Tuesday, June 30, 2009

Wacko Coverage

Is it safe to turn on the 24-hour "news" channels now? I officially stopped caring about the death of Michael Jackson about ten minutes after news "broke" of his death last Thursday. I am apparently in the minority--as round the clock coverage has continued on all of the news channels--and the main networks as well.

If we didn't have "breaking news coverage" of the body being taken to the morgue--we had "team coverage" of fan reaction outside the Neverland Ranch. And once we got tired of the people who showed in hopes of being interviewed by a TV reporter--we had more "breaking news" of a press conference featuring Jackson's father--or attorney--or Al Sharpton. Has there ever been any high profile incident involving an African American that didn't result in Al Sharpton standing behind a microphone?

Even the local channels got in on the act--sending reporters to Waterfest here in Oshkosh--or to some music store to get "local reaction" to Jackson's death. It's too bad I wasn't asked about that because it would have been "I don't give a shit." And you can quote me on that.

In his Sunday column on the electronic media in the "Chicago Tribune", Phil Rosenthal points out that the death of Elvis--a far more iconic and culturally influential artist than Michael Jackson--wasn't even the top story on the CBS Evening News on August 16th, 1977. CBS--the top rated news program at the time--led with President Gerald Ford's support for returning the Panama Canal zone back to Panamanian control by the end of the century. In fact, Elvis's death wasn't mentioned for three more stories on CBS. Rosenthal points out that CBS was pilloried for this "error in editorial judgement"--NBC and ABC led with Elvis's death that night--but just the fact that a major news operation would even consider a celebrities' death to be less than life-shattering would be refreshing today.

Another thing that gets my goat is the sycophantic coverage provided to Jackson. Respected journalists are using the title Jackson gave to himself "The King of Pop" like it was something he had been granted by the US government. The man gave himself the name people!!! He's not the king of anything.

Glenn Beck on Fox News always talks about his 9-12 initiative--where he wants people to return to the feelings of resolve, anger and determination we felt the day after the 9-11 attacks. I just wish the national media would return to the 9-12 attitude of returning to coverage of what's really important in life. You know, on the same day Michael Jackson died, an Army soldier from Peshtigo, Wisconsin was fighting for his life at a hospital in Germany--after coming under attack by the Taliban in Afghanistan. Did you hear anything about Private Steven Drees that day--or any day until his death was confirmed by the Pentagon yesterday? I know I could have lived with 24-hour coverage of his life and accomplishments.

31 comments:

  1. A true case of sour grapes over someone more talented than yourself. Second time you've mentioned his passing yet (A) you fail to realize you are contiruting to the very thing you seem to abhor, and (B) you have yet to express condolences or even recognize that his family, friends and legions of fans are suffering a loss right now. You'd no doubt feel differently if it was some golf great who died right? The only satisfaction his local fans will have in all this is knowing that with your saracastic, negative ways, someone will "report" about your death in the same sick and uncaring way. We can only imagine that if someone asks how they feel about your passing they will respond with the same "I could give a shit" attitude.

    ReplyDelete
  2. The gloved one is gone.
    I feel much sadder at the death of Billy Mays than MJ.
    Billy...U the man!
    RIP!

    ReplyDelete
  3. I agree - the spotlight needs to move on!!
    Anonymous, his family does deserve condolances, but one way to offer support is to STOP the non-stop "coverage" and allow them to grieve in peace.
    Jonathon, keep up the good work!

    ReplyDelete
  4. The man settled 2 cases out of court for touching children! If that person lived down the street form you, you would not even think twice about that person! I respect what the man did for the music industry, but the person...... Not a chance!!


    Oh and by the way MJ is Michael Jordan, not Michael Jackson. It should have been WJ for WACKO JACKO!!

    ReplyDelete
  5. Actually, I think the first case was settled out of court, in the second he was acquitted. Innocent until proven guilty is the American way.

