In this article, http://www.msnbc.com/news/861718.asp?0cv=LB10 they discuss the upcoming Dateline segment where they’ll discuss Michael Jackson’s bad plastic surgery.
This strikes me as one of the most mean-spirited ratings ploys ever. We know the guy looks freakish and has more than a few mental hang-ups, but do we turn it into a sweeps event? This poor guy…
Does a public figure deserve to have the doors of his private life opened, regardless of the humiliation he has to suffer?
I usually feel that if a person pursues a career dependent on public recognition, such coverage is fair game. He’s got all the money he will ever need. He could afford to dissapear from public life, but has not.
Michael Jackson can rely on the press showing up whenever he wants to do a press conference. The downside of this is that he is fair game for the media to pick at.
Plus, since his “condition” is entirely his own doing, I have very little simpathy for the man. (Or woman/man plastic combo thing.)
It would be much different if he was burned in a fire and the press wanted to do a story on how ugly he was as a result. But, that’s not the case.
But just because he’s unattractive doesn’t entitle the world to point and laugh on national tv. What about fat people that got their of their own volition? We don’t make a spectacle out of them?
I just think it’s a really ugly side of humanity.
Besides, I think he’s a little crazy. Maybe a lot.
Yes, the news industry’s notion of what constitutes news is pretty screwed up.
No, I don’t think this goes down as one of the worst examples. Remember the Princess Di coverage? The OJ coverage?
In theory, mean-spirited or not, they do this because it works at boosting the ratings.
I think the main problem is calling it news.
I think it’s tacky definitely, but I wouldn’t want to stop em from doing it.
Erek