before they had violated someone, people don't usually judge their life as being a success just because they had made only one really bad choice but rather, most view their life as wasted and disgusting...

I'm sorry if this doesn't sit well with some of you, but I don't think that Jackson deserves let alone requires this much coverage for his death.

All I can say is...for someone with such a controversial lifestyle, he's getting a lot of love and coverage from people and the media...

If I was going to die tomorrow, I guess the media would need to free up the entire year with daily coverage to cover my death because I've never broken any laws or lived in a way that has drawn so much controversy...

Anyway...that's just my two cents...I don't mean to offend but rather make conversation...

Here's the Peter King video...I don't think his bluntness is the way to go, but I do think he makes a good point in that there's something amiss in all of this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2RmneMDZlWQ

jonathan7
07-07-2009, 07:06 PM
I think he's bang out of order in so far as Michael Jackson was never found guilty by a court of law of any counts of child molesting; what that man is saying is libel; I hate this whole trial by media, and trail without knowing the facts.

That said I do concur with his general point and that I don't get what all the hysteria regarding his death is about.

Q
07-07-2009, 07:18 PM
Some of you, OK a LOT of you, weren't around yet when this guy was huge, and he was HUGE.

Beatles huge, to put it into perspective.

Totenkopf
07-07-2009, 07:18 PM
Blame it on the media's obsession w/celebrity. Who knows....maybe in a few years we'll hear about Elvis and Michael hanging out w/Marilyn somewhere. American pop culture is weird. American media culture even loonier.

Darth_Yuthura
07-07-2009, 07:26 PM
And I am quite sick of the media making a big deal out of this guy's death. For god's sake; Robert Mcnamara had passed away after Jackson and the media was already over him before they were even done saying that Jackson was history. They limited the death of one of the most significant secretaries of stats in the last century to a single headline while they continued devoting pages upon pages to this fruitcake. Like he hadn't generated and squandered enough revenue in life, why should his corpse be expected to be worth any more?

Chevron 7 locke
07-07-2009, 07:36 PM
And I am quite sick of the media making a big deal out of this guy's death. For god's sake; Robert Mcnamara had passed away after Jackson and the media was already over him before they were even done saying that Jackson was history. They limited the death of one of the most significant secretaries of stats in the last century to a single headline while they continued devoting pages upon pages to this fruitcake. Like he hadn't generated and squandered enough revenue in life, why should his corpse be expected to be worth any more?


What do you expect? From what I've seen so far, the media doesn't really care about anything that doesn't involve celeberties anymore. Celeberties and what they do are the highpoint of the news all the time from what I've seen so far.

But the fact remains that MJ was the king of Pop and people all over the world loved his music. That...is why I think the press is giving him far more attention.

Astor
07-07-2009, 07:39 PM
I've never been Jackson's biggest fan (read: I liked Thriller, and that's it).

I was fine with the coverage of his death for the first day or so - but when Sky News has uninterrupted 24 hour coverage of his death for two whole days (albeit with about 20 minutes to talk about proper news), it began to become an annoyance, especially as I like to have the news on for most of the day.

Okay, so the man was a musical genius, deprived of a childhood, and he may or may not have engaged in appropriate acts with minors - but the whole world (including world leaders) doesn't need to come to a standstill because an already dying man is dead.

I expect this kind of coverage from Tabloid newspapers, who operate on sensationalism (after all, he was hardly normal), but not from News Networks that should really have better things to discuss.

Pho3nix
07-07-2009, 07:46 PM
And I am quite sick of the media making a big deal out of this guy's death. For god's sake; Robert Mcnamara had passed away after Jackson and the media was already over him before they were even done saying that Jackson was history. They limited the death of one of the most significant secretaries of stats in the last century to a single headline while they continued devoting pages upon pages to this fruitcake. Like he hadn't generated and squandered enough revenue in life, why should his corpse be expected to be worth any more?
Don't let your personal bias for him get in the way of rational thought.

He was (is) the king of pop. He deserves every headline out there. Personally, I dislike the fact that people seem to appreciate him more after his death. Which only echoes a sad truth, as said by John Lennon:

Everybody loves you when you're six feet under.

Darth_Yuthura
07-07-2009, 07:48 PM
What do you expect? From what I've seen so far, the media doesn't really care about anything that doesn't involve celeberties anymore. Celeberties and what they do are the highpoint of the news all the time from what I've seen so far.

No, the media wouldn't have made any hype out of Jackson if the American public simply didn't care. All I can say is that I'm not part of that crowd. Clearly there were enough who still liked that freak that he topped the news while Mcnamara faded into the mists of history.

And I'm not letting my personal feelings get in the way. I am making my contempt for Jackson very apparent in this, but it does not influence my opinion, as my contempt came from my opinion of him. Jackson was an entertainer who I might have respected, had he continued being the charismatic and amazing guy I heard him to be in the late 80's and early 90's. All I've ever seen him to be is a media junkie who acted like a child misbehaving in order to get attention. I didn't like him shoving his face in front of everyone's camera, but now every media network is shoving it beyond his grave.

urluckyday
07-07-2009, 08:36 PM
Don't let your personal bias for him get in the way of rational thought.