    I didn't much care for him or his music, and I tired of the news coverage even sooner than Jonathan, but I am offended by Jonathan's callous expression. He was yet another sad example that fame and fortune are no substitute for the true happiness that sound personal relationships bring.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I don't always agree with you Jonathan, but I do today. The "24 hour" news phenom has pretty much eliminated the credibility of most networks, including CNN. I enjoyed Jackson's music, but agree that we don't need to hear from sobbing people "mourning" someone they did not know. The constant, never-ending glut of celebrity news is making me sick. I have to literally turn the TV off at 6:30 pm, because shows such as the Insider, etc. is nauseating. Hunting down celebrities, zooming in on their cellulite, and making stories out of NOTHING seem to rule. Young people who have no talent ro claim to fame are glorified, and make our youth think that everyone deserves a life of glitz and glamour, no matter what. It's time for news to be just that.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Michael Jackson was a good singer from young on. When he was young he was even cute, but then he grew up and got wacko. I liked to watch his dancing feet, but hated to look at his face. He was famous and deserves some, I repeat SOME, special coverage, but enough is enough. Keep us up to date on finding out how he died and that's it.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Another thing that is getting very sickening locally is all the hoop-la about Public Enemies.

    ReplyDelete
  9. If these things are so bothersopme to some of you why not just not watch or read about it? Find something else to do with your time. A trip to your local library sounds like it might be in order and more up your alley. In other words, stop bitchin' and find something constructive to do.

    ReplyDelete
  10. That's what this blog is about, to bitch. Besides that, with the constant news coverage, it's hard to avoid unless a person wants to crawl under a rock.

    ReplyDelete
  11. O come now, there's plenty to do besides crawl under a rock. If you can't find something it might be because you're already living under one.

    ReplyDelete
  12. "Anonymous said...
    Another thing that is getting very sickening locally is all the hoop-la about Public Enemies.

    June 30, 2009 10:40 AM"

    It's just another "Promote Downtown Oshkosh" routine.

    YAWN....

    Now go take a bath in the sundial fountain, I heard that is now the best use for it.

    ReplyDelete
  13. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Evidently, June 30, 2009 8:28 PM, must be living under a rock that all this publicity doesn't bother them any. Or else THEY don't have anything better to do then listen to this same old thing, and love it.

    ReplyDelete
  15. And if this blog is so bothersome to June 30, 2009 8:28 PM, why are THEY even reading it AND posting to it???

    ReplyDelete
  16. For the poster at 9:38 and 9:40, let's review. Here is what was posted by 8:28 on June 30..."O come now, there's plenty to do besides crawl under a rock. If you can't find something it might be because you're already living under one."

    Since you have a learning deficiency here's some help. They said there are lots of other things to do besides pay attention to all the Michael Jackson or Public Enemies news if someone is that bothered by it. They also made no reference to this blog being bothersome. The poster bitching about 8:28 PM might be visually challenged as well as learning challenged. A shining example of why some people should not only be banned from blogging, they should have their computers confiscated.

    ReplyDelete
  17. This is 9:38 & 9:40,
    Excuseeee me, for not having a college education, but merely a high school diploma. I didn't realize needed a doctorate to blog here. Perhaps "someone" has toooooo much education to understand common sense and what's written in plain English. All the publicity about both topics cannot be avoided unless under a rock, IT IS ALL OVER THE T.V. AND RADIO AND NEWSPAPER AND INTERNET, FOR PETE'S SAKE, except under a rock, or to completely avoid the news.

    This blog evidently is bothersome to some because they keep challenging it. It is called "My Two Cents", which for most people with common sense means >>> to stick their 2 cents worth in about a subject and bitch about it.

    Before declaring someone visually and learning challenged, you may want to look at yourself first.

    Blogs are to express one's OPINION about the present subject, whether it be positive or negative, NOT to attack personally. (To clarify, positive is AGREEING with it, and negative is DISAGREEING.)

    ReplyDelete
  18. You don't need a college degree or doctorate to blog here or anywhere else. You don't even need a college education. But before you comment on what someone else has written, you do need to heed your own advice and remember they have expressed THEIR OPINION, something you seem to be defending one's right to do, and also at least read what they've written before you comment or challenge their position. Otherwise you only continue looking stupid.

    ReplyDelete
  19. If YOU will reread my previous comments very carefully, you will find that I DID NOT attack until I was attacked.

