I was stunned when I discovered that Time Magazine didn't do a cover story on Michael Jackson. Instead they had a cover of a giant birthday cake discussing the state of married life. Then next week they had a cover story about Sarah Palin preening about on a boat dock in Alaska.
Newsweek did sorta. Apparently they had an alternate cover story with a picture of a very young Michael Jackson. Both have come out with commendable commemorative editions however.
The best coverage that I read was in something called Hip Hop Magazine. They seemed to best capture the unprecedented impact Michael Jackson had on global culture. There were a dozen or so other commemorative cover story special editions including that published by Rolling Stone.
The mainstream media continued it's ambivalent coverage. They were stuck on the controversies of his life, the disposition of his children, and the mystery surrounding his death. The question always arises in my mind that if a story has nothing new to offer ... then why publish it.
What do you think?
No comments:
Post a Comment