He was (is) the king of pop. He deserves every headline out there. Personally, I dislike the fact that people seem to appreciate him more after his death. Which only echoes a sad truth, as said by John Lennon:

Everybody loves you when you're six feet under.

Every headline out there? So when President Obama goes to a summit in Russia to begin to mend our ties w/ the country and people hardly know about it because MJ has died...does that seem right to you? He was famous and well-known for good and bad reasons...yes he was/is the king of pop, but that doesn't warrant more important and relevant headline news to be pushed aside...oh and not to mention the death of McNamara...someone who helped to keep this country safe during the Cuban Missile Crisis...but music is more important than that. :(

Gob
07-07-2009, 08:53 PM
Don't let your personal bias for him get in the way of rational thought.

He was (is) the king of pop. He deserves every headline out there. Personally, I dislike the fact that people seem to appreciate him more after his death. Which only echoes a sad truth, as said by John Lennon:

Everybody loves you when you're six feet under.

One of my favorite Lennon quotes, and I agree with you about the appreciation after death. I remember on my facebook status feed (Hip teen), everyone had "OMG Michael Jackson is dead this is so sad lolz" as their statuses. And most of these kids were talking smack about him a short while before. Mourning out of guilt is such an annoying trend.

mimartin
07-07-2009, 08:55 PM
I didn't like him shoving his face in front of everyone's camera,
huh?
http://images.mirror.co.uk/upl/m4/apr2009/0/1/michael-jackson-pic-xposure-294345795.jpg
He was an entertainer so sure he hungered for the spotlight, but he also fought hard to get out of the fishbowl his life became during his downtime.

The night he died I watched and listened to the media coverage including the tributes on radio station, but since then I steered away from it and have not seen any of it. Thank the maker for that ever present invention known as the remote control. Hate to see what you all would have done in the 70s when there were like only 6 station per market (if you were lucky).

If you don't want to watch it do like me, change the channel.

Some of you, OK a LOT of you, weren't around yet when this guy was huge, and he was HUGE.

Beatles huge, to put it into perspective. QFT

Mandalore The Shadow
07-07-2009, 09:01 PM
i know we can get endless coverage of a child molester but we cant get coverage of more inportant things like... lets the think... the war thats going on

Darth_Yuthura
07-07-2009, 10:04 PM
i know we can get endless coverage of a child molester but we cant get coverage of more inportant things like... lets the think... the war thats going on

What war?


You do have a point though; I consider the events of any one person to be too small to mention continuously on national news for more than one day. I wouldn't be bothered seeing mention of Jackson 'fans' selling tickets to his funeral concert in the Entertainment column, but when a large fraction of the news is related to one event, it had better be a significant event... 9/11 was a significant event. Why should the loss of one celebrity be taken as significantly as 2400 who were murdered?

Q
07-07-2009, 10:12 PM
Um, I don't know, because life isn't fair? :giveup:

Mandalore The Shadow
07-07-2009, 10:17 PM
What war?


You do have a point though; I consider the events of any one person to be too small to mention continuously on national news for more than one day. I wouldn't be bothered seeing mention of Jackson 'fans' selling tickets to his funeral concert in the Entertainment column, but when a large fraction of the news is related to one event, it had better be a significant event... 9/11 was a significant event. Why should the loss of one celebrity be taken as significantly as 2400 who were murdered?

The war in Iraq that the US is fighting my father was there and i dont know why so little people even know there is a war it discusts me

Gob
07-07-2009, 10:34 PM
The U.S. is pulling out of Iraqi cities.

mimartin
07-07-2009, 10:53 PM
If you want to discuss please continue. If all you’re doing is spamming this thread you better go away. This is your only warning. ~ mimartin :(

Totenkopf
07-07-2009, 11:19 PM
The night he died I watched and listened to the media coverage including the tributes on radio station, but since then I steered away from it and have not seen any of it. Thank the maker for that ever present invention known as the remote control.

That and the DVD/VCR if you don't have cable. ;)

JediAthos
07-07-2009, 11:26 PM
Beatles huge would be a good way to describe the far reaching influence that Michael Jackson had/has over popular music. Without the things he did with his music and his videos the face of the music industry today would be very different. He influenced artists across numerous genres and even non musicians by their own admission, and had millions of fans across the globe.

To those who would say that he shoved his face in front of everyone's camera to gain attention...I would think that perhaps you should turn that around and examine the fact that maybe...just maybe the media, and the paparazzi were the ones doing the shoving. They do it consistently on a daily basis.

The American "national news media" ceased being journalistic a long time ago and really are no better than tabloids these days. So, as has been said, if you disagree with the amount of coverage change the channel..also perhaps you should look at the source of the coverage rather than the object of the coverage with your complaints and questions.

If indeed he did some of the things he was accused of(and exonerated of for that matter) why was he continued to be allowed near children..including his own? Why did so many people continue to support him if he was truly a monster?

I am not defending any of the questionable things he did...but I submit that perhaps the real Michael Jackson is not that some in the public continue to paint a picture of.

