Oops!

Well, anyway, the line "If the glove doesn't fit, you must acquit," did keep running through my mind as I thought about the media circus. Poor Michael always had at least one that did.

Ever see Amadeus? A Beautiful Mind? Good Will Hunting?

As far as media coverage, I was in a media blackout due to a move after Mom died, other than NPR where Neal, at Talk of the Nation, followed the crowd. It was warranted, if that had been all.

Michael set his daughter up. "We'll always have Paris." There was no lack of love in that, so I imagine she feels empowered and, were I her, I would have spoken at his funeral. Whatever she becomes and or does, she won't ever have to sing and dance for her supper!

To Bob: Thanks for this breath of fresh air. I myself went on Media Blackout because if I'd heard the strains of "Thriller" one more time I was going to jump off a bridge. I think the world literally "loved" Michael to death...enough already. Everything that can be said about Michael Jackson has been said and there is nothing to be gained by saying it 1000 more times.

To those who have expressed concern for Paris: unfortunately, a lack of talent would not save her from the same fate. As the objects of transferred "love" for Jackson himself, I fear those poor children are going to be subjected to media scrutiny and exploitation beyond human endurance. Consumers of that sort of exploitative media need to wake up and acknowledge their contribution to the problem.

The coverage of the Michael Jackson funeral and death was a little much, however its too simplistic to dismiss its appeal out of hand. Yes, there was other more "important" things going on but to an average person the death of a pop icon whose music spans over forty years has probably touched their lives more than the unrest in China or the policy debates in Washington. As much as some people don't like to admit it, popular culture is a big part of life in America and the world.

Also, Bob Garfield was a bit over the top in his characterization of Paris Jackson's remarks. I genuinely believed SHE wanted to express her feelings about her dad like any child at a funeral would. Especially, if the world sees him as a freak and not as a loving dad, brother, uncle and friend to many.

Bob
Thank you. I, like most of us alive here on this planet, grew up with MJs brilliant pop music as a part of the soundtrack of my life. I remember my friends wearing boots to school in the summer, in Louisiana, because they were easier to moonwalk in. But as i grew up the image of the super human, king of pop, genius was juxtaposed with that of a deeply troubled human being. His bizarre behavior which was at first no more than the comical eccentricities common to our celebrities. Over the years, maybe simply as i matured, those tribulations began to look more like a tragic decent into madness. His self mutilation, strange public behavior and the issues that began to arise surrounding children. I never thought of him as some lecherous predator , but it would be hard for a reasonable person to argue his behavior wasn't grossly and obviously inappropriate. His troubles were as profound as his talent and after a time his persona contained both in equal measure. For me that is who MJ was, a strange, tragic, uniquely American figure deserving of equal parts admiration, scorn and pity. MJs life,death and the ark of his celebrity hold lessons for us in understanding our culture. But only if the mans life is considered in its entirety. The coverage over the last week or so from the big media has predictably reduce it to the stock caricatures, once again failing us all. Bob, i felt your critique of that coverage was aptly biting. And i too felt a chill up my spine as i watched what appeared to be a little girl inappropriately shoved in the spotlight surrounded by overly eager coaches whispering direction. I just hope for her sake she cant sing

Bob

First, I want to say that I wasn't overcome by grief (or drunk) when I posted my mangled comment. I was just in a hurry to get to the market before it closed.

And a "limited" apology is appropriate here. The problem I had with your piece wasn't that it's wrong to be critical of Michael Jackson or his life, but that leaving out how people (and maybe even TV reporters) were genuinely touched by his life and art was a glaring omission.

What you said about Paris Jackson seemed more like you were defending than attacking her. It really seemed like they were pushing her at that microphone, and yeah, that was a little messed up. But she was convincing, she did her father's memory some good, and knowing that may be some comfort to her in the future. And no matter what it looked like, it might have been voluntary.

"The cycle begins again"? That may be a little over the top. Let's just hope not. One of the criticisms of MJ has been that he chose a white mother and (and maybe a white father) for his children, and so he much have hated blackness, but maybe he believed that white children would be less likely to be pushed into the family business, and to have a chance at a normal childhood. He may have been right. With any luck, those kids can't dance at all!

I felt the comments regarding the coverage of Michael Jackson's death which included remarks regarding his personality and lifestyle, even references to his color were way out of line. This broadcast really made me angry. It was rude, degrading and just really disgusted me. The worst I have ever listened to on NPR.

I managed to the avoid most of the coverage but, considering even the BBC went overboard on it, I'm saddened by what it says about news values of the media and whether broadcast media, in general, is capable of (or even wants to) producing a quality product. If the media consider the death of a pop star more important than other news events mentioned in the introduction to the article, then the news media is not doing its job, which, in a democracy, is to make sure voters have the information they need to perform their functions.

