Whose Michael is it anyway?

A week ago I was torn between thinking that the media circus surrounding Michael Jackson's death was too much, and feeling like it was warranted by goosebumps I feel whenever I hear "Man in the Mirror." Many others were feeling the latter, as his music was, well "the soundtrack of our lives." (Sorry, worst turn of phrase ever.) To be fair, a lot of the coverage is coming from and being driven by the blogosphere, facebook, twitter, youtube and random people moonwalking down the street, so perhaps the mainstream media is really taking its cue from the people. For a man who received unprecedented media attention for most of life-- a lot of it negative in the past two decades -- it stands to reason that it would only reach a climax with his death.

But now, here we are a week later and all the major cable networks are following Michael Jackson's hearse and motorcade while all sorts of "industry experts" talk off camera about his impact, legacy, popularity. And all the while, I am pretty sure I heard that seven Americans died in Afghanistan yesterday. Isn't the primary role of CNN, FOX and MSNBC to cover things such as Americans being killed in foreign wars?

I'm not suggesting that they don't air the actual memorial service, but the parking and driving adventures of the motorcade a good two hours before the service starts? And not to single-out any one "journalist", but I thought Anderson Cooper interviewed heads of state and covered ravaged New Orleans? It is very unclear to me why he was voice-overing the memorial pre-show.

I thought there was a division of labor where entertainment "journalists" covered entertainment and the "real journalists" covered the rest. But really, that was so 80's... when Michael Jackson was really someone to revere.

Would You Rather?

I forgot to mention that several weeks back, I heard Dan Rather speak at The City College of New York in a lecture called, "Democracy and the 24-Hour News Cycle." Rather's talk--which began and ended with two great anecdotes about his working life before he was one of the three "voices of God"--was, not surprisingly, critical of the fact that most mainstream media is owned and operated by major corporate interests that favor profit over content and who have a cozy relationships with government officials. (Sidebar: He did not once mention his $70 million lawsuit against CBS)

To his credit, Rather went to great lengths to take part of the blame for the dumbing down of the news, but he warned that those who believe newspapers are vestiges of the past or who think their proponents are merely waxing nostalgic should take heed: a healthy democracy depends on a strong and independent media. When newspapers go, Rather said, so goes what remains of original, investigative reporting. 

He spoke about the 20-minute news cycle that existed when he first started in the business (CBS and NBC carried 20 minutes of news at the end of the day) and the difference in coverage that was shorter, more vital, and not tied to profits. What a difference 40 years makes.  Many of us like to think of ourselves as extremely informed because we can go online or turn on the t.v. at any time and get the latest "news," but how much understanding can really be gleaned from a 15 second clip?  When does more actually become worse? 

You can listen to his entire speech here. 

Pirates, Puppies and Tea Parties

Are you as glad as I am that this week is finally drawing to a close?

With the faltering economy finally getting some competition from other events, some of them (gasp!) of the international sort; it is enough to make a citizen wonder: should I really be afraid of pirates?  

Modern-day pirates (sans eye patches and hooks for hands) have actually been in the news since 1999.  There's been an uptick in activities by Somali pirates and increasing coverage about it since November, but it did not capture the American media's attention until one of our own was captured. I found The Guardian's coverage and archives on the subject pretty interesting. You may too. 

According to the Pew Research Center, the pirate story came close to receiving almost as much coverage as the economic crisis/meltdown/downward spiral.  Is this a good thing? Maybe we are experiencing economic crisis fatigue and thus are more interested in such newsy items as the the new pup on Pennsylvania Avenue. Or maybe the more likely scenario is that the mainstream media is tired of reporting on the economy.  I mean, job losses after job losses, plunging Dow after plunging Dow--how many different ways can they really tell that story?  Oh but wait, that is actually their job.

As for the widely publicized tea parties on Wednesday, and while we're on the subject of reporters doing their job, I think James Rainey of the L.A. Times put it best, calling out FOX for promoting and hyping these protests, and MSNBC for trying to downplay and marginalize the participants... all before anything even happened. Wrote Rainey:

"I've got a novel idea: How about if we wait and see what happens at these rallies? Maybe journalists can watch, report how many people are there, describe the kinds of things they say and tell us what they plan to do next."  

I think he is suggesting that journalists actually practice the craft of journalism. Weird, right?

All I can say about Bo Obama is that a Google search elicits 3,496 news articles about the dog. That doesn't include the countless hours of footage, coverage and interviews on radio and t.v.  Maybe it is just the kind of good news people are looking for, except that a lot of it is pretty critical of the breed--a Portuguese Water dog-- and about the fact that they didn't adopt a shelter dog, but of course you knew that. 

Fine then. But do you know which country owns most of our debt? Or what the current unemployment rate is? Here's a quiz for you to test your "real" news knowledge. You may end up much more scared of our national debt than pirates.