Too much MJ? It’s not for us to say, per se
Too Much Michael Jackson, by Tim Rutten, Los Angeles Times
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-rutten27-2009jun27,0,7268941.column
As the author conceded at the end of the article, it would be totally foolish for news outlets, no matter how serious or dignified, to ignore the impact of Jackson’s unexpected death in favor of more “news worthy” news, such as escalating tensions in Iran, the budget crisis, etc. The fact that so many people flooded the Internet for additional information is a testament of that. As I write this, a promo for a Dateline NBC tribute to MJ popped up on my television.
The author seems to be saying that there were more important news, so to speak, that news outlets shunned in favor of Jackson. But, isn’t that our job? Not to impart our ideals as journalists as to what readers should read and should know, but rather to seek out the information they want to read and want to know? Maybe it has been too much Michael Jackson for some people, but as long as there is a sizable and curious enough audience to demand more information, it’s our job to provide it.
Readers won’t magically become disinterested in Jackson’s death just because we decline to report on it further. They will simply go someplace else to find what they’re looking for. That’s just bad business practice.
Dawn
I loved Michael and danced to the “Dangerous” album over and over again with my sister when we were little kids. I’m pretty sure we fought over it. But, I was disappointed as a journalist, and a news consumer, that this morning on the Today show, more info about MJ, and NOT the Bernie Madoff sentence was the top story. Madoff was sentenced YESTERDAY. MJ died last Thursday. It’s called the NEWs for a reason.
Point well taken. It is a perilous balance: newsworthy-ness or whatever sells papers, no matter how low brow and trivial? Covering breaking news stories and ignoring the potential for enterprise features, versus deluging the media with a subject done to death? Where do we draw the line? If New York Times readers suddenly decide they really want to read about Paris Hilton, do we as reporters and writers feed that frivolity, no questions asked? Or do we say enough is enough, pay attention to issues that matter and actually impact your lives?
I suspect this is a tightrope we will be walking our entire careers.
I imagine that the tightrope will be the fine line we’ll all have to walk. If you think about it, MJ and Madoff are both interesting personality studies. I can’t seem to get enough of reading about Madoff’s actions and lifestyle. Nor MJ’s.