    ReplyDelete
  20. AGAIN YOU HAVE FAILED TO READ OR UNDERSTAND WHAT WAS WRITTEN. 5:54 AM DIDN'T COMPLAIN ABOUT ANY ATTACK BY YOU SO WHY ARE YOU DEFENDING YOURSELF ABOUT ATTACKING? YOU HAVE MADE AND CONTINUE TO MAKE COMMENTS BASED ON THINGS THAT POSTERS HAVE NOT SAID. I'M WILLING TO CONCEDE YOU MAY BE ONE OF THESE BLOGGERS WHO CAN'T FOLLOW THE CONVERSATION AND JUST WANTS TO BLOG FOR THE SAKE OF BLOGGING. HAVE AT IT THEN BUT IF YOU WANT TO BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY OR HAVE A REAL DISCUSSION ABOUT REAL ISSUES YOU'LL HAVE TO FOLLOW THE CONVERSATION.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Perhaps I'm being blamed for something I didn't write. I wrote the comments at 10:33, at 10:40 about Public Enemies, and at 7:36 about crawling under a rock to avoid hearing continuous news coverage. I also wrote at 9:38 & 9:40 on July 1. After that it all hit the fan.

    If after reading the posts with this in mind, you still find me at fault, then so be it.

    ReplyDelete
  22. I think they had the right person as your comments made direct reference to others that had nothing to do with what you were talking about. You're right -- so be it.

    ReplyDelete
  23. I first wrote how Michael Jackson was a good singer, and I then had another thought, and posted that all the hoop-la about Public Enemies was sickening. (My opinions).

    Someone posted that people should stop bitching and find something constructive to do.

    I responded that blogs like this are for bitching, and that it is hard to avoid the news coverage unless a person crawled under a rock. (Just making a comment, nothing personal meant).

    But then I felt I was attacked when a poster wrote: “there's plenty to do besides crawl under a rock. If you can't find something it might be because you're already living under one”.

    I then responded: “Evidently, June 30, 2009 8:28 PM, must be living under a rock that all this publicity doesn't bother them any. Or else THEY don't have anything better to do then listen to this same old thing, and love it”. And also: “And if this blog is so bothersome to June 30, 2009 8:28 PM, why are THEY even reading it AND posting to it???” I felt I was responding to the poster writing on: June 30, 2009 2:49 PM, which I thought was the same person.

    And from that point on I was completely chastised. I was attacked first and I “bit back”.

    This is my last post to clarify my comments and defend myself.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Thank God since you're still not making any sense. All your rehasing of those posts did was show again that you have not followed the conversation.

    ReplyDelete
  25. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Oh my. Thank you for exposing your real self. You've shown you're also nasty and since you already promised once to go away but keep coming back are a liar too. Add that to your otherwise obvious challenges in following a simple conversation and it's really pitiful. We can add negative to the list of words to describe you too, since you automatically assume giving your two cents worth about something is synonymous with bitching about it. Just remember, God helps those who help themselves.

    BTW, thanks for the rerun of all your posts, but unlike you, some of us can follow a conversation without challenges.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Sorry it looks like I'm a liar, but you just pissed me off so much that I had to react one last time. No matter what you think, I did understand the conversation and responded accordingly.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Sort of like the person you've been scrapping with on here, I have to say I don't think you followed the conversation either...I didn't understand a lot of what you said because it didn't jibe with the other comments from poeple...But I bet your blogging opponent is happy to know he or she got to you and is even happier you lost your cool over it...Sad thing is now one might wonder if you get that worked up over a blog post how you handle those things in life that really matter.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Bloggers,

    Please note that personal attacks and profanity laced tirades are being deleted.

    Let's try for some constructive discourse on this site.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Jonathan, the comment you deleted because of language was no different then your original post as quoted here: "It's too bad I wasn't asked about that because it would have been "I don't give a shit." And you can quote me on that". Nor was it any more attacking then they were attacked.

    ReplyDelete
  31. [url=http://rastimores.net/][img]http://rastimores.net/img-add/euro2.jpg[/img][/url]
    [b]cheap microsoft office home, [url=http://rastimores.net/]filemaker pro 9 advanced upgrade[/url]
    [url=http://akreoplastoes.net/][/url] Deluxe 2009 Mac Parallels coreldraw tutorial
    igames + windows vista [url=http://rastimores.net/]softwares price[/url] master reseller software
    [url=http://akreoplastoes.net/]coreldraw x4[/url] Mac Logic
    [url=http://akreoplastoes.net/]oem software sales[/url] windows xp
    can buy photoshop [url=http://akreoplastoes.net/]winzip 12 reg code[/url][/b]

    ReplyDelete