Jae Onasi
07-07-2009, 11:31 PM
That said I do concur with his general point and that I don't get what all the hysteria regarding his death is about.
He was loved by many like Princess Diana was loved, to give you some UK perspective. He was someone who grew up in the media and lived a life many would dream about--being a rock star. He was a troubled person, which drew entirely too much attention from many who were only interested in sordid details, but it also drew sympathy by many who could relate to the fact that underneath the publicity veneer, he was an imperfect human like everyone else. Losing someone who had the impact on the music community to the same degree as the Beatles or Elvis is hard. Losing someone at his relatively young age is even harder. Those of us who grew up with him have lost a part of our youth.

@Darth_Yuthura--I agree with you that the coverage is entirely unbalanced--I didn't even hear that McNamara had died yesterday, and he had a huge impact on not only our involvement in the Vietnam war, but a number of other international activities.

mimartin
07-07-2009, 11:39 PM
The American "national news media" ceased being journalistic a long time ago and really are no better than tabloids these days. I’d say that the problem with the media and paparazzi in particular is not merely an American phenomenon. Let’s not forget in 1997 a non-American death was all over the media and that funeral was also televised world wide.

http://www.timboucher.com/journal/wp-content/uploads/2007/03/princess-diana-14913.jpg

Web Rider
07-08-2009, 12:22 AM
I’d say that the problem with the media and paparazzi in particular is not merely an American phenomenon. Let’s not forget in 1997 a non-American death was all over the media and that funeral was also televised world wide.

http://www.timboucher.com/journal/wp-content/uploads/2007/03/princess-diana-14913.jpg

While I suspect you might have been able to make a good point about overzealous paparazzi with that, comparing the world' obsession with Princess Di to the media's obsession with Michael Jackson is like comparing a paper cut to a hole in the head.

urluckyday
07-08-2009, 12:35 AM
^huh?

Web Rider
07-08-2009, 12:46 AM
^huh?

Please tell me you know who Princess Diana was and how influential she was to the world? Because the boiled down comparason of "Her death was televised a lot just like MJ!" by Mimartin is frankly rather insulting.

mimartin
07-08-2009, 12:46 AM
Since this thread is dealing with the media coverage of Michael Jackson death. I will stand by my comparison to how Princess Di’s death was handled by the world’s media. My statement had nothing to do with who deserved the coverage more.

urluckyday
07-08-2009, 12:53 AM
Please tell me you know who Princess Diana was and how influential she was to the world? Because the boiled down comparason of "Her death was televised a lot just like MJ!" by Mimartin is frankly rather insulting.

I'm pretty sure that I know all about Diana...

But you finding it insulting is almost reinforcing the point of this thread. Isn't there something amiss from a professional singer that had an extremely controversial lifestyle that gets just as much if not more media coverage than a princess that helped thousands around the world?

Darth_Yuthura
07-08-2009, 12:55 AM
This thread is likely not going to have much in the way of sites, so I'll try and make this as worthwhile as I can.

I can only speak as to my opinions of MJ and I would say that based on what I've seen of him, that he was a freak. Other people have seen him from a time earlier in his life and I would not be surprised if those people have a different opinion of him. However I would ask that people not make an idol out of this person because he stopped being an idol at some point in his life and wasn't taken seriously anymore. All the plastic surgeries, child abuse charges, and controversial lifestyle dilemmas just don't make him a likable person.

That's why I judge him harshly, because he hasn't given anyone any reason to be concerned with him anymore.

The war in Iraq that the US is fighting my father was there and i dont know why so little people even know there is a war it discusts me

This thread is not directed to attack the relevance of the Iraqi war, but whether the presence of Jackson in the media is proper. I absolutely agree that those who risk their lives for this nation should be the first ones recognized; not media parasites like Jackson.

Web Rider
07-08-2009, 01:24 AM
Since this thread is dealing with the media coverage of Michael Jackson death. I will stand by my comparison to how Princess Di’s death was handled by the world’s media. My statement had nothing to do with who deserved the coverage more.
For entirely different reasons, MJ is covered a lot because people who have no life other than music are quite numerous. Diana was covered a lot because she made a huge impact on the world. The media is covering MJ because they're attention #*$(@s, the media covered Diana because she was a role model, she helped people, she was all sorts of things that MJ never was. The media covered her because people genuinely cared about the things she did. The media is covering MJ because people who love him that much have no life and the media know they'll watch it and get good ratings.

Not to mention that her funeral got even MORE press because of the way the British monarchy handled it. I mean, gawd man, the reasons MJ is being covered and the reasons Diana was covered are worlds apart.

I'm pretty sure that I know all about Diana...

But you finding it insulting is almost reinforcing the point of this thread. Isn't there something amiss from a professional singer that had an extremely controversial lifestyle that gets just as much if not more media coverage than a princess that helped thousands around the world?

Yes I don't like that, but that wasn't his comparason. His comparason was that the reasoning behind covering MJ's death and Diana's death was the same. The media likes to whore out a death.

Lord of Hunger
07-08-2009, 01:31 AM
You know, I loved The Daily Show's reaction to the whole thing (for those of you watch it, you probably know what I'm talking about) True, there is the crowd mentality going on, but this was about the media talking about...themselves.
OMG!
Like, we know!

