The (Non) News of Michael Jackson

| | Comments (6)

A famous person has died really reminded me of the coverage of Michael Jackson's death. There was no news to report as they waited to see if he really died, reporters read biographies and from blogs like TMZ, stood outside buildings, went to graveywards where they thought he may be buried, and visited the mansion he no longer owned. All the while, they said nothing signifigant, nothing new and could confirm nothing.

 

Trackback

6 Comments

Jessie Krehlik said:

Great point, Aja. I remember watching CNN and Larry King Live shortly after they pronounced Jackson dead. Aside from an interview from Cher, I think the majority of Larry's interviews were of people we've never heard of, or of people who don't really have any influence on us. They're just a "lifelong friend of Jackson."

Angela Palumbo said:

Aja, I was making basically the same point on my blog. This fact is a shame really because it is abuses like these that make people not take the news seriously. How can you when they are taking your tv programs off of the air to tell you what "May have happened." Somewhere the inverted pyramid is crying because it is looking a little more like an icicle than a pyramid.

Greta Carroll said:

While most of us in this class seem to share the feeling of Michael Jackson's death being overcovered in the news media, I can't help but wonder if it was overplayed for a reason. If the network television stations found that people were watching their news less because of Michael Jackson coverage, they probably would have covered it less. Perhaps this is the same case as the texting article in the Tribune-Review. Maybe we aren't the target audience. After all, how many of us watch the news on TV every night? While I agree with Aja and Angela that the reporting is sprinkled with "mays" and is all simply potentialities, this must still work on their target audience or these stations wouldn't still be going on about Michael Jackson today.

Aja Hannah said:

Greta,

Michael Jackson was a big story and that's why they attempted to cover it so much. Everyone was watching. I even wanted to hear about his death. That's why I had the news on and knew what the coverage looked like, but it doesn't take away from the fact that (in a time crunch) they did a horrible job reporting.

For people that couldn't use the internet/didn't know how, this must have been a little frustrating.

April Minerd said:

Michael Jackson was, stil is, "big" on the news, and I talked about this in my entry as well. Aja, your point is the coverage was poor and I agree, but it seems the same across the broadcasting board. Are your saying that the internet did a better job of delivering it? To add to what Greta said, I think the reason for the kayotic reporting is the demand for it. There are those who want to hear the exact level of propofol found in Jackson's autopsy report. We may not be those people, but they are out there.

Aja Hannah said:

I'm not saying the Internet did a better job. I'm just saying it didn't update or show the same footage over and over because its a different type of media.

I agree with Greta that the demand is so high for Jackson and that is why there was so much constant footage because they were trying to supply to the demand, but the information just isn't there so they have to put something else in place while they frantically search for something.

Leave a comment


Type the characters you see in the picture above.

 
WordPress Appliance - Powered by TurnKey Linux