Many words have been used to describe Michael Jackson’s memorial which took place yesterday in Los Angeles in front of a global audience. Heartfelt, moving, and awe-inspiring have been some of the terms used to describe the public display of mourning which was broadcast into homes all over the world. Some commentators employed to provide the public with a minute-by-minute analysis of the action simply described the memorial as a “fitting tribute” to Jackson and it is this term, not the hyperbolic descriptions of personal feeling for a man most “fans” haven’t even seen in the flesh, that I agree with.
The memorial was a fitting tribute but not because it gave the King of Pop an apt send-off. It was fitting because it was ultimately an extremely uncomfortable experience. Just like Michael Jackson’s life, or at least the version of his life played out in the media for the consumption of the general public, the memorial made for unpleasant viewing and, at times, seemed slightly distasteful.
Forget for one moment the uncomfortable transition the media has made with apparent ease, from presenting Jackson as a figure of ridicule to one possessing almost holy status. Everything about the memorial mirrored Jackson’s life. It was ridiculously over-the-top and, to put it frankly, it was quite disgusting to see what should have been private, personal expressions of grief played out as the world eagerly watched on.
The moment which epitomised this feeling was Paris Jackson’s tribute to her father. Michael Jackson’s family should not have let an 11-year-old girl, obviously devastated by her loss, attempt to express her grief in front of millions of people. The manner in which several members of the Jackson family rushed to raise the microphone so that Paris could speak a few words for the watching, greedy eyes of the world’s media made for quite disgusting viewing.
Speaking of the media, the manner in which the anniversary of the 7/7 London bombings was completely overshadowed is unforgivable. The BBC cleared its schedule in order to broadcast Michael Jackson’s memorial and this fact was advertised throughout the day, no doubt in order to raise viewing figures. How about broadcasting a memorial for the 52 people who lost their lives in London that day? Why is one person’s death so much more important than 52? I think there are questions here which have uncomfortable answers. I can only hope, now that the memorial is over, that the world can switch its attention away from the death of a man who was, at the end of the day, just an entertainer.
Couldn’t agree more – the whole thing was grotesque. These children should have been kept well away from the stage.
The Times is as bad as the BBC – MJ makes the front page plus pp 6 and 7 – where does the 7/7 memorial get a mention – page 15!