Michael Jackson Look What You’ve Done
I've been reading the news today, and I've the following thoughts about the verdict in the MJ case:
(1) What a colossal waste of energy, money, and (barely remaining) credibility by the US media outlets. This is not a right-left things (although Fox News may have been the worst, it's enough of a close call that there is plenty of shame to go around). And I don't care that the media is simply paying attention to what the people want. I’ve been trying to avoid this like the plague, and all four cable news outlets had this story running yesterday evening – and I’m trying desperately to avoid it. In a fit of elitist delight, I'm going back to getting my news exclusively from NPR and the NewsHour.
(2) Every day, he looks more and more like his likeness standing in Madame Tussaud's, and less and less like a human being. What that man has done to his face, is, quite simply, disgusting.
(3) "Smooth Criminal" and "Billie Jean" - those are absolutely sweet jams. No amount of child molesting will change that.
(4) That kid's parents should be prosecuted, or at least heavily investigated by child services. How awful are those parents for risking the health of their child by allowing a man, for whom there is a reasonably possibility of being a molester, to be alone with their child? Shameful.
(5) I mean, where there's smoke there's fire...or is there? Seems to me that in all likelihood, MJ has inappropriately touched a child. But did he with this one? Or is he just really, really weird and childlike?
(6) No doubt, in any case, that verdicts are still for sale in this country. The jurors did their job, but would reasonable doubt have been present had MJ had a public defender? The scary thing is that the Supreme Court, in its recent decisions about ineffective assistance of counsel in capital murder cases, pretty much acknowledges how bad public defenders can be - IN DEATH PENALTY CASES. Can you imagine the overworked, underpaid schmucks that defend your average assault case?
(7) Five Moleskine points to anyone who gets the title reference without aid of a search engine.
(1) What a colossal waste of energy, money, and (barely remaining) credibility by the US media outlets. This is not a right-left things (although Fox News may have been the worst, it's enough of a close call that there is plenty of shame to go around). And I don't care that the media is simply paying attention to what the people want. I’ve been trying to avoid this like the plague, and all four cable news outlets had this story running yesterday evening – and I’m trying desperately to avoid it. In a fit of elitist delight, I'm going back to getting my news exclusively from NPR and the NewsHour.
(2) Every day, he looks more and more like his likeness standing in Madame Tussaud's, and less and less like a human being. What that man has done to his face, is, quite simply, disgusting.
(3) "Smooth Criminal" and "Billie Jean" - those are absolutely sweet jams. No amount of child molesting will change that.
(4) That kid's parents should be prosecuted, or at least heavily investigated by child services. How awful are those parents for risking the health of their child by allowing a man, for whom there is a reasonably possibility of being a molester, to be alone with their child? Shameful.
(5) I mean, where there's smoke there's fire...or is there? Seems to me that in all likelihood, MJ has inappropriately touched a child. But did he with this one? Or is he just really, really weird and childlike?
(6) No doubt, in any case, that verdicts are still for sale in this country. The jurors did their job, but would reasonable doubt have been present had MJ had a public defender? The scary thing is that the Supreme Court, in its recent decisions about ineffective assistance of counsel in capital murder cases, pretty much acknowledges how bad public defenders can be - IN DEATH PENALTY CASES. Can you imagine the overworked, underpaid schmucks that defend your average assault case?
(7) Five Moleskine points to anyone who gets the title reference without aid of a search engine.
posted by Jason at 08:30
5 Comments:
Michael Jackson? As in the pop singer? Was he in some kind of legal trouble or something?
Nigela - 5 moleskine points - great work! Very impressed.
C'mon, someone out there wants to makes fun of either MJ, the media, or the Justice system, no?
Yeah, I find the whole thing disgusting. The kid's parents are obviously crazy and money-hungry, but that doesn't mean MJ didn't molest him. My spousal unit actually made me listen to some of the Court TV coverage today on satelite radio when we were driving, and this "legal analyst" bimbo was talking about how the timeline for the crime didn't make sense. As in, MJ wouldn't have molested this boy during the time he was being investigated, which is when the alleged incident took place. But anyone who's taken psych 101 knows sexual predators don't choose to molest children, or not to, under some pre-meditated timeline - they have uncontrollable urges.
I find Michael Jackson sad and creepy, and I find all the attention this case has gotten sad and creepy too. All that money and attention wasted, when it could be been used to prosecute lots of crimes, not just one mega-celebrity.
During the coverage on Court TV, this jerk reporter was reporting live from Neverland Ranch, and he was talking about the crush of reporters there, being chased away by MJ's security, and described it as "an ugly scene." Which brought to mind what's going on in Iraq, and I just thought it was really wrong to call a throng of reporters an "ugly scene" compared to say, a car bombing in Kirkuk.
This is why I read all my news online and in print--the non-linear format allows me to skip around things that are useless or of no interest to me without wasting time "waiting them out." Or maybe I'm just stuck in the 19th century and don't like TV. Might I suggest turning off the tube and reading WAPO or Yahoo news (dodging, of course, the abundant celebrity crap) if you wish to avoid celebrity junk.
That said, I was less bothered by the attention given to l'affaire Michael, who, after all, was the biggest pop star of his generation, than by the madness surrounding the Scott Petersen case. A fertilizer salesmen whacks, or doesn't, his wife and suddenly all domestic news sources devote months to it? I used to know a drug dealer back in Columbus who got his throat cut for falling behind on the bills. That kind of thing happens everyday, yet often doesn't make the first page of the local metro section. What on earth, conversely, about some California domestic tragedy made it worthy of months of national spotlight news? There was the unborn-child-as-murder-victim ethical debate, but the media never even really explored that angle. Like it or not, Michael Jackson is a story. You can say the media devoted far too much attention to his troubles, and I'd certainly agree, but it would be difficult to argue, given the public curiosity, that they shouldn't have covered it at all. Scott Petersen was a story the media invented, as hitherto no broad audience had a burning passion to know about a murder in CA, where, after all, there are lots of murders. Now that's shameful.
On MJ's general ghastly appearance, I was going to link you to an Onion post that told the real truth about him (as the Onion, being America's finest news source, always does) but sadly, their archives are no longer available for free. So I'll just agree with you instead. He's a circus freak.
I think there were several reasons for the attention given to the Petersen case. 1) They were a very attractive couple. The media and the public love pretty people. 2) The unborn child aspect, as you mentioned, CL. 3) It was unclear how it would end. and 4) The scanlalous affair with the lover-turned-informant aspect. All that, however, doesn't fully explain it. There was another similar murder, also in California, that same year, that I only read one mention of in a magazine. Another case of husband murders pregnant wife. Also, does anyone remember about five years ago or so a really gruesome murder here in Ohio, where a pregnant woman was murdered by her neighbor, and the killer cut the baby out of the dead mother and kidnapped him? It only made the local news, and that was a sensational murder if ever there was one.
Anyway, this is my theory on Petersen: The media are basically pretty lazy. A few folks in California decided this was a good case to follow, and everybody else jumped on the bandwagon and started provided 24 hour coverage b/c they were too lazy to dig up a new story.
Interesting statistic of the day: The leading cause of death of pregnant women in the US is automobile accidents. The second leading cause of death of pregnant women in the US: murder.
Post a Comment
<< Home