To put this in a droid perspective:

Mockery: Oh master, a major celebrity meatbag has died! I will now proceed to talk about my insignificant feelings on that matter as if I was your best friend, despite the fact that I am a professional news reporter and you will not give a ****. But given that you are a meatbag you will watch me anyway and my ratings will skyrocket. I will also omit the fact that a Presidential meatbag in Honduras was removed by a military coup, since that is obviously worth your time to know about.

To put it bluntly, Michael Jackson's death is not what this about. This is about the media and the crowd having an emotion fest. Just like Madoff's trial, or anything significant that the media does report. A coup in Honduras, what's there to get worked up about? Only a democracy activist would care enough to get emotional about it, so they only report about it because they have to. They report Michael Jackson's death, Madoff's trial, that French flight that crashed, or a murder case, because you get emotional about it. Emotion generates devotion, devotion generates ratings, ratings generates money, money generates jobs, jobs generate stability, stability generates some degree of normality, and normality is what everyone wants.

Why read 1984 or Brave New World? This planet is filled with small dystopian situations already.

mimartin
07-08-2009, 01:34 AM
You are completely wrong about my reasoning and since you wish to assign your own meaning to the words I have written down I give up.

I’d say that the problem with the media and paparazzi in particular is not merely an American phenomenon. Let’s not forget in 1997 a non-American death was all over the media and that funeral was also televised world wide.


While I suspect you might have been able to make a good point about overzealous paparazzi with that, comparing the world'obsession with Princess Di to the media's obsession with Michael Jackson is like comparing a paper cut to a hole in the head. :rolleyes: media =/ world's

Jae Onasi
07-08-2009, 01:45 AM
I'm pretty sure that I know all about Diana...

But you finding it insulting is almost reinforcing the point of this thread. Isn't there something amiss from a professional singer that had an extremely controversial lifestyle that gets just as much if not more media coverage than a princess that helped thousands around the world?
I find it just as disappointing that the woman who died about the same time as Princess Diana, Mother Theresa, was virtually a footnote in the news in comparison. I think it speaks to our priorities, unfortunately.


Not to mention that her funeral got even MORE press because of the way the British monarchy handled it. I mean, gawd man, the reasons MJ is being covered and the reasons Diana was covered are worlds apart.The reason both funerals were covered with worldwide coverage is because the media knew the public would eat it up and they would gain ratings. Pure and simple.

Master Shake
07-08-2009, 02:42 AM
Musician's death>everything else.

jonathan7
07-08-2009, 06:19 AM
He was loved by many like Princess Diana was loved, to give you some UK perspective. He was someone who grew up in the media and lived a life many would dream about--being a rock star. He was a troubled person, which drew entirely too much attention from many who were only interested in sordid details, but it also drew sympathy by many who could relate to the fact that underneath the publicity veneer, he was an imperfect human like everyone else. Losing someone who had the impact on the music community to the same degree as the Beatles or Elvis is hard. Losing someone at his relatively young age is even harder. Those of us who grew up with him have lost a part of our youth.

Jae, I have several issues with this, firstly I never agreed with the scale of upset over Diana's death - but she was an awful lot more philanthropic than MJ, and did an awful lot more for good causes than he did. I'm a massive MJ fan, I got History as soon as it came out as a kid - but that still doesn't change the fact that a child dies ever 4 seconds in the 3rd world, and that's something we can actually change...

igyman
07-08-2009, 06:20 AM
My impression about the US media is that everything has to be a show, which is why it's not surprising that they'd devote a lot of their airtime to things like this. It's not about objectivity and reporting the actual news, it's about reporting anything scandalous.

For example, I remember when Kosovo declared independence and there was a huge peaceful protest here in Belgrade (don't remember the exact number, but it was several hundred thousand people). Unfortunately, there were also some fourty-fifty idiots who thought it would be smart to get drunk and attack the US embassy. Guess which event got covered by CNN. The huge peaceful protest was mentioned once or twice in passing, but footage of the attack was shown for hours and reported upon as if it were the only reaction to Kosovo's independence. I get it though, action and scandal get better ratings than a huge amount of people standing still in one place.

adamqd
07-08-2009, 08:43 AM
I think it's fair to be Honest, and quite funny to witness, I'm a big MJ Fan (Early Career), and I've watched the media Slander and destroy the man for 20 years. People refused to affiliate themselves with him, Went on TV saying he was a Child Molester, a title which his peers found him innocent of, yet met no lawsuit. Many a time a much more important news article has been sidelined for "MJ has another Nose Job :o", now the same is happening now he has died... to sell newspapers.

What I find most Disgusting is that the People who made a living from slandering the guy, are continuing to do so by reporting on his death, yet now its all "King Of POP, R.I.P :(".

The media are Parasites, and I have just as little respect for the Faux Mourners who have come out of the woodwork now that his Death has wiped the (alleged)Pedophile slate clean.

JediAthos
07-08-2009, 09:56 AM
Jae, I have several issues with this, firstly I never agreed with the scale of upset over Diana's death - but she was an awful lot more philanthropic than MJ, and did an awful lot more for good causes than he did. I'm a massive MJ fan, I got History as soon as it came out as a kid - but that still doesn't change the fact that a child dies ever 4 seconds in the 3rd world, and that's something we can actually change...

