Great, so my first two posts back will be on Transformers and Michael Jackson. Oh well.
Anyway, I agree with Amy that Peter King’s vitriolic rant at Michael Jackson probably wasn’t the classiest thing in the world, but I really can’t resist disagreeing with this.
While I do agree the media coverage has been a bit excessive, calling him a creep and basically saying that he has done nothing to contribute to our society is ludicrous: the man shattered all music records (top selling album of all time, largest concert audience, etc) and few, if any, other artists have come close to his level of international fame. Even after all the circus-like antics and plastic surgery, he still remained the King of Pop.
While he certainly raised eyebrows with his questionable friendships (I blame his father for ruining his childhood), he went to trial and was aquitted of the charges brought against him. It is in extremely poor taste to criticize someone posthumous, particularly after he died at such a young age. Good luck in re-election, buddy.
Now, I’ll concede that the criticism that Michael Jackson contributed nothing to society is pretty easily undone by Jackson’s musical and career accomplishments, but it most certainly does not simply vanish the fact that he shared a bed with prepubescent boys. I don’t care if he was acquitted of molestation, there’s some seriously predatory and unseemly dynamics in play, no matter how large the bed.
Anyway, this sort of strikes at what I see as the heart of the voluminous coverage devoted to Jackson’s passing: Jackson was a (moon)walking pedophilic punch-line for years. He also, for years, was a talented musician, performer, and prolific contributor to pop music. So, yes, King was wildly disrespectful, but it’s a bit much to suggest that Michael Jackson’s untimely passing should protect his legacy from the fact that he was a derranged lunatic.