Michael Jackson and Walter Cronkite

The concept of irony is often abused and invoked much too easily. But sometimes events conspire to provide true and rich irony that cannot be ignored. The near juxtaposition of the deaths of Michael Jackson and Walter Cronkite yield to us such an event.

Upon the death of another beloved entertainer, CBS News anchor Cronkite started the evening newscast with the following statement about John Lennon's murder: "The death of a man who sang and played the guitar overshadows the news from Poland, Iran and Washington tonight."

And now, in a cruel twist of ironic fate, that very statement could be applied to Jackson's death relative to Cronkite's own.

Cronkite had the proper sense to know that the response to Lennon's death was disproportionate to its importance. Like Jackson, Lennon was an iconic figure, a giant in the music industry, a legend in his own time. Like Jackson, Lennon's death brought forth a huge outpouring of public angst, candlelight vigils and somber prayer sessions. Like Jackson, Lennon's death evoked a response that revealed more about us than about the deceased. Cronkite understood this and reported accordingly.

As we witness Cronkite's death being overshadowed by Jackson's as presaged by the news anchor's own words, each of us should ask ourselves the following questions: what is my reaction to the death of Michael Jackson compared to my reaction to Walter Cronkite's death? Is that reaction appropriate to the contributions each made to society and humanity? Let's compare the two.

Michael Jackson was an extraordinary entertainer with an amazing talent for song and dance, but also perhaps with an inappropriate affinity for little boys.

Walter Cronkite was the calm voice of reason that held together the fraying fabric of American society that was rapidly unraveling in the face of war, riots and assassinations. Cronkite reassured the country in the face of tragedy followed by tragedy. His reluctant public opposition to the war in Vietnam changed the course of history. He thrilled the entire globe with his wondrous descriptions of man's first step onto another world. He brought us his soothing professionalism as the world held its collective breath during the Apollo 13 near-disaster. In a public life never far from the spotlight, Cronkite's personal and professional integrity were never questioned.

One sang to entertain; the other spoke to inform.

Now let's look at the news coverage. Jackson's demise evoked ceaseless, 24 hour, wall-to-wall coverage for more than one week, and the story still lives on as a headline even today. Walter Cronkite's death warranted a few hours of coverage on the day of his death, a few tributes, and we have already moved on to the next story. Yet according to a Pew poll, half of those interviewed thought the media struck the right balance in covering Jackson's life and death. That is probably one of the saddest statistics I have read, proving to me that half of us have lost all sense of proportion, balance and priority. The comparative response to these deaths can only be considered pathetic.

We fashion a myth and then mourn its death. We have done nothing but create a secular religion, complete with our messiah. We can no longer discern fact from fantasy or myth from reality. We confuse entertainment with news. We're losing it.

Our president is struggling with a declining economy, an ascending Iran, a nuclear North Korea, a war in Iran, an expanding military presence in Afghanistan, and a ceaseless threat from al Qaeda. And we focus on Michael Jackson, largely ignore Walter Cronkite and completely forget important political scandals like the adulterous demise of family values proponents Mark Sanford and John Ensign.

We have become a parody of ourselves, an embarrassing example of self-indulgence and shallowness.

I tremble for my country...

Comments

[ObamacratInCA]

Michael Jackson, who once was referred to as the most famous man in the world, received more detailed coverage because he was a global icon and Walter Cronkite, while well-known and well-regarded in his heyday, was far less well-known globally and had hardly any first-hand resonance with people under the age of 50.

Additionally, the median age of the people deciding and covering today's news leaned more toward an artist they grew up listening to rather than a newsman their parents admired.

This wasn't about society-at-large and our values as a nation. This was about simple newsroom demographics and a media with a 24 hour news hole to fill. A kid could have fallen into a well and this same orgy of attention would have been unleashed because the One Big Story Per Day format has been a profitable, ratings juggernaut ever since the OJ trial and they've been stuck in that mindset ever since.

As far as societal impact goes, you could objectively argue that because Michael raised more money for charity than Walter Cronkite, through his work impacted people on a far more profound level by feeding and clothing them, rather than reading to them.

But why do that? Why compare, dismiss or diminish the work and impact of either of these men, simply because they died within days of each other.

They both touched our lives profoundly in their respective ways with their work on television. I

[Jeff Schweitzer - Huffpost Blogger]

You missed the point. The idea was not to compare the two but to hold up the coverage of Cronkite's death as proprotionate and appropriate - compared to a ridiculous level of coverage for Jackson's death. It doesn't matter who he is or what he did -- nobody derserves that much news coverage when we have other burning issues on our plate.

[ObamacratInCA]

First off: Thanks for giving these posts your consideration and responding to them.

Jeff, I'm not sure but you may have missed main point which is that the media sucks, we don't.

I'm saying whether it's deserved or not, because the media created this challenge for themselves, which none of us requested--namely to fill a 24 hours news hole--they are going to fill it with Amber alerts, fake healthcare protests, and celebrity wakes.

Just as we have held wakes since the beginning of death, we do it now around our global village bonfire, the TV.

