Too much Michael, too much of the time
Not everyone's on board with the round-the-clock, round-the-dial Michael Jackson coverage.
Some people — perhaps a large minority, or even more than that — have had it with the all-Michael, all-the-time coverage surrounding the death of the iconic pop star.
Read the full story.
It's a fascinating story, to be sure, the rise and demise of arguably the world's most famous person.
But many people have had enough and are hoisting the "No Mas" sign. Some of those who have put away their TV remote controls until the tidal wave passes are people who work in the fields of child sex abuse and law enforcement.
They just can't forget the volume of accusations about Jackson.
As one person, Erie County District Attorney Frank Sedita, put it, most people can deal with Jackson's weirdness and eccentricities.
"But when you're talking about accusations of abusing children, that's a universal taboo that crosses all lines — generational lines, racial lines, gender lines and socioeconomic lines," Sedita said. "It is the universal taboo."
— Gene Warner
Jadedbycolor..
We Are:
Jadedbypedophileentertainers!!
Wow, you are really hurt by MJ's passing. Well I have a few tips that will help you move on:
1) burn all of your Michael Jackson Lp's ( even thriller)
2) Burn your Tour 84 shirt, you will have to let the memories of the Rich Stadium show fizzle.
3) remove the MJ posters off of the wall in your room ( that will make your mom happy also!)
And the most important:
4) Realize that Michael Jackson was born as a black man, but died as a white woman. He did not want to be black....he wanted to be Peter Pan.
I hope and pray you did not lose sleep over his death!
And keep race out of it, when people like you hoot and holler over racism, well....you perpetuate certain stereotypes.....
Posted by: GW Plunkett | July 08, 2009 at 07:00 PM
jeremy, jd, "Plunkett", you're scary, very scary.
In fact, I'd say paranoid.
Posted by: Lawrence | July 08, 2009 at 07:19 PM
I think jadedbycolor is blindedbycolor
Posted by: ihateny | July 08, 2009 at 07:48 PM
(Laugh), Still don't get it, Ken Griffey, http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/blog/big_league_stew/post/Tee-hee-Junior-dons-one-batting-glove-to-honor-?urn=mlb,175389Jr. does.
Posted by: Al | July 08, 2009 at 07:55 PM
http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/blog/big_league_stew/post/Tee-hee-Junior-dons-one-batting-glove-to-honor-?urn=mlb,175389
Posted by: Al | July 08, 2009 at 07:56 PM
The media provides what the public asks for! Apparently millions of people want to know every detail of Michael Jackson's life and death and spend a week mourning him and re-living his life.
Still, he was a person, strange, sad, lonely, brilliant, misunderstood, but a PERSON - a son, a brother, a father.
I'm not a huge fan, and I didn't watch the memorial service, although I've seen some of the coverage.
If you are tired of the media hype turn off the TV and stop watching!
I don't know what the true story was with the lawsuits against him. In one case he was cleared. I'm sure celebrities are a target for crazies with lawsuits looking for large settlements. The fact that he settled does not make him guilty.
The bottom line is that it's not our place to judge without the facts.
Again, if you don't like the coverage, stop watching! That's what I do when I've had enough
Posted by: Diane | July 08, 2009 at 08:41 PM
Who is this person about whom we are commenting??????????
Posted by: Lydia Bezou-Hojnacki | July 08, 2009 at 09:09 PM
For many years, I was a fan. Jackson Five was great, and when he went solo, I liked his music and dancing. But then he started to go wierd with the plastic surgery and little by little my opinion started to change and more and more I became less and less of a fan. When he started grabbing his crotch in front of young kids at concerts, I was turned off. When I saw him carrying that little actor kid and inviting McCauley Culkin for sleepovers, I was gone. Then when he admitted to Martin Basheer and also to Diane Sawyer that his sleepovers with young boys were very loving...I knew he was a pervert in denial and his millions were keeping him out of the slammer.
I can't stand pedophiles or peter pans or whatever you call them. My young kids were stalked by a man in his 40ies. Those people would be well advised to cross the street if they see me coming.
I have no tolerance for perverts of any color, no matter how well they dance.
Posted by: BobbyCat | July 08, 2009 at 09:29 PM
Michael Jackson is the following:
-greatest human being in world history
-what a talent!
-inventor of electricity
-solves all world problems
-created Polio vaccine
-obamas cousin
Best Wishes, CNN and the others!
