A major, major music star unexpectantly dies. At the same time, there is significant international news. Which story does a newscast lead with? CBS News decided to go with the foreign story - back on Aug. 16, 1977. That was the day Elvis Presley died. Instead of leading with that story, as ABC and NBC did, the head honchos went with a story about how Gerald Ford was in favor of giving the Panama Canal back to the the people of that country.

Flash forward to the last two weeks. CBS not only led with the story of Michael Jackson’s death; it bathed in it. News from Iran came a distant second.

And I’m just fine with that.

There are those that would argue differently. In fact, most might. According to the Pew Research Center, 64 percent of Americans thought the media paid too much attention to the death of Jackson. In a blog, ABC’s John Stossel complained that his bosses had pulled his report on Canadian health coverage so they could run more on MJ. “Maybe my bosses made the wrong choice,” he wrote in his blog. “Maybe more viewers would have tuned in for my health care report. But the beauty of themarket is that if they regularly choose wrong, they will go bankrupt.”

Sorry, Stossel. Your story might be award-worthy, but it would never have gotten the eyeballs MJ is getting. “Nightline” is leading the late-night wars largely because of their MJ coverage. The recent BET Awards had its highest ratings ever, primarily because of the MJ tributes.

The interest in MJ is as high as any story this year may get. I was sitting outside The Local when the news broke - and to watch the crowd slowly learn about the news from their cellphones, Blackberries and ol’ fashioned conversation was extraordinary. This is a story that everyone had a reaction to.

Is that the only criteria the media should consider? Of course not. But the media should not be judged on its decisions on one day or even one week. If NBC News, for example, led with show biz news every night, I would have a major problem with that. It doesn’t. In fact, one could argue that if they did it more often, they might retain enough audience to stick around and learn what’s going on in the rest of the world. Granted, that’s a tougher argument. Here’s an easier one: Michael Jackson was one of the most influential artists of our time. He was also one of the most mysterious ones. That alone should merit interest - and to be snooty about it is a huge mistake.

I must admit, I have a bias towards obits. I have long argued that our paper, and other mainstream media, promote stories about the deaths of interesting people. I think they are often the most fascinating reads and most educational forms of news. There’s a lot of young people - and older people - that may not have understood MJ’s influence on pop music in general, from turning MTV into a giant to advancing a new kind of R&B that all but killed disco. Let’s hope these reports taught them something.

Did MJ’s coverage keep us from learning about other major stories? I don’t think so. The same resources flocking to LA probably weren’t heading to Iran anways. I feel I got enough info about Franken-Coleman, Gov. Sanford and the Iranian election rebellion even with tons of MJ coverage. The news is out there, and if it was a little more difficult to find for a week because an icon died, well, I can live with that.

This entry was posted on Thursday, July 2nd, 2009 at 1:39 pm and is filed under Uncategorized. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.