Michael Jackson, 50

[Loki[D.d.G]]

Or possibly someone with a life reporting on the death of both in less than three minutes, then going back to genuine news.

If it is not tragic or controversial or related to a celebrity, then it's not genuine news.

I find the non-stop coverage of his death quite irritating, to be honest. Just how many times can you repeat the same history, go through the same facts and interview the same (or similar) fan before it gets old? It seems that the answer is more than 24 hours at the very least.

[C Elegans]

I totally agree with Fable here. Fame does not equal influence. Mass media decide what people should focus their attention on, and that's partly based on sensationalism that sells short term, and partly on other forces, such as commercial and political forces.

I think it's pretty meaningless to talk about cause and effect in relation to media's role in society, since it's a highly complex and interactive process. Media shape people's world, which in turn influence how receptive they will be to further exposure. In most of the world, the vast majority of people have no other alternative source of information, which make then even more receptive.

[quote="Aztaroth]
I've heard"]

Well, I only read the local newspaper, LA Times, but according to officials, Jackson had a cardiac arrest in his home and was not breathing when they called 911. His personal doctor was already in the process of trying to resurrect him but did not succeed. If Jackson died in his home or not can be viewed as a question of definition: when somebody has a cardiac arrest, you can sometimes revive them (depending on the course of the cardiac arrest, of course) but it has to be within a short period of time (5-6 minutes), otherwise the brain will start dying from the lack of oxygen. In this case, Jackson was not breathing and deeply unconscious (in a coma) when he came to the ER. At the ER, they tried to revive him for about 1 hour before giving up and pronounce him dead. Depending on the cause of death, it can be viewed as if he died at home or at the hospital. For instance, if he had a massive heart attack in him home, resurrection would have been impossible anyway and then we can sort of say that he died in his home although he wasn't officially pronounced dead until later.

Why would he have been taken to the children ward? As far as I know, he was at the UCLA ER?

[C Elegans]

I find the non-stop coverage of his death quite irritating, to be honest.

You see, this is why it's good not to have a TV

[Tower_Master]

You see, this is why it's good not to have a TV

Would that that were enough! Not that I'm an enormous fan of commercial radio to begin with, but I'd dearly appreciate it if "Smooth Criminal" and the likes weren't completely inundating every last radio station's playlist while I drive to work. Michael Jackson hadn't released a "relevant" single in over a decade prior to his passing, people - quite the opposite, actually! Our retroactive beatification and selective recollection of a washed-up entertainer who peaked in the 1980s is more than slightly ridiculous. Don't we have more important things to discuss, like the impending divorce proceedings of TLC's flavor-of-the-month?

[C Elegans]

Would that that were enough! Not that I'm an enormous fan of commercial radio to begin with, but I'd dearly appreciate it if "Smooth Criminal" and the likes weren't completely inundating every last radio station's playlist while I drive to work.

I have no idea what "Smooth Crimial" is, but why don't you listen to BBC World Service or something like that? They have music channels too. If the nomads in the middle of Sahara can learn English by listening to BBC radio, I bet you can receive it too. Or your own music? I never listen to commercial radio either. And I don't read tabloid newspapers, I read news on the web and I pick the news items I want to read about. It is fully possible to simply avoid irrelevant media if you wish. Even in the US

[DesR85]

I find the non-stop coverage of his death quite irritating, to be honest. Just how many times can you repeat the same history, go through the same facts and interview the same (or similar) fan before it gets old? It seems that the answer is more than 24 hours at the very least.

Irritating, yes, but at the same time, I don't see anything wrong with paying respect to someone you admire. You can just switch off either TV or radio and go do something else if you're fed up with the coverage. That's what I did.

[CreamiiCandii]

I can't say that I was much of a fan of his, but I did feel the impact of his death. I heard it from a woman working at my local dance store, and I stopped dead for a second or two before continuing. Because I'm young and stupid, I guess I didn't accept the possibility that someone as talented and famous as Michael Jackson could die. I wish him the best of luck, in whatever world he's in now. (I actually did like his song Billie Jean)

[galraen]

I don't see anything wrong with paying respect to someone you admire

Neither do I, but I don't see anything to admire in Michael Jackson, quite the reverse.

[Claudius]

Hey I am sure MJ just wanted you to adore him... go onto other pastimes such as spanking the monkey and adoring Bob...

Love

Claudius

[Loki[D.d.G]]

Neither do I, but I don't see anything to admire in Michael Jackson, quite the reverse.

Fair enough, but this is a matter of perspective and preference. And one cannot deny that MJ had (or has) a huge following of devoted fans... all of whom would want to pay homage to their deceased idol.

[Lady Dragonfly]

I totally agree with Fable here. Fame does not equal influence.

Of course not. Nobody suggested that.

Mass media decide what people should focus their attention on, and that's partly based on sensationalism that sells short term, and partly on other forces, such as commercial and political forces.

Yes, and that creates awareness which I called a mild case of influence. Mild because awareness is but the first step downhill. The media direct our attention. What happens next depends on many factors.

