There are certain media events that catch me off-guard. One such event was Michael Jackson's death this past week. I'll grant that it was about a major entertainment figure; but how did it merit a entire weekend of coverage on all the cable news channels?
The obvious answer to that there is a dire need to fill the airwaves of a 24/7 new cycle. If an event even hints of generating interest, and there is no obvious risk liability, it will be covered by someone.
But I think there is something more at work here. I think what we accept as news has been expanded to a degree that the word (and by extension the concept) of news has become obsolete.
I have nothing against Michael Jackson. I think his death more than merits a plethora of tributes, but it just wasn't the most important news.
It was something, though; something that merited millions of hours of collective discussion. It was spectacle. People love spectacle. This is why most people will slow down whenever they pass a crash on the freeway.
I think we need to start treating the word news the same way we treat the word bread. We all know what bread is, but when we want to describe it we use specifics, e.g. pumpernickel, white, sourdough. When we talk about news we break it into categories: Infotainment, headline-news, gossip-news, etc.
It the case of Michael Jackson the word would be spectacle.
The purpose of these classifications being that it will give perspective to what we are watching.
edited: 12nov10
