A Valuable Commodity: The Recent Death of Michael Jackson

It seems that recently, Death has been tailgating the celebrity aristocracy, and the media has been keeping its ears up. David Carradine died of a mysterious, possibly sex-related hanging in Bangkok at 72; Farrah Fawcett finally succumbed to cancer at 62; Ed McMahon died recently at 86 of a series of illnesses; Richard Wright, one of the co-founders of Pink Floyd, died this month at the age of 62 of cancer; Billy Mays, pitchman for cleaning products such as Oxy Clean, was found dead in his home at the age of 50 (the same age Michael Jackson) after receiving a presumed fatal head injury during a rough airplane landing. But of course, no passing has had half so much coverage as that of the King of Pop's.

MSNBC has a new article on his death and the surrounding drama of his bereaved family filtered hot and fresh to its surfers as soon as they open up the homepage. CNN has been on this story with as much, if not more vigour as when Anna Nicole Smith passed away in a manner reminiscent of Marilyn Monroe. Even my local news, in Canada, runs at least a story a night on the subject of his death. Not just celebrity magazines, but newspapers such as The New York Times, and even local Canadian newspapers like The Montreal Gazette, chose to run Michael Jackson's death as a full and front page story, knocking just about any other subject to page A2.

Before I delve into a quite forceful diatribe of the exploitation of news media, I must admit that I've done my share of mourning over past artists. Kurt Cobain, Kurt Vonnegut jr. and George Carlin where all men who deeply inspired and influenced me, and when they died I felt that sense of identity and personal connection that people have when they lose something important to them. I understand that for the fans that are truly and deeply mournful at the loss of an influence, it's a personal matter that needs to be dealt with in private or according to the individual. I also understand that in a way, losing a legend is like losing a trinket in value and it is purely and solely a selfish endeavour to dwell on their passing. In fact, I believe that all mourning is selfish, not in the sense that it is a cold or heartless thing, but that it is introspective and centered on that person's sense of a severed relationship with the deceased. It resides not in reason but in sentiment, and is among the easiest of targets for those ready to abuse it.

I would bring in entertainment news shows like Entertainment Tonight as extra fodder, but their exploitation of the event is part of the entire reason they exist. I can't be half as weary of their allotted timeslot as the audience that makes them profitable. At least with entertainment news shows around, other news networks can make mention of the story, but not award it a position as a top headline; or so one would think. News networks could never dream of giving a beloved icon a respectful and brief farewell, because all of those delicious theoretical ratings would go to waste. If MJ has finally met his mortality, then why talk about tensions in North Korea, riots in Iran, the coup in Honduras or economic concern for more than fifteen minutes? Especially if you're a news network like MSNBC or CNN and you have a literal eternity to make yourself interesting onscreen. But what of the others who have recently passed? David Carradine had relatively moderate coverage as did Farrah Fawcett, and she died on June 25^th, 2009, the same day as Michael Jackson. Ed McMahon had very little coverage considering his legendary status and Richard Wright, although relatively unknown had much less. Billy Mays had about as much coverage as McMahon. All of these people achieved some kind of fame in their lifetime, but their death didn't knock out the actual news stories of the day. Michael Jackson's death, on the other hand, knocked down the Governor Sanford scandal, the Iranian election, North Korea's threatening gestures, and even the story of a little boy who was killed from a form of flesh eating disease he contracted. I don't believe that this had, by any stretch, something to do with MJ's death actually being more important than any of these other matters. Clearly, this was the ugly head of media exploitation rising up and unhinging its jaws. From hospitalization to the final curtain and beyond, this story was too lucrative not to over-expose.

I believe this is what happens when you don't have a monarchy. Politically, I should walk over from the left side of the spectrum and kick myself in the kidney for saying that, but sociologically, the rest of my logic centers tell me that people crave intrigue and distraction. This is not a world-shattering fact, clearly, but it explains our fascination over celebrities. Couple that with a looming sense of fear and morbid awe at death and degradation and suddenly objectified famous people become deified at their deaths. This view does not necessarily point to the out and out fans at which I've already made mention. This argument attempts to tackle a long running stream of common distraction. A society looks to its kings, queens, and gods for entertainment, inspiration, lessons and distraction. Our society, in its secular and democratic nature, tends to favour such icons as actors, musicians, and other manner of performance artists in order to glean something, usually the distraction. Even politicians basically function as performers, and when a juicy scandal comes our way we lick our lips in anticipation.

The part of that which I find so tragic is the fact that we can actually measure the value of a person by how long we mourn them. And by extension we can measure the values of our society by how long we pay attention -to anything. This is, again, not a new thing. When Elizabeth Bathory went off killing young virgins in a search for the Fountain of Youth, no one noticed until she went wild on the upper echelons of society. And that took place in the 17^th century. That fact alone makes me wonder if this sense of misplaced value resides somewhere in us inherently or is a product of this society. Or perhaps, it is a common trait brought out by the organization of our people. In either case, we are a collective of undisciplined opportunists all too curious for a good story, and I am saddened both by the state of news media and by its audience. But let's forget our compassion, discretion and intelligence, and turn on the news.

http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,20283427,00.html

http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/story?id=7763422&page=1

http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/20090626/michael-jackson-died-farrah-fawcett-playboy-images-songs-listen-elvis-presley.htm

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090623/ap_on_en_tv/us_obit_mcmahon

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/16/arts/music/16wright.html

http://bathory.org/shyla.html

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,529328,00.html?mep

http://www.theinsider.com/news/2346812_Billy_Mays_Found_Dead

http://www.cnn.com/2007/SHOWBIZ/TV/02/08/anna.nicole.collapses/

http://www.cnn.com/US/

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/boy-dies-in-flesh-disease-outbreak-1567772.html

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124596061328355673.html#mod=rss_Today%27s_Most_Popular

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jAkMGKIUDg_ngUiZboxQbYj5_DPwD9958LT80