Michael Jackson's Death: How Radio Responded
Written Jun. 26, 2009 by Sean Ross in Content with 2 Comments
While most radio stations eventually snapped to attention and acknowledged the death of Michael Jackson for the major event it was last night, some got it faster than others. (And a few were voice-tracking and never got it.) You definitely get the impression that some stations were thinking about the eccentric and embattled Michael of the last 15 years with only a handful of songs that still tested. They weren't thinking of the Michael Jackson who, in 1983-84 left as indeliable an impression as any artist for those of us between 35-and-50. The comparisons were to the death of Elvis Presley, but in his peak years, Michael was like the Beatles in his ubiquity -- particularly in his ability to make a hit out of any song to which he contributed even a backing vocal.
In New York, I heard WBLS do a great job. Within an hour of the announcement of Jackson's death, there was an interview from 1979 (identifiable as such because "Shake Your Body [Down To The Ground]" is still a current.) Former WBLS jocks, including Ken "Spider" Webb, returned to the air to comment. And all of this with a fill-in afternoon host, April Woodard of "Inside Edition," sitting in for Wendy Williams. Meanwhile, crosstown WKTU will be going all Michael this weekend.
Reader Comments
Your 2¢, in chronological order — add your comment below.
I'm still not convinced that chronolgy is a decisive factor in such matters. Yet while there can be no doubt that Jackson's career made an indelible impact upon the demographic that you described, there is rarely any doubt amongst those who experienced the phenomenon first hand that both Elvis Presley and the quartet from Liverpool irrevocably altered popular culture in a myriad of ways and to a degree that dwarfs any and all similar claims from others.
That said, I believe that most would concur that Jackson's sad tale speaks volumes about the old cliche of the price of fame. Despite the magnitude of his success, he was obviously a very unhappy man.
As such, it would be nice if the mass media would take the high road and emphasize the positive, rather than exacerbate the negative elements of his legacy. I'm not holding my breath on that one, though.
I found it interesting that many media outlets felt compelled to "balance" their coverage of Michael. Many mainstream outlets could not make a positive music comment without adding something about the problems that he had.
I feel like this "balance" did a diservice to both sides. You either loved Michael's music or long ago made a decision to dismiss him becuse of the other issues. As I fan I did not want to hear the negative comments and those who don't like him were put off by all of the attention.
The polarizing figures in our culture have their fans and those who would rather simply ignore them. The news media didn't need to present both sides and radio stations who did lost on both sides.