Michael was known to have donated millions($300 million according to this article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_philanthropists) to various charitable foundations. He was the driving force behind the United Support of Artists for Africa campaign which raised over $100 million to help famine in Africa.

I think it's kind of apples and oranges to compare Diana to Michael in that they were two different types of people with two very different positions in society. I do remember watching Diana's funeral on television, and at the time I was studying journalism and don't remember thinking of it as sensationalism.

mimartin
07-08-2009, 10:13 AM
Anytime the media goes 24 hours a day on one subject they resort to sensationalism to keep their viewers entertained (notice I did not write informed). I only stated that the Princess Diana’s funeral was also televised, I did not write nor did I imply it was sensationalized. However, the media coverage during that time was sensationalized with the speculation about her death without considering the facts. I remember that speculation even included stories of her possible assassination by the Royal Family. That was real comforting information to be put into the public eye when you think about all her children were dealing with.

JediAthos
07-08-2009, 10:19 AM
I see what you're saying mimartin...and now that you've pointed it out I do remember the wild speculation about the cause of the accident etc...I suppose its similar to the speculation regarding factors in Michael's death(involvement of drugs etc...)

Totenkopf
07-08-2009, 11:24 AM
The media built up her image and was equally ravenous to tear it down. If it bleeds, it leads is like a dogma for the modern media. I have to wonder about the people they use to gauge their ratings. If talking about something other than the latest celebrity scandal causes a drop in ratings, perhaps those people should be removed from the ratings equation.

igyman
07-08-2009, 12:22 PM
Yeah, but if they do that, they'll lose money - in the end that's what it's all about.

mattig89ch
07-08-2009, 12:55 PM
*shakes head* i do I agree with the original point.

Like a few of you, I only really like thriller. Everything else is 'meh'.

So he did do alot to pop, but there's no reason to be crying over this. While is molestations were never proven in court, doesn't mean he didn't do it.

*Shrugs* thats my two cents.

JediAthos
07-08-2009, 01:22 PM
*shakes head* i do I agree with the original point.

Like a few of you, I only really like thriller. Everything else is 'meh'.

So he did do alot to pop, but there's no reason to be crying over this. While is molestations were never proven in court, doesn't mean he didn't do it.

*Shrugs* thats my two cents.


"Meh" perhaps to you...but Dangerous, Bad, History, and Invincible all debuted at number one.

No reason to be crying would be a matter of opinion I would think...as Michael's friends, family, and devout fans have lost someone dear to them at a young age and very suddenly.

Do I believe the media coverage is overblown...most likely...I have an extremely low opinion of the media in general and to think I wanted to be a journalist at one time...*sigh*

Pho3nix
07-08-2009, 02:59 PM
And I'm not letting my personal feelings get in the way. I am making my contempt for Jackson very apparent in this, but it does not influence my opinion, as my contempt came from my opinion of him. Jackson was an entertainer who I might have respected, had he continued being the charismatic and amazing guy I heard him to be in the late 80's and early 90's. All I've ever seen him to be is a media junkie who acted like a child misbehaving in order to get attention. I didn't like him shoving his face in front of everyone's camera, but now every media network is shoving it beyond his grave.
Media junkie? I'm not sure where you're getting these claims from. He had been a celebrity since the age of 5, he was well established in media and pop culture around the world -- I don't think he could do much to avoid the media. And I doubt he wanted more attention than he was already receiving.
Every headline out there? So when President Obama goes to a summit in Russia to begin to mend our ties w/ the country and people hardly know about it because MJ has died...does that seem right to you?
snip. Every headline in the entertainment section perhaps?

Darth_Yuthura
07-08-2009, 03:03 PM
snip Every headline in the entertainment section perhaps?

No, virtually every headline + the entertainment section.

Astor
07-08-2009, 03:35 PM
Media junkie? I'm not sure where you're getting these claims from. He had been a celebrity since the age of 5, he was well established in media and pop culture around the world -- I don't think he could do much to avoid the media. And I doubt he wanted more attention than he was already receiving.

As i've said, i'm not a huge fan of Jackson, but I do agree on this - being in the spotlight was the only thing Jackson knew from an early age - which is why he became a recluse when he grew up (so much so that he reverted to a child-like state), so i'd hardly class him as a 'Media Junkie', especially when he spent most of the past decade trying to escape from the media.

Darth InSidious
07-08-2009, 08:30 PM
He also had a screwy upbringing, too, and no-one, apparently, bothered to teach him restraint. An awful lot of his behaviour was childish, literally - if you look at what Neverland was, it was a giant kid's playroom.

Q
07-08-2009, 08:49 PM
^I think that said screwy upbringing contributed more to his freak status than anything else. I think that the guy had little if any chance to ever be normal. Few people could grow up in such an environment and come out reasonably sane, and obviously he couldn't.

I almost feel sorry for the guy, or at least I would if I didn't believe that the first accusations of pedophilia (when he fled the country like Roman Polanski and then paid off the alleged victim) had some basis in fact.

Darth InSidious
07-08-2009, 09:10 PM
^I think that said screwy upbringing contributed more to his freak status than anything else. I think that the guy had little if any chance to ever be normal. Few people could grow up in such an environment and come out reasonably sane, and obviously he couldn't.
Agreed, and the combination of that and stardom, super-wealth, and no-one around to say "no" to him I think are what screwed him up.

