Skip to main content

The Media Way of Death

Well, I suppose the Onion.com is a reasonable place to consider the death of the "King of Pop".

Given the astonishing abuse of his body through needless drugs and needless surgery, I guess fifty was not too bad an innings, but as usual the po-faced media will glory in the shroud waving: no cliche will be left unstated as the endless recycling of the story of "someone you've heard of dies unexpectedly, relatively young" now allows them to make more sales.

It is not pretty.

I can not make too many deep statements- I suppose his best song was "Billie Jean", which is not exactly a meditation, even if it is a good record. Was he a pervert? On balance probably yes. Was he a victim? On balance, probably yes to this too. Beyond those two questions, and his music, I wonder how many people would really be able to work out what particular message this particular short-ish life gives us.

That we are all mortal? We should really all know that.

Talent does not insulate us from the pain of living? We knew that already too.

Bad parenting can twist you? A message that I hope his orphaned kids do not have to learn: but the lawyers are already circling.

The problem is that, whatever the media may try to pretend, death is not exceptional.

Perhaps the kindest thing we could do is to show compassion to those who are so close to death- try to treat them with respect and dignity.

The problem is that all of us are indeed so close to death that we can touch it.

We just pretend and try to ignore it.

Comments

Newmania said…
One thing that no-one ever mentions and I have always wondered why not is that his voice did not break.
He hit the top at 10 with perhaps three to four years of that amazing treble , imagine the agony of approaching anonymity quite apart from the money . The drugs you could use to delay puberty are readily available and I imagine it started that way.
He was , I am certain ,a castrati ,albeit a chemical one and you will recall that it was just that magical alto voice that was so admired in another age .I suspect this and other drugs were in part responsible for his growing peculiarity , he had after all done everything that is worth while by the age of 26 or so , he was only 21 when off the Wall came out .When I see him I think of the broken and crippled East German athletes their bones withered form the hideous levels of hormones they were force fed

I loved his music from the joy of ABC through the superb middle period of Shake your body and Show you the way , the two great Albums and then the sad decline .He may well have become something evil along the way , it’s a tale with a Faustian fascination though , to deform yourself so utterly in pursuit of a kind of perfection.
Unknown said…
Do we have to learn anything?

I think for many of us around our age, his music, groundbreaking as it was at the time, formed the soundtrack to our teens. He had a remarkable talent and that deserves to be honoured.

The rest of it? Well, I would err on the side of no on the pervert question. I have more of a problem with the way he assumed the role of both parents with his children, denying them the active presence of their mother.

Clearly there wasn't much peace in his life, but that's no different from possibly the majority of people.

I think it's appropriate that he should be commemorated for his music. Saturation coverage in the media of a major star's death, particularly when it's not of old age, is not unusual, and never has been. We just have more media these days, available round the clock, at the touch of a button.

Popular posts from this blog

Waiting for the Barbarians

What are we waiting for, assembled in the forum? The barbarians are due here today. Why isn’t anything going on in the senate? Why are the senators sitting there without legislating? Because the barbarians are coming today. What’s the point of senators making laws now? Once the barbarians are here, they’ll do the legislating. Why did our emperor get up so early, and why is he sitting enthroned at the city’s main gate, in state, wearing the crown? Because the barbarians are coming today and the emperor’s waiting to receive their leader. He’s even got a scroll to give him, loaded with titles, with imposing names. Why have our two consuls and praetors come out today wearing their embroidered, their scarlet togas? Why have they put on bracelets with so many amethysts, rings sparkling with magnificent emeralds? Why are they carrying elegant canes beautifully worked in silver and gold? Because the barbarians are coming today and things like that dazzle the barbarians. Why don’t our distingui...

Liberal Democrats v Conservatives: the battle in the blogosphere

It is probably fair to say that the advent of Nick Clegg, the new leader of the Liberal Democrats, has not been greeted with unalloyed joy by our Conservative opponents. Indeed, it would hardly be wrong to say that the past few weeks has seen some "pretty robust" debate between Conservative and Liberal Democrat bloggers. Even the Queen Mum of blogging, the generally genial Iain Dale seems to have been featuring as many stories as he can to try to show Liberal Democrats in as poor a light as possible. Neither, to be fair, has the traffic been all one way: I have "fisked' Mr. Cameron's rather half-baked proposals on health, and attacked several of the Conservative positions that have emerged from the fog of their policy making process. Most Liberal Democrats have attacked the Conservatives probably with more vigour even than the distrusted, discredited Labour government. So what lies behind this sharper debate, this emerging war in the blogosphere? Partly- in my ...

Lib Dem v. Tory (Round 2)

The Liberal Democrats stand for a distinct political ideology. It is an ideology built around both socially and economically liberal precepts. In as far as our ruling Labour government can be said to have an ideology at all, it coincides with Liberalism only incidentally. Labour stands for pragmatism, and where it does not there is still a core of values that are collectivist and not individual. Sometimes people are prepared to claim the moral high ground for policies of social solidarity and redistribution of wealth. Liberals may argue in favour of equality of opportunity, we can not argue in favour- as Socialists do- of "and equal society". The reason is simple: Socialism does not work. If one places equality above freedom, then eventually we get tyranny. This is why, while we may argue in favour of a more equal society as being a stronger society, the tools that we may use to gain -in our view- socially desirable outcomes must rest upon freedom above all else. As PJ O'...