I was angered by your comments about Michael Jackson -- not as much about your description of the media coverage. You just don't seem to get it -- millions around the globe do -- that he was more than some icon of pop culture, or that "popular culture" is actually a legitimate aspect of culture, as in art, music, dance, creative genius. Those who appreciated him as a unique gift to humankind in our time, both as an artist and as a human being, did not regard him as a "freak." The fact that so many people sought out media coverage and paused for more than a moment to acknowledge the huge loss that his death brought, however torturous the path that led to it, is, in my mind, a significant event that should in itself be examined. What was it that inspired us, intrigued us, about MJ? This could be a story about all those millions and what we have in common, and much more. Why don't you get on it?

To those angered and disgusted by my characterizations of the late Michael Jackson, I offer my limited apology. You'll have to take my word for it that my wish was not to disparage this troubled genius.

Listeners of this show know, however, that I have something like a fetish for plain language. What I intended was to state precisely the nature of the media's enduring fascination for a man who's career essentially ended in the last century. And I did that, in language I agree was blunt. Understand, though, that I was not expressing my own sentiments. I was imputing them to the news organizations that rushed to cover the death circus. My personal feelings about Jackson consist of immense admiration for his talent, trumped by immeasurable pathos.

As to the allegation that I have attacked his daughter, Paris, that is the opposite of the truth. I was simply horrified to see the child exposed to the media glare. And I believe that was clear to all but a few listeners.

Finally, one commenter was offended at my editorializing. No apologies there. Like much of the content of On the Media, this was an editorial.

I couldn't believe the mean spirited comments you made about Michael Jackson and his family. This is not what I have come to expect from public radio. Evidently the only individuals you deem worthy of kindness are those who pass your test of what is normal. You passed on lies and half truths, you made fun of an 11 year old who had just lost her father, you showed no understanding of the celebration of life which is so much a part of the Black community. In spite of the many people who attested to his hard work, creativity and love for his children, you could only label him as a freak. You were shameful in your coverage of this event. I am not a star stuck teenager, I am a Black woman, nearly 70 years old and I know (even if you don;t) that the world is a richer place for having had a Michael Jackson if only for a short period of time.

I found your personal comments about Michael Jackson to be vitriolic and cruel. If your aim was to shame the rest of the media for pandering, I think you are equally guilty of excess. It was an unseemly, unprofessional rant not on the media, but on a dead man. BTW, have you heard that Americans -- even "albino boy-men" -- are innocent until proven guilty?

Your interview with Micah Guerin also bugged me (I'll comment there), so you may have lost a listener.

What a mean spirited piece. Sure, he had his issues, but then again, most geniuses do. Something you would only know about 2oth hand, apparently. The media just reflects what 31 million people were interested in, and not because that was the only thing on TV, as you postulate. Because the man mattered. He lifted people up. He danced like you never will, and he did not fit your picture of worthiness. RIP, MJ.

Bob, I had a mixed reaction to your comments about Michael Jackson.

PRO Three cheers for calling the media, and people in general, on their duplicitous ways. Hours before his death Mr. Jackson was a national joke. Minutes after his death, he was deemed the "King of Pop," a title never given to him while alive. I think a lot of the love and pronouncements were a way to make a mends with people's guilty consciences over how they had treated him. Was it deserved? Let's talk about that later...

CON I think talking about his face was a low blow. The man clearly suffered from a number of mental problems, some quite severe. I think his whole life he suffered in his own skin. Making fun of him now is more distasteful than it was when he was able to defend himself.

Richard Johnston got it right. The institution of news dissemination has always been slightly skewed toward entertainment (though our best journalists tried to bar the door as best they could) but it was the low-speed O.J. chase that eradicated the boundaries once and for all. The following days, weeks and months of Simpson's story made lots of people watch TV, made lots of advertisers watch lots of people watching TV, and the sanctity of the "news division" has never been the same.

Yes, these stations want awards for outstanding coverage, for breaking news and, on it's face, journalism. What they want more is a marketable star. Back in the '90s, O.J. could be that star. Today, Barack Obama fits the character of a star, but barely. Michael Jackson on the other hand epitomizes the part. Real news be damned, but it hasn't been about real news for over a decade.

