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.

The Press & The Pols: So Happy Together

No matter the party in power or the man in the oval office, no event better illustrates the cozy relationship between the press and politicians like the White House Correspondents' Association Dinner.  

At its most base, the system works like this: government officials offer access and in return for that access and close proximity the press does not criticize too much or ask too many hard questions. Nothing says democracy like a good party, so to celebrate this friendship between the fourth estate and the government, there is a big black tie dinner every year sprinkled with celebrities. 

What a difference three years makes. Remember Stephen Colbert's roast of President Bush and the media which, oddly enough, received a scant amount of media attention? The mainstream media coverage ignored Colbert's jokes and instead focused on the Bush impersonator who preceded him in the line up. Some argued that the press was uncomfortable with Colbert's performance, making fun of the President essentially to his face. But what really made the press uncomfortable were Colbert's jabs at them. 

It's definitely awkward, but worth another look:


Flash forward to last Sunday night. Wanda Sykes is the comedienne. Barack Obama is the president. She makes a (bad? even offensive?) joke about Rush Limbaugh's kidneys failing and the possibility that he was the 20th hijacker on 9/11 and the media swarms. 

Considering the criticism the media has received for its seemingly all too favorable coverage of the now president, I would have thought Wanda would have made more jokes directed their way.  But maybe she learned a lesson from her predecessor: those afflicted with Insider Syndrome prefer that you don't mention it.  If you do, they will just edit you out.  

What Happened to the God-less media?

I just turned on the television and thought for a moment that the The Prayer Channel had taken over the airwaves.  As it turns out, it is just the installation of the new Archbishop of New York.  Now, as a Catholic, I know it is big deal when the Arch gets a new Archbishop. I get the pomp and circumstance and gravity of the transition of leadership. But this blog is not about the Catholic church, or religion: it is about the media. 

So I have to ask: does this event, which really impacts 2.5 million people and only 3 of NYC's 5 boroughs, really warrant five hours of live, non-stop coverage on New York 1, NBC, FOX, ABC, and WOR?  Since the mass of installation is a big chunk of this coverage, I am wondering if the networks are actually proselytizing.  On NBC for example, the commentator who is clearly not an impartial journalist but is not identified as anything else, described the new Archbishop Dolan's homily as "amazing" and then explained how the Eucharist and wine is "transformed into the body and blood of Jesus Christ."  The commentator should at the very least be identified as a Catholic journalist or priest or whatever he is.  On FOX, they don't even have their own cameras inside; they announced that they are using the Archdiocese's footage.  Cozy much?

If it is some sort of media/church  conspiracy to get more people to join the ranks, they are not selling their product very well.  There are about 20+ gray-haired, white-skinned, old men standing behind the altar. Oh wait, I see one brown-skinned man peeking out in the back. Since more and more practicing Catholics are various shades of brown, this "program" is a pretty lousy recruitment tool.  As the camera pans the audience, I see such prominent people as the celebrity chef Lidia Bastianich and thrice married former mayor Rudy Guiliani. Hmm..So what are these stations up to? I can understand an hour or so, but five hours and a full mass seems excessive. The media is often accused of being a propaganda tool for the far left. Not so today.