« (Don't) Legalize It! Decriminalize it. | CarlBentham's Blog | Come out and say it: insurance industry needs to shrink »
Should TPM have led with the Michael Jackson death story?
Just after Michael Jackson's sudden death, TPM posted a large-font headline trumpeting the news across the main section with a closeup of his face taking up most of my screen. I felt a little bit uneasy about it. Yes, Michael Jackson was an incredibly important cultural figure and his death is, indeed, news of significance. But I've been reading TPM for years for politics, policy, and, as Josh Marshall has said, 'hard news'.
As I saw the Jackson headline, I felt as if the old TPM, the small, dedicated investigative blogging outlet, had begun to change. It seemed to lunge toward the Huffington-post general news model, and away from dedicated political journalism. I'm just not sure that its' worth it for TPM to make a foray into general news when we are in a society that thirsts for intelligent political journalism and internet companies are eeking by on ad revenues.
Now obviously I have, and should not have any right to demand editorial changes at TPM. Furthermore, Josh Marshall and everyone else at TPM have made this a wonderful site with intelligent, substantive reporting. And they continue to do a great job. But I can't help but wonder- would TPM be better served by closing its sights and ignoring everything outside of the politics/policy/hard news realm?
As I saw the Jackson headline, I felt as if the old TPM, the small, dedicated investigative blogging outlet, had begun to change. It seemed to lunge toward the Huffington-post general news model, and away from dedicated political journalism. I'm just not sure that its' worth it for TPM to make a foray into general news when we are in a society that thirsts for intelligent political journalism and internet companies are eeking by on ad revenues.
Now obviously I have, and should not have any right to demand editorial changes at TPM. Furthermore, Josh Marshall and everyone else at TPM have made this a wonderful site with intelligent, substantive reporting. And they continue to do a great job. But I can't help but wonder- would TPM be better served by closing its sights and ignoring everything outside of the politics/policy/hard news realm?
Advertisement
Yes.
June 29, 2009 10:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
I, too, appreciate that TPM is not entwined in pop culture, style, etc. like huffpo. I cringed when i saw jackson in the lead story here, though i was glad they had used an early photo, which then changed to a more current wince-causing european-woman one. Having said that, it is apparent i am one of the extreme minority in this country and the world at large, who was untouched by either jackson's life OR death, Maybe that neutralizes my opinion in this matter.
June 29, 2009 10:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
Provided, of course, that he's actually dead. If ever there were a plausible candidate for faking his own death, Mr. Jackson would be it.
June 29, 2009 11:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
Michael Jackson, "didn't die - he just went home." - MIB
June 29, 2009 11:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's easy to second guess editorial judgments and while I understand your point and honor your right to make it, it seems to me wise to defer to the editorial judgment that brought the site to where it is. I don't think there are any larger implications or problems indicated by the fact that TPM didn't ignore Michael Jackson's death. There is no trend that people need to be concerned about that threatens to substantially alter what TPM has been or what it is.
Personally, I see the site as a liberal/left news site. The sudden and unexpected death of Michael Jackson certainly is news well worthy of the big picture and headline it received. Given the larger than life persona that he was, Jackson's death really transcended normal lines of coverage as demonstrated by the reaction of all kinds of media worldwide and not just TPM in isolation. That it was covered does not mean TPM is now devolving into Huffpo or TMZ. You just can't get around the fact that Michael Jackson's death at 50 is a really big deal.
It would be one thing if the site stopped everything as say, MSNBC did, and acted as though nothing else was going on, but that isn't at all the case. All of the political, policy and other news that is typically covered here was covered. Nothing really changed at all. A major and newsworthy death occured and got prominent mention. It has no greater significance than that and portends nothing except that TPM will not be ignoring everything else in the world while covering political and policy news. I think that's healthy and wise for a news site.
June 29, 2009 11:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
Nah ... MJ's passing is big news. They didn't stop other coverage to highlight it. The problem with the coverage of Sanford's sex life wasn't that they covered it - the problem was the extent to which it was covered to the exclusion of everything else.
June 29, 2009 12:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
I feel exactly the same.
Not that I wasn't surprised that they decided to do a big headline of the Jackson story, I was surprised, it seemed kind of out of character for them.
But I want to carry it to another level. If there is anyone out there who thinks overall that the Sanford sex scandal is much more important than Michael Jackson's death, can I say that I think they just a real warped sense of politics. I think that's really wack. Sanford is not a big celebrity! Get it? He's the governor of a minor state. He is not beloved worldwide by fans and has not been an intimate part of many people's lives, his output and life marking milestones for them in their own.
You yourselves who are digging into the Sanford personal hypocrisy story in such detail are the ones making Sanford a celebrity by doing it! By obsessing about it and demanding answers on his personal life and then attending his press conferences on it and such. Michael Jackson sold his self, his person, to the public, he wanted fans "love."
Not understanding the difference is why we ended up distracting one presidency with a lot of potential with Paula Jones, Monica Lewinsky, etc. for far far too long. Unless you are purposely trying to do the same thing as the "vast right wing conspiracy" did, in which case I don't think too highly of you.
If we continue to treat our politicians like entertainment celebrities (or royal families for that matter), we will continue to deserve what we get in their performance, and to have them be distracted by things that are not in their job description, and citizens of other countries with less obsession about their politician's personal lives will continue to think there is something wrong with us.
June 29, 2009 2:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'd also like to add that I find those who have a need to continually focus on personal hypocrisy to have a strange obsession of their own. Pointing it out once is one thing, focusing on it like a crusade strikes me as losing all perspective. Look, ideologues are called ideologues because they believe in promoting ideals, ok? Chances are pretty good from the getgo that they are going to fail at their ideal. I don't happen to like ideologues very much for that reason, I already expect that they probably don't and can't live up to their ideal, and to keep pointing it out when they do so is really just redundancy to me.
June 29, 2009 2:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think it had to be noted and it was a big story. Yeah, TPM specializes in hard news, but one nice thing about it, as opposed to other politics sites, is that it understands that politics is part of culture.
Besides, there was an excellent chance that Michael Steele could have released a statement.
June 29, 2009 12:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, it should not have. It goes against the common man prioritization that is supposed to be a liberal focus. Instead it focused on a celebrity elite as if his death were more important than everyone else's. Why do media outlets do this? It's to get a piece of the buzz money pie surrounding yet another unhappy famous person's dead body. Why celebrate the unhappiness of celebrity?
June 29, 2009 1:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Because it's easy.
June 29, 2009 1:50 PM | Reply | Permalink