This is sort of why news seekers are migrating to the Blogosphere while newspapers fragment and splinter away, their desire to report equally diminished by needing stars of their own to shine. I love Maureen Dowd to pieces, but The New York Times has equal interest in her celebrity status as they do about what she's actually saying. Why has the newspaper failed? Because it it relies on more than just the eye. TV news is about eye candy as much as anything else and yes, a dead pop star, ghoulish though the prospect might be, is the ultimate eye candy.

i'm sorry, but i turned off your coverage of the jackson death after a few torturous minutes. you were replicating what i avoided in the week after his death -- excessive coverage of something that was not news. i have never turned off your show before, and i've followed it for years and years on WBUR, boston.

Bob, your blessedly brief and deliciously biting commentary on the Michael Jackson Media Frenzy was perfect - especially your comments on MJ himself.

The media is never objective when it comes to Michael Jackson. I had hopes that you would discuss how many rumors have been circulating in otherwise reputable news media based on undisclosed, supposed "friends" of Jackson. The rumorfest surrounding Jackson is astonishing. I've never seen anything like it. The media and public are so hoping for the weirdest about Jackson that they'll grasp for anything no matter how unreliable the source. He was not half as weird as he was made out to be. Ironically, that kind of weirdness only exists in the public's mind, created by the desire for only the most sensational stories. I so wish that some news medium could reclaim its journalistic standards and recognize Jackson for what he was-- a person, not a monster, weirdo, or a freak. Once a reporter has made that kind of subjective value judgment, as nearly all of you do, one cannot expect any objectivity. There is almost no place to turn for just a neutral recitation of facts without all the commentary and sensationalism, and I hoped you would point that out.

As for Paris speaking, it's not surprising when you consider how her father gets slandered left and right. She probably felt she owed it to him to try to get the truth as she knows it out there. And really, an 11 year-old girl speaking on t.v. for 30 seconds is not comparable to a boy being groomed for show business and having effectively to take on a job from the age of 9.

The "turn their faces into albino Barbie" comment was an extremely low blow. While the plastic surgery comment is well-taken, Michael Jackson had an auto-immune disorder that destroyed his pigment cells and I think it is vicious to make fun of someone's ill health. He did not try to turn himself "albino"-- indeed, I doubt there is a procedure to completely remove the pigment from your skin-- and I am sure hearing snarky comments like this only made having the illness harder to deal with.

P.S. The settlement was for $15 million, not 20.

I think the Michael Jackson coverage last week showed two things:

1. Media is a business first, and media companies will deliver products they think people want. People seem to want 24/7 coverage of Michael Jackson's death, so that's what Media produced.

2. Pundits and critics don't get to choose what The Great Masses find important or relevant to their lives. The finger-wagging and tsk-tsking at Jackson's fans' fascination with his death when "there are so many other important things going on" is, in the end, elitist and indicative of just how out of touch some are with popular culture.

I am a native Budapester who, being an Americanist by training, closely follows American life by, among several other things, daily listening to WNYC. Since I don't watch television (American or Hungarian -- it's just as intolerable over here), I was spared of most of the Jackson-schmaltz... except, alas, for the abyss itself: the embarrassing, shameful, sadistic violation of poor little Paris Jackson.

I am diametrically opposed to the death penalty; however, I would make this ONE exception: persons responsible for this horrendous crime should be shot.

"And the cycle begins anew!" Oh, Garfield, so right on!

Hey Garfield,
Lay off Paris Jackson!
You are over the top as usual.
GB

A little more acknowledgment of the

I should mention, since the switch to digital I don't ahve a TV. I don't have a TV. I experienced Michael Jackson's almost entirely through the internet, largely through Twitter, which is where I first learned the news. I think that might tend to make me less cynical about the whole thing. I participated in the discussion with people who weren't getting paid to share their feelings. The discussion still goes on, from racist and homophobic grafitti on YouTube to critical retrospectives of The Jackson 5 classics.

I started to watch the ghastly showbiz funeral on CBS.com and then I turned away. Instead, I watched more MJ videos on YouTube, and traded more remembrances with the other fans, and argued with "the haters" as we call them.

Hell, just being able to perform that way at the age of 11 was prtty freaky, but he wasn't just a freak. He was a miraculous genius, the 20th century equivalent of Mozart. He thrilled us and touched our hearts, but you may have missed that if you were watching CNN and not tweeting on Twitter. It wasn't in your story, that's for sure.

I feel embarassed by the fact that I, a 51 year old man who NEVER watches Entertainment Tonight, still hasn't quite gotten over this yet. This isn't like me.

I am saving myself for the OJ Simpson memorial. The coverage of his legal problems revolutionized journalism, and the result gave us a new sense of justice.

Is 24/7 coverage of a funeral more expensive than 24/7 coverage of anything else?? I doubt it. It's not just that people make news, but news coverage of a funeral is mindless and, I suspect, cheap to produce. It's quite in line with newsroom cutbacks.