Posted by: Gomer | July 08, 2009 at 10:22 PM
Diane wrote: "The media provides what the public asks for!"
No, the media feeds the public what the media wants it to be fed.
Posted by: Buffalo Libertarian | July 09, 2009 at 09:23 AM
What especially strikes me as ironic is the fact that many blacks who hail Michael Jackson as a world renowned entertainer who opened doors for other blacks in the music and music video worlds will also willfully ignore the fact that the same Michael Jackson appeared to run away from his blackness.
He after all so publicly changed his hair, his nose, his facial features and his skin color over the years to appear less and less black. The irony of hailing a fellow black man who was so uncomfortable in his own skin as to change it as a true black hero is more than ironic. It is an example of willful self-deceit.
And these same supporters seem no less willing to ignore the accusations of child molestation as irrelevant, unimportant or as being explained by the "facts" of racist prosecutors and a racist society all too willing to believe the worse about any black man.
One must wonder if the black community is so hungry for heroes, even after electing a black President, that it will honor without reservation such an apparently flawed "personality"; a personality obsessed with childhood to the point of self delusion and who used multiple drugs to cope with his tragic if starred life.
Fame and money apparently absolves one of all sins.
Posted by: Barton Keyes | July 09, 2009 at 10:11 AM
Jadedbycolor said that "Rep. Peter King should be sued for slander!!!"
QUESTION: Is it really possible in our legal system for a dead person to sue for slander?
Jadedbycolor said "unlike homosexuals that go through sex change operations, Blacks always remain Black no matter how much make-up they have on."
FACT: It is biologically impossible to change a persons sex. Males have the chromosome pairing of XY and females have the pairing of XX. No matter how many Frankenstein like operations disturbed persons undergo to add or subtract body parts, the fundamentals of XX and XY remain the same.
Posted by: OPMike | July 09, 2009 at 10:35 AM
Barton,
Quincy Jones said he and others of the black community did not understand why Michael Jackson was so riven with "whiteness." But fetishes of all kinds exist in people, as long as they do not result in hate, like white skinheads.
It may be ironic, but that too is a factor in many communities and groups. It's not a fatal flaw.
Don't make a mountain out of a molehill.
Posted by: Al | July 09, 2009 at 01:33 PM
Al suggests I have made too much over the irony that Jackson seemed determined to become more white while some of his current supporters appear intent on making him a symbol of black success.
How so? The contradiction is fundamental.
How can a person who seems to reject his blackness so as to become more and more like a white, androgynous appearing male be a symbol for black success? Jackson can be that symbol of blackness only if you ignore what he was actually trying to become.
The excuse used by supporters are that this obsession with remaking how he looked is mere eccentricity that can be forgiven, or that is excused by his great talent.
How so?
Does success and money now excuse every thing? Is his personal, visible denial of his blackness to be ignored because it is convenient? And is convenient denial allowed because it then permits black activists from exploiting the Jackson "legend" so that his dead body can be used to advance the cause of black equality?
That sort of argument boils down to the ends justify the means.
And how is such self-serving exploitation a mere triviality that requires very little comment?
Posted by: Barton Keyes | July 09, 2009 at 05:59 PM
Barton,
You use terms like MJ "rejected" his blackness and his "denial." That exists subjectively only in the minds that want to see that. That makes your view contra to many others, both black and white, who saw MJ involved continually with people of all races. Or didn't you hear his song, "We Are the World."
It seems to say you want 'those people' to stay in their place. And that portents at least latent racism. But I would only say that aboiut you if you insist you know what went on inside Michael Jackson. You don't, but you sure want to prescribe his and other people's "place" and values.
Shame on you.
Posted by: Al | July 09, 2009 at 07:46 PM
Oh, and don't forget about the "Reverend" Al Sharpton. Is that guy a snake oil salesman or what? Yeah, he's has alot of credibility, although I do dig his usual getup of a training suit with a GIANT medallion around his neck. I think it's a Crown Royal medallion actually. I wonder what Tywana Brawley is up to these days.
Posted by: Mike | July 10, 2009 at 11:35 AM
Al you accuse me of wanting Michael Jackson and "those people" to "stay in their place." The accusation is without foundation and outrageous.
I would suggest it bespeaks an unwillingness to admit that in addition to his tallents, Jackson was a deeply troubled man with a number of internal psychological problems he had difficulty contending with.