I almost feel sorry for the guy, or at least I would if I didn't believe that the first accusations of pedophilia (when he fled the country like Roman Polanski and then paid off the alleged victim) had some basis in fact.
I don't know; I'm quite convinced by the idea that he really didn't - like I said, there was something quite childish about the man, and I can well believe that he didn't touch them, even if his behaviour regardless crossed boundaries of acceptability. I also think that some people might well have tried it on... settling out of court is suspicious, though.

Darth_Yuthura
07-08-2009, 09:14 PM
He also had a screwy upbringing, too, and no-one, apparently, bothered to teach him restraint. An awful lot of his behaviour was childish, literally - if you look at what Neverland was, it was a giant kid's playroom.

I had trouble taking the guy seriously as well, considering that he really was put into situations where he had to grow up early. To those who knew of him from an early age, was he immature, or did he display a good public image? Anyone who knew enough to show a different image to the public should have been mature enough to behave like a responsible adult. I think he acted more his age at 30 than at 45, but I could be wrong.

urluckyday
07-08-2009, 11:30 PM
Here's Bill O'Reilly's points...while I don't usually follow what he says and I take what he says in stride...he does bring up some interesting points and he does make for interesting argument...if nothing else he can be considered the devil's advocate on the subject...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0VsVyqQ2epo

mimartin
07-08-2009, 11:44 PM
Billy O’Reilly exploits Michael Jackson death for ratings and then complains against other media outlets doing the same. No spin indeed.:rolleyes:

Q
07-08-2009, 11:48 PM
Bill O'Reilly is such a shameless tabloid-TV whore. :lol:

JediAthos
07-08-2009, 11:51 PM
Bill O'Reilly is such a shameless tabloid-TV whore. :lol:

And that's news to who?:D O'Reilly uses just about every topic he rants about for ratings. I used to like the guy, but that was years ago before I realized that he was full of it 90% of the time.

Darth_Yuthura
07-08-2009, 11:51 PM
Bill O'Reilly: today's worst person in the world!

Well look on the bright side: with this whole disaster behind us now, he can't do anything more to get in the news. Anything beyond this point will be of events that have been done in the past and it will get tiring before long.

Darth InSidious
07-09-2009, 12:26 AM
I have a question: Why do you need his bullet-point comments reiterated in text on the side of the screen? And who gives a damn about Bill O'Reilly? He's a journalist and a very successful one; to do that, playing both sides of something can be an enormous help if it isn't actually necessary.

urluckyday
07-09-2009, 12:27 AM
Journalism is lame all around isn't it...

Darth InSidious
07-09-2009, 12:38 AM
No, I wouldn't say that; nevertheless, the proliferation, particularly in the last 20 years or so of needless commentary, to the extent that it gets in the way of reportage, is definitely not good.

Q
07-09-2009, 12:40 AM
I don't know; I'm quite convinced by the idea that he really didn't - like I said, there was something quite childish about the man, and I can well believe that he didn't touch them, even if his behaviour regardless crossed boundaries of acceptability. I also think that some people might well have tried it on...
I think that this is entirely possible. It's too bad that no one knows for certain, aside from the deceased and the alleged victim(s). His vindication would have been great if he were truly innocent .
settling out of court is suspicious, though.
Definitely, and that along with his fleeing the country are the reasons why I'm incapable of giving him the benefit of the doubt. I just can't look past it, though I can't honestly say that I believe that he was guilty either. It's a good thing that this mess isn't any more than a passing interest or it would really bother me.

Darth Avlectus
07-09-2009, 01:37 AM
Blame it on the media's obsession w/celebrity. Who knows....maybe in a few years we'll hear about Elvis and Michael hanging out w/Marilyn somewhere. American pop culture is weird. American media culture even loonier.

Which Marylin we talkin' about here, buddy. :dev9:

<snip> - but the whole world (including world leaders) doesn't need to come to a standstill because an already dying man is dead.

I expect this kind of coverage from Tabloid newspapers, who operate on sensationalism (after all, he was hardly normal), but not from News Networks that should really have better things to discuss.

Well, I'd personally chalk it all up to a problem with prioritizing in America's general mentality (speaking as an example, to an extent). It's like a freefall. since things require power, and we all know what that translates out to in economic terms, I think it should be no surprise whatsoever anymore that the news coverage accross the board is becoming more and more of a sugar coating factory and producing more and more of a joke.

Thank the maker for that ever present invention known as the remote control. Slacker. :dev8: C'mon, you oughtta be getting all excited, at least enough to get up and change it yourself. :lol:

Hate to see what you all would have done in the 70s when there were like only 6 station per market (if you were lucky). You mean the ones with turn dials? I actually have a few of those that have not become spare parts...yet. Grew up with those until my parents got a nice mitsubishi in 1989. Even so, I liked my bicycle too much since all that was ever on was the news anyway.

If you don't want to watch it do like me, change the channel. Or just get some fresh air and ride your bike.

