As if the death of the Pope weren’t enough, now we have Prince Rainier dying, too. No doubt we’ll be subject to hours of news analysis of how he Brought Glamor to Monaco. Might as well dust off those old film clips of Grace Kelly, too.
No disrespect to the old guy or his family. I’m sure he was a peach of a monarch, and I’m sad for his family that they lost him. But how about just a 30 second spot on the news today to announce his death, and then lets move on to the real news.
I want to know what’s going on in Congress, in Iraq and the rest of the world. I just don’t care how many famous people are dying (or brought up on criminal charges, either)!!!
I think you’ve got this backwards, John. If any famous people are going to die, I’d prefer they do it in batches. Look at it this way: if Prince Ranier had lived for one more month, his death would have come just as coverage of the Pope’s death was finally winding down. Result: it all starts all over again for Ranier. This way, sure, we get a couple quickie mentions on the nightly news, maybe a day of front page coverage in the papers, then back to the dead pontiff. His death is completely overwhelmed by the death of the far more famous celebrity, and our collective suffering is greatly reduced. Same thing happened when Mother Theresa kicked off the same weekend as Princess Di. Instead of having to suffer through two seemingly-endless dead celebrity media cycles, we only had to deal with the one.
So, any celebrities out there reading this, please die now. Thank you for your consideration.
The interesting thing was that their two deaths complemented each other and may have boosted overall coverage. The media showed pictures of Mother Theresa meeting Princess Di. Put in another way, had Pope John Paul died back in August of 1997, the media would have played up the idea of the death of humanitarians.
When Ronald Reagan died on the Eve of D-Day the news coverage had shown footage of Reagan giving a speech to on the 40th Anniverary of D-Day. It was seen as a fitting coincidence given that he was the President of the Greatest Generation.
I can only imagine what would have happened if the network news media was around on July 4, 1826.
If you don’t like CNN or whatever the hell sound bytes you’re watching, do the following:
Turn off the TV.
Go to the nearest newsstand/7-11/library/etc.
Pick up a newspaper.
Read the news you want to.
Granted, this does take a miniscule amount of effort, as you have to buck the trend of being spoon-fed pureed ‘information’, but you’ll be glad you did it.
Given the fact that cable TV has space for a Weather Channel, a Food Channel, several news channels, and a country music channel, there really ought to be a Death Channel specifically devoted to broadcasting the funerals and memorial services of the rich and famous. Any additional airtime could be filled up with similarly themed programming such as forensic crime dramas and retrospectives of lavish funerals past, plus ongoing coverage of people who are famous because of their deadness such as Laci Peterson and JonBenet Ramsey. Perhaps if people had somewhere else to go for their weekly JonBenet fix, I wouldn’t have had to stare at her creepy little golem head on the tabloid covers in the supermarket checkout line for the better part of the last decade.* (“This just in…our top-breaking story tonight: JonBenet Ramsey is still dead!”)
*I’m sure she was a cute kid 'n all, despite the hideous Tammy Fae makeover her parents apparently forced on her, but she and Princess Diana need to go away now and let me purchase my avocados in peace.
Kozmik, I concur. Same for Reagan and Sammy Davis Jr. The media was playing Reagan obits to Sammy music, and even dug up pictures of them together, touting it as “the end of an era.”
Prince Rainer, Terri Schiavo, and the Pope don’t seem to have much in common. Hm. That could be an interesting thread in itself.