My criticism of Michael Jackson is based on the fact he took extreme measures to change how he looked, and that this change consistently altered his appearance so that he looked less black and more white. I don't think my suggesting this represented a uneasiness over his own balckness is either unfounded and raceist. It appears, in fact, to be close to self-evident.
I think he should have, instead, developed a pride in his blackness (Richard Pryor)and/or asserted that his color did not define his talent (Bill Cosby).
And I criticized some black leaders for touting Jackson as a black icon while conveniently ignoring the apparent fact that Jackson was uneasy with his own blackness. And I suggest that criticism has more to do say about the hypocracy of those leaders than any alleged racisim on my part.
The fact is that neither the supporters of Jackson (i.e. Al) nor Jackson's critics seem to be able to recognize that Jackson was both a greatly talented entertainer and a tragically flawed human being.
And as that talent does not excuse the faults, pointing out those faults is not necesarrily racist.
Posted by: Barton Keyes | July 11, 2009 at 04:23 PM
No matter how you slice it, Barton, you are criticizing the person of Michael Jackson for an oddness, no different than the school principal did to the girl who wore studs and piercings
(check with Donn Esmonde column on that one), or Madonna who bleaches her hair. It's all showbiz on one hand, and personal choices on the other. Now, if you want criticize, far more warranted are the Bonfires of the Vanities on Wall Street and the regulators asleep at the switch. MJ could have gone purple and your attitude would criticize him (viz. you feel your opinion quote
I think he should have, instead, developed a pride in his blackness unquote).
Yeah, right. People like you are completely and subjectively judgmental on matters that don't concern you.
Posted by: Al | July 11, 2009 at 04:56 PM
While i am not a fan of MJ, it is disrespectful to attack the dead...it shows no class.. as far as the pedophilia accusations.. the catholic church has abused more children than MJ could even dream of..
Posted by: wil | July 12, 2009 at 05:24 PM
To Al:
I disagree.
Changing ones skin color and facial features is not simply a personal style choice. Such a comment ignors the strong psychological urges and inner compunctions that lead to such changes. It certainly is a more radical choice than choosing the color of one's shoes.
I also disagree that commenting on those changes is no one's business other than Michael Jackson's. He chose to become an international star and personality, and with that choice he opened himself up to international and public comment. One cannot choose to be a public personality and then claim the same degree of privacy enjoyed by non-public personalities.
And finally I disagree that I have no right to comment because what Michael Jackson chose to do does not concern me. That is simply untrue. What public personalities do and how they influence public taste and trends does concern me. Society as a whole concerns me. And the people to influence that society concerns me.
And I need no special permission to express my own opinions on public matters including the public life of Michael Jackson.
Just as you have the right to comment and praise him. I have the right to comment and criticize him.
Posted by: Barton Keyes | July 13, 2009 at 04:59 PM
Barton,
Your bizarre reasoning reflects what they say: What you are speaks so loudly, I can't hear what you are saying.
You are a pretend psychologist and sociologist with no training.
Everyone knows public figures are open to public views all the time. But you go to the narrow-mind perspective. Which excludes you from the broad-minded.
Your type of society-wish
is doomed to continual frustration.
MJ was terribly flawed, but in the BROAD scheme of things, MJ, his fans, and his non-fans, will learn from it. And I do believe, wherever MJ's persona is, he is still learning from this school on earth.
Those in glass houses should not throw stones.
Posted by: Hank | July 14, 2009 at 10:34 AM
Now you know how I felt a year ago with the round-the-clock, localized Russert Mourn-a-thon.
Posted by: beastfan | July 16, 2009 at 03:59 PM
Move on!
Posted by: observer | July 18, 2009 at 11:16 AM
Just another example of the media trying to pretend how "liberal" they are by catering to blacks promoting a child molester who was a has-been singer. The media has shown itself to be a joke!
Posted by: Ron B | July 21, 2009 at 12:52 PM
Like it or not. I like michael and always will. I dont believe he was a pedofile or as most say..a perv. He was a man trapped inside a child's body. Thats just my opinon. His father was a no good child beater. He is promoting a record company, and his son hasnt been dead a few days. This is asicko. He's only after his sons money. He'll get it one way or another. And! i cant believe he has his son still incased in ice. Think this sico would try to clone him. Michael derserves a decent buriel. Its about time.
Posted by: margie | July 28, 2009 at 02:20 PM