True, there is the crowd mentality going on, but this was about the media talking about...themselves. This phenomena is called Narcisus colored idiot lantern... (Or EDIT in a box) :xp:


To put this in a droid perspective:

Mockery: Oh master, a major celebrity meatbag has died! I will now proceed to talk about my insignificant feelings on that matter as if I was your best friend, despite the fact that I am a professional news reporter and you will not give a ****. But given that you are a meatbag you will watch me anyway and my ratings will skyrocket. I will also omit the fact that a Presidential meatbag in Honduras was removed by a military coup, since that is obviously worth your time to know about.

PLAGARIZER! :swear: JK...actually I'm kind of glad someone elsedoing it besides me... (just don't do *exactly* like I do it and I'll be cool)

To put it bluntly, Michael Jackson's death is not what this about. This is about the media and the crowd having an emotion fest. Just like Madoff's trial, or anything significant that the media does report. A coup in Honduras, what's there to get worked up about? Only a democracy activist would care enough to get emotional about it, so they only report about it because they have to. They report Michael Jackson's death, Madoff's trial, that French flight that crashed, or a murder case, because you get emotional about it. Emotion generates devotion, devotion generates ratings, ratings generates money, money generates jobs, jobs generate stability, stability generates some degree of normality, and normality is what everyone wants.

Well, what was normality BEFORE TV was around, hmm?


My impression about the US media is that everything has to be a show, which is why it's not surprising that they'd devote a lot of their airtime to things like this. It's not about objectivity and reporting the actual news, it's about reporting anything scandalous.
Entertained until you go insane, as a saying was once.

It is rather insulting to fact finding people to be undercut in this way. Like all their work falls on blind and deaf crowds. What passes for research nowadays (like I'm any big expert on that one), is snippets and maere advertising for brainstorming ideas instead of the actual thing. This is part of why I think America is rumored to have one of the lowest counts of annually producing engineers and scientists of all the world's nations. It isn't hard to figure out when one could actually potentially make more money and be more successful mocking research rather than doing it for real.

For example, I remember when Kosovo declared independence and there was a huge peaceful protest here in Belgrade (don't remember the exact number, but it was several hundred thousand people). Unfortunately, there were also some fourty-fifty idiots who thought it would be smart to get drunk and attack the US embassy. Guess which event got covered by CNN.

Well there's your problems right there. Yeah, I know. THAT is how the media conditions people. to think and act. Almost a form of control.

I had too much a conscience for that. Sure $20/hr was a great sounding proposition, but by the time I graduated High School...I was rather done with all the cut-throat "gotta make ratings" mindset I'd seen in the professional realm as an amateur. Also, you can only do so many times of "cut to <insert gimmick distraction here>" in order to keep the crowd interested. Sure it worked, but to be honest, unless you're *totally* into showbiz, it's demeaning beyond belief. You'd probably be better off using your own breath, and blow cleaning motherboards for computers.

Yeah, but if they do that, they'll lose money - in the end that's what it's all about.

Sadly, when has it ever been about anything else? It is showbiz even if it supposed to be serious. Here is a flavor of it:

All those pasted smiles. Lights. Makeup. Props. Cameras. Blue-screen. Douche bag staff with some vice or another. Prima-donna security with a hair trigger temper. Guest executives with checkered pants snort-laughing at you b/c they make more $$$ in one hour than you do all week. Groupie girls who don't do anything but act like a cross between office courier and glorified wench. Idiots all around you that you have to work with. ...Pretty soon that's the least of your worries.

I wonder how many of those people actually love their jobs, vs how many come home in the evening and just flop down on their chair to let out a big sigh as though they have removed a mask. ...If not have a mini-breakdown lasting for a couple hours at least.

Darth_Yuthura
08-03-2009, 06:40 AM
Okay... so NOW they are discussing how Jackson's mother is trying to get custody of his estate. The mangy *********'s family are now taking the headlines. His physician is now being accused of a crime that Jackson ultimately did to himself. I just hope that this guy isn't charged with killing Jackson, or this is going to take headlines for months to come.

He's dead! He's had his moment in the spotlight and now I don't want him forced on us anymore... not like we ever did when he was alive. (For those who liked him, I said 'forced,' not invited.)

Jae Onasi
08-03-2009, 08:20 AM
Jackson's will stated his mother should get custody of the kids. How he has the rest of his estate taken care of is going to be according to his will.

His doctor gave him medications that clearly should never have been given to him outside of a monitored hospital setting, and it appears this may well have contributed to his death. Michael Jackson is not a doctor. He was receiving medication that he could receive only through his doctor's authorization and advice, and had to depend on that medical advice being reliable. It was up to his doctor to take responsibility for prescribing responsibly and according to law and state regulations. If his doctor violated any of those laws, regulations, or appropriate guidelines, and it appears the doctor did, then yes, Jackson's doctor should be brought up on charges related to his death--malpractice at the very least, involuntary homicide if he didn't treat appropriately, and homicide if it's proved at all that this was intentional.

It's the nature of the industry, and Jackson's death is news for many. Many people loved him and want to hear anything they can about his death. He meant a lot to a lot of people. If you don't like hearing about Jackson's death, then all you have to do is not watch the news, or turn it off when news about him is on. If you read news on the web or in the paper, just don't read those sections. It's not that big of a deal to ignore news that's not of interest to you.

