Thursday, 9 June 2005
|0953 - Self-serving media coverage|
CNN is running a story online headlined Michael Jackson: Does anyone care?. Instead of examining the question they ask, which would be a worthwhile piece of journalism, they instead concentrate on whether people would care more if the trial were televised.
Am I the only one here who thinks they're paying attention to the wrong thing, once again?
current mood: annoyed
current music: Mike Oldfield - Tubular Bells
Ok... I was going to comment on the subject of your post, which is "yes, they've ignored the real deal, which is nobody cares." However, then I was completely distracted by the fact that you're listening to Mike Oldfield! He ROCKS! *devilhorns*
See you and Paul in a week! (are you going to be up all weekend, or just one day?)
We'd better be there all weekend, I'm taking Friday and Monday off as travel days.
Come with money to spend. There are alot of good vendors that are at this festival, ones that I don't see anywhere else.
Hm. I should play one particular piece for you from Cast in Bronze
that I adapted for my cellphone: Tubular Bells, played with a real carillon.
I'd love to hear that. I've never gotten to see "Cast in Bronze" and I think I'd love it.
Okkay...I'll give you a copule of CDs (one audio, one MP3) when I see you next.
However, then I was completely distracted by the fact that you're listening to Mike Oldfield! He ROCKS! *devilhorns*
Damn straight. I even like a lot of Earthmoving, which was panned by some folks.
It's close enough to televised anyway. Some channel or other is using a Michael Jackson impersonator and reenacting the trial from the public record.
Television like that could get a person interested in radio. Or books.
Idunno, I thought it was clever.
No, you're not the only one. While the trial should have some coverage, there's no need for saturation coverage. There's plenty of real news out there, so what's the excuse for dwelling on this to excess? Incompetence? Laziness? Pandering? All of the above?
One of the points the article made is that it seems people aren't really caring about this story as they did for, say, O.J. Simpson or even Scott Peterson. In fact, they pointed out that the runaway bride from Duluth, GA knocked the Jackson trial off the front pages for a week and a half. The writer asserts that the public already assumed Jackson to be a freak, so none of this is figuratively shocking. However, then they veer off in the wrong direction and point out all the things that the media is trying to do to attract viewers.
No, you're very definitely not alone.
It's a freak show, and the media think they'll get viewers based on that. Watching anyone self-destruct is a horrible thing, but watching someone talented self-destruct is even worse.
"Does anyone care?" I dunno. I sure don't.
I actually saw this from my cell phone web browser at lunch. Before following the link, I thought it was going to be some Jackson plea. We both lose. :)