Friday, June 26, 2009

As the Stomach Turns

Normally, I'm a stalwart Fox News fan. The AT&T U-verse TV service I've been enjoying since last February brings me something like 120 channels, but 119 are wasted on me, because I almost never watch them.

Actually, I don't spend nearly as much time watching Fox News as I do listening to it, talk radio-like, from the next room while doing something else. If I hear something particularly interesting, I walk into the living room and watch for a few minutes.

Yesterday afternoon, though, just after 4 PM local time, Fox News ran off the rails. As soon as the rumors about Michael Jackson's demise began to spread, Fox preempted its regular programming and replaced it with 100% Michael Jackson coverage. First there was the sappy, saccharine, sanctimonious Shepard Smith, my least favorite of the Fox anchors.

After three solid hours of Shep running on about Michael Jackson, I couldn't stand it any more. I dashed off this note to Fox's Viewer Comments mailbox:
Enough already!

Among other stories, Congress is about to vote on Cap and Trade tomorrow, Iranians are dying in the streets in quest of freedom, and North Korea is threatening us with nuclear annihilation.

So what is Fox News talking about wall to wall?

Michael Jackson!

Please, let's see some of the maturity and balance for which Fox has been known until now. Stop pre-empting your regular programming. Get Shep off the air. Let your regular programming resume.

Certainly, I don't expect you to ignore the Michael Jackson story, but for Heaven's sake, let's set some priorities. There are other important stories out there, too!

Shortly thereafter, I got part of my wish, anyway. Mercifully, Shep's shift ended – to be followed by the self-promoting histrionics of Geraldo Rivera. Geraldo has long had the reputation of somehow shaping every story to be about him, and he did not disappoint. To hear him talk, he was Michael Jackson's best friend, and the only reporter on the planet to whom the Gloved One would entrust the Real Truth.

This morning, I checked National Review Online's The Corner, and found that I was not alone. Jonah Goldberg (no relation), who often appears on Fox News, was equally dismayed, and far more eloquent. In a post called, simply enough, Some Quick Thoughts on Michael Jackson, here's what he said:

[NOTE: Normally, I just quote the first few paragraphs, but in this case, I'm making an exception. I hope that NRO doesn't mind.]

Generally speaking, I’m a believer in the rule that we should not speak ill of the dead. Or at least we should wait a decent interval before doing so (if we never spoke ill of the dead, history would be meaningless). But, I must say I find the media’s instinctive rush to sanctify Michael Jackson disgusting.

Look, I understand that Michael Jackson was an “icon.” I understand that some people loved his work and that many people who never met him believed they loved the man too.

But I didn't, and I’m hardly alone. If Michael Jackson were just another famous person, I’d probably stay silent and let the pro forma celebration of his memory roll by without comment. (For instance, I have no problem whatsoever with the media taking a moment to pay respects to Farah Fawcett).

Sure, I liked the Jackson Five. I liked “Thriller,” too, when I was a teenager. Michael Jackson was an “icon” for me too.

But let’s pause for a moment on that word “icon.” It seemed the consensus adjective for the news networks. NBC ran a special on two “American Icons” — Fawcett and Jackson. Every cable network (including Fox, for the record) used the word “icon” to describe him as if this was some sort of safe harbor, a word everyone could agree on. “Love him or hate him,” the implied logic went, “he was an ‘icon.’”

Yes, well, maybe so. But that doesn’t let you off the hook. Even though the term sounds neutral, it isn’t. An icon, technically speaking, is a religious symbol deserving of reverence and adoration. The networks may not have intended to use the word that way, but they certainly showed an unseemly amount of reverence and adoration for the man.

I think part of it is the narcissism of our celebrity culture. Here was a guy so many of “us” read about in People magazine for so long. His passing, therefore, isn’t a loss in the sorrowful sense of the word, but in the selfish one. It’s a loss of an interesting subject, a creature to gossip about and to fill a few minutes on E! or Entertainment Tonight.

Everyone likes to invoke Lord Acton’s axiom that “power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” But nearly everyone forgets that he coined this phrase not to indict powerful men, but to instruct the historians who write about them. Historians tend to forgive the powerful their transgressions. Likewise, journalists (for want of a better word) tend to forgive the famous.

Calling Michael Jackson an icon doesn’t let him off the hook for anything. But to listen to the news anchors you’d think it absolves him of everything.

I say: Who cares who his famous friends were? Who cares what a “fascinating” person he was? If you want to talk about his death as an end of an era, have at it. But that’s not what the Barbara Walters set is doing.

I know that Michael Jackson wasn’t convicted of the despicable crimes he was accused of. And that’s why he never went to jail. Three cheers for the majesty of the American legal system. But in my own personal view, he wasn’t exonerated either. Nor was he absolved of his crimes because he could sing, moonwalk, or sell 10 million records. (Though many of us suspect the money and fame he made from those things is precisely what kept him out of jail).

And, while I merely think he was a pedophile, I know he was not someone responsible parents should applaud, healthy children emulate, nor society celebrate.

And while we’re at it, his relatively early death wasn’t “tragic.” He was one of the richest people in the world. He spent his money on perpetual childhood and he was perpetually with children not his own.

Meanwhile, in the last ten days, we’ve seen or heard of remarkable people who’ve given their lives for freedom in Iran. We’ve heard of innocents killed because they were in the wrong place at the wrong time. In the last decade, America has lost thousands of heroes in noble causes and thousands of innocent bystanders who were denied the simple joys of life through no fault of their own. Those deaths are tragic, and we're hard pressed to think of more than a handful of names to put with the long line of the dead.

If anything, Michael Jackson’s life, not his death, was tragic.

Every year at the Oscars they show a montage of people who died over the previous year. Invariably, the audience only applauds for the really famous people. This has always offended me. Not necessarily because the famous people don’t deserve praise but because it’s so clear that the audience is clapping for the fame. Michael Jackson had many accomplishments. But the press is sanctifying him because he was famous, deservedly so to be sure, but not because he was good. So much of the coverage seems to miss this fundamental point, as if being famous made him good.

I feel sympathy for Jackson’s family and friends who understandably mourn him. But I can't bring myself to mourn him any more than I mourn the random dead I read about in the paper everyday. Indeed, I confess to mourning him less.

Every channel says this is a sad day for America. I agree. But not for the same reasons.


Well said, Jonah!

No comments:

Post a Comment