Darth_Yuthura
08-03-2009, 09:56 AM
Actually it is to me. I intensely dislike seeing pop culture at the forefront of more serious topics in the news and simply am annoyed by the bold-faced titles that I cannot simply avoid. I haven't read a SINGLE article in regards to Jackson, which goes to show how much I know just by glancing at the headlines of front-page news sites.

This is an entertainer's death and nothing more. I DON'T believe that legal issues with the Jackson family's petty disputes belong outside the 'entertainment' column. Jackson's death may have been deserving of one or two front pages, but his family are by no means as newsworthy as the deceased pop star. Keep them off the front page of newspapers and websites and I won't have any complaints.

mimartin
08-03-2009, 12:58 PM
I just hope that this guy isn't charged with killing Jackson, or this is going to take headlines for months to come. Well I wouldn’t want you inconvenienced by this. I guess the prosecutor should just forget it. To heck with holding people responsible for their actions if it comes with any type of inconveniences to the rest of us. Does this only entail celebrities or does this apply to everyone? Because those Natalee Holloway and Laci Peterson type cases got annoying after a few weeks too.

purifier
08-03-2009, 01:33 PM
Bet'cha ya 10 to 1 that this ends up in a civil lawsuit sooner or later. And it will probably be MJ's father who trys to sue the doctor (suspect) by himself.

Then again, it could be the whole Jackson family that sues, but I wouldn't be surprised if the father filed first.

Astor
08-03-2009, 01:57 PM
Jackson's mother has been named permanent Guardian of his children - so that should put to bed that story at least, and (rightly) move the focus onto whether his Doctor is repsonsible for his death.

I've never been a Jackson fan, but if someone is responsible for his death (apart from himself, through his long abuse of medication), then I hope they recieve justice.

Jae Onasi
08-04-2009, 04:03 AM
Actually it is to me. I intensely dislike seeing pop culture at the forefront of more serious topics in the news and simply am annoyed by the bold-faced titles that I cannot simply avoid. I haven't read a SINGLE article in regards to Jackson, which goes to show how much I know just by glancing at the headlines of front-page news sites.

This is an entertainer's death and nothing more. I DON'T believe that legal issues with the Jackson family's petty disputes belong outside the 'entertainment' column. Jackson's death may have been deserving of one or two front pages, but his family are by no means as newsworthy as the deceased pop star. Keep them off the front page of newspapers and websites and I won't have any complaints.

Entertainment is a business, and so is reporting the news. The media's job is to make money for their shareholders. Forget the lofty crap about 'informing the people about newsworthy events'. It's a beautiful sentiment that got thrown out the window 15 years ago or more. People obviously are interested in the story. The media is doing what makes them money, regardless of how some feel about it. They're making a ton of money selling magazines and ad time on special productions about his life. There is a market for this news, and the media is making their shareholders happy.

The more I hear about the things this doctor has done, the more I suspect (alleged of course) gross negligence at the very least, misfeasance (treating him at home with medication that required hospital monitoring), nonfeasance (not calling 911 immediately once they ascertained he had no pulse or breathing), and possible malfeasance (if the doctor or someone else 'accidentally' gave him too much medication). Darth333 will likely chime in on this if I've gotten the terms wrong.... :D

Darth Avlectus
08-04-2009, 05:28 AM
Whatever the case, I cannot say this prosecution was entirely unforeseen. When it initially happened I was hearing comedians talking about how this is going to turn into a prosecution drama.

Beyond the BS: I hope if the doc is guilty that he gets what he deserves.

IT's nauseating the coverage, yes. For better or worse, though, I'm sure we all have lives to get back to. [Serious Business]

Darth_Yuthura
08-04-2009, 07:42 AM
The media's job is to make money for their shareholders. Forget the lofty crap about 'informing the people about newsworthy events'. It's a beautiful sentiment that got thrown out the window 15 years ago or more. People obviously are interested in the story.

So then I should be cursing the people who's lives are so empty that they cling to a dead freak's family squabbles and crucifying the one they say murdered him.

If he actually did, then I would want to see him stand trial for what he's done... PRIVATELY! Jackson earned his own reputation; this guy doesn't deserve any spotlight. The best thing would be for people to make the guy realize that he will die lonely and forgotten in prison if he did murder Jackson. Don't make him a celebrity for shoving pills down a guy's throat.

Taak Farst
09-08-2009, 07:26 PM
He was (is) the king of pop. He deserves every headline out there. Personally, I dislike the fact that people seem to appreciate him more after his death. Which only echoes a sad truth, as said by John Lennon:

Everybody loves you when you're six feet under.

Agreed, whole heartedly.

Totenkopf
09-09-2009, 02:29 PM
Well, if you were famous, they certainly try to exploit your death to their $$$$ advantage.

Jae Onasi
10-16-2009, 10:27 AM
Just in case you were dying for more news, MJ's mother, who is the guardian of his kids, has stated they shouldn't be on a reality TV show. Thank goodness she did something smart about that. TMZ apparently loves MJ gossip: http://www.tmz.com/category/michael-jackson/

JediAthos
10-16-2009, 02:26 PM
good on her....nobody should be on a reality TV show...I wish they would all just go away :)