I think it's pretty meaningless to talk about cause and effect in relation to media's role in society, since it's a highly complex and interactive process.

Meaningless because it is complex? So, in your opinion, complex processes are exempt from the general rule? Really?

-----
I've never been a Jackson's fan but it is unfair to deny that he was a talented performer.

[C Elegans]

Of course not. Nobody suggested that.

So what do you think Dave suggests in this conversation?

I don't view orientation of attention as mild. I view it as essential. What happens next is more automatised and doesn't have a high degree of flexibility and individual variability.

Meaningless to state that one causes the other. Just like it would be meaningless to say a personality trait is caused by genetic or environmental factors.

[Nightmare]

I think that MJ did have a great deal of influence, but that influence was largely confined to music. In music, he was pretty revolutionary in what he did, and achieved a level of success that would be mostly impossible to reach today. He did release the bestselling album ever, after all.

I think I'm probably separating the man from the artist, though. Sure, there's nothing much to admire about MJ the man, but MJ the artist? Plenty.

[Loki[D.d.G]]

I think I'm probably separating the man from the artist, though. Sure, there's nothing much to admire about MJ the man, but MJ the artist? Plenty.

Interesting point. It is quite hard to fathom why one so talented and successful could lead such a... colorful lifestyle. It's almost as if we are talking about two different people. Then again, perhaps the quirkiness is what is required to become a mega artist.

[fable]

Then again, perhaps the quirkiness is what is required to become a mega artist.

But there have been literally hundreds of other well known entertainers who achieved international stardom without any hint of what you call "quirkiness," and what in people who aren't extremely rich would be termed phobic, self-indulgent, and self-destructive behavior.

[galraen]

In music, he was pretty revolutionary in what he did

How exactly, to me he was just a talented song-and-dance man, no more no less; without the launch pad his family's money and initial fame gave him I doubt we would ever have heard of him. Even on the 'Best selling album ever', which sold less than the population of the UK, he only had a part in writing four of the songs, and only the lyrics, dictated onto a tape rather than actually written.

Compared with real musicians, you know those who actually can play their instruments and write music, he was a semi-skilled labourer.

and achieved a level of success that would be mostly impossible to reach today.

Undoubtedly, impossible to reach before pretty much too, he found the ideal slot in time to release it, check out Madonna's sales in that period too, she pretty much single handedly outsold just about every artist combined these days. With the free and easy distribution of bootlegs available now, and legal downloads, the sort of volume that was achievable in the eighties will never be reached again.

[Lady Dragonfly]

So what do you think Dave suggests in this conversation?

He is saying that MJ had a greater impact on people than any of us and he feels it is unfair to pay so much attention to an entertainer.
What do you think he is saying?
I can't see where he equated fame with influence. He did not.

Not did he imply that influence is directly proportional to fame. Hence my raised eyebrows.

I don't view orientation of attention as mild. I view it as essential. What happens next is more automatised and doesn't have a high degree of flexibility and individual variability.

That's a mouthful, CE.
Can't you see the difference between a simple awareness of X and fandom? I know the name "X" because I have to be blind and deaf not to. That does not mean I care about X. It might even happen I dislike X. You can call it essential if you wish. I am not going to argue semantics.

I have no idea what you consider "a high degree" of flexibility and individual variability.

Meaningless to state that one causes the other. Just like it would be meaningless to say a personality trait is caused by genetic or environmental factors.

There is no effect without a cause. What effect and what cause are you talking about? And, with all due respect, this is a false analogy.

You said earlier:

I think it's pretty meaningless to talk about cause and effect in relation to media's role in society, since it's a highly complex and interactive process. Media shape people's world, which in turn influence how receptive they will be to further exposure.

Looks like you assign the media a highly influential role, rightfully so: media "shape peoples' world". You strongly suggest a cause (media's efforts) and effects (consumers' perceptions gradually change). At the same time you say it is meaningless to talk about cause and effect in relation to media's role in society. A contradictory statement, don't you think?

[Luis Antonio]

I'm sure a lot of people died today. Many of them died unjustly. I'm not sure why I should pay especial attention to the death of a pop idol and a second-rate model who rode her marriages into a career as a second-rate actress.

But still, it is not every day that a genius die. And he was a genius, no matter how stupid he became later.

*back to the dark pit*

[carolina17]

Many teenagers are mourning Michael Jackson on Youtube.
They weren't even born in the 80's but MJ had a great impact on their life.

[fable]

Many teenagers are mourning Michael Jackson on Youtube.
They weren't even born in the 80's but MJ had a great impact on their life.

No, with respect, he didn't have an impact on their lives. If you want to see that, for better or worse, think: George Bush, former US Federal Reserve Chairman, Alan Greenspan, Maggie Thatcher, Tony Blair, the scientists with the Human Genome Project, etc.

But still, it is not every day that a genius die. And he was a genius, no matter how stupid he became later.

Please explain what Jackson did to make you think he is was a genius. All I can see is a man who wrote a few very good songs in his early albums (which were mainly composed by others), followed by a lot of awful songs in later albums.