I'm sure there was a Jeff Schweitzer of the middle ages decrying the wake given for a conflicted but talented court jester. Humans do wakes. Media, comprised of humans that suck, do longer wakes.

That being said, who really can say the appropriate amount of time to grieve someone's passing.

Was Reagan's too long, was the Billy Mays' too short?

I thought Michael's was about right given his fame, four decades of hits, and his fascinating human interest angle. Race, gender, fame, wealth, drugs, suspicious death--the man was a compelling mini-series. I'm frankly surprised we wrapped it up as quickly as we did.

[blaqntelligence]

Elegant, beautiful, heartfelt.
Thank you.
I will not enter this discussion.
The sour prose of another hellbent on painting Michael Jackson with the brush of perversion, is not worth the energy to pound out a rebuttal.
I've done this dance before....­I'll sit this one out.

[blaqntelligence]

".....also perhaps with an inappropriate affinity for little boys."

Really?

[Jeff Schweitzer - Huffpost Blogger]

yes, really.

[Anne Duchard]

Very simply put: Mr Cronkite informed about the news, most of the time, bad news from a tulmultuous world, reflecting our inability to leave up to our full human potential through our bad leaders. Micheal Jackson and Lennon speak to our soul with their songs, inspiring us to become better humans, their message of brotherly love elevates the soul, the spirit, they give us us, we can relate to their struggle, they appeal to our emotion, our humanity..­.this is why their death preceed all other news. Of course we respect Mr Cronkite as an accomplished journalist, but we should not even be comparing the coverage. Both of these artists died prematurely. Mr Conkite lived a full circle of life.

[Jeff Schweitzer - Huffpost Blogger]

That implies that dying young is newsworthy, deserving of wall-to-wall coverage 24/7 but that a lifetime of accompishment is not simply because the person in question lived a full life. I could not disagree more.

More generally, almost all the comments on my blog largely missed the point. I don't believe anybody's death warrants the level of attention given to Michael Jackson's. The point of bringing up Cronkite was to provide perspective. But apparently that message was apparently lost.

Given the public's reaction to Jackson's death, I am not surprised by the comments.

[Dunbar]

But I think you miss the point. There is still more to the story of Jackson's death and the comments talk to the fact that musicians hold a special place in our hearts. Music always has.

But I will say your blog post brings up the greater point and I agree. We live in an era of "infotainment" and Walter himself was appalled at the state of journalism today. Corporate media, talk radio, and 24/7 "news,'" has so damaged journalism that I see no way out. You are absolutely right about being concerned.

I teach a bit of journalism in a media class, and I do a week on Walter Conkrite and the JFK Assassination in an effort to give my students a little information about a great journalist and a 20th century American news event (I also do Murrow/Cold War). I loved Walter. I admired him with all my heart. But I have to say I am still interested in the Michael Jackson story because I'm still grieving the loss. I loved his music and I felt incredible sympathy for him (he was, in my eyes, innocent of any wrongdoing). And so, while I understand your frustration, I also find myself still curious about Jackson's life and death. And what's even more curious is how I'm finding more and more people becoming sympathetic to him when they laughed at him before. That's something to think about as well!

[rsprags]

This is the same article written comparing Farah vs Micheal; It was bull then and it bull not. Both are being celebrated and remembered; and Many have emailed and called the senate concerning the healthcare lies being pushed by repurgs and centrist demos. We know they are in bed with insurance and pharma, etc - they will pay for it dearly in 2010 and 2012. Point to blog writer and others detractor their are many of us who can handle multiple task at a time w/o cheaping the importance of any one thing!!
I respected and admired Walter and I am still concern with Michael's death and his children's well being! I AM NOT APOLOGIZING FOR LOVING HIM UNCONDITIONALLY AND BEING CONCERN ABOUT HIS CHILDREN, FAMILY, MUSIC, AND THEIR FINANCIAL WELL-BEING. Please get over it writer and anyone else; it is Monday, July 20th and that is the way it is!

[nkadzi]

rsprags, Well said;

[nsj2103]

I don't think feeling more strongly about the death of an artist than about the death of a news anchor is disproportionate. Great artists like Michael Jackson evoke strong emotional responses in their deaths because they did so through their works. A news anchor, no matter how great, can never be as interesting to the public as an artist can because his work, no matter how important, does not make us as interested in him as a person as an artist's work does.

[boycottrightwingthings]

nsj2103, Very well said. I loved Walter but he lived to a ripe old age. Part of our obsession with Michael is that his life was cut so short and we want to try to undeerstand his demons and clear his name. Michael was a humanitarian who gave millions and millions to charities. He was one of the best artists//d­ancers/sin­gers/songw­riters on the planet ever, in a league by himself, and was he one of the kindest and gentlest human beings, I choose to believe that he was one of the sweetest souls on the planet and hurt no one. Walter did not have that on him at all. He was an extraordinary newscaster, and will be missed, but that said, I am not buying his music or playing his videos, therin lies the difference. I did not see Walter as a child trying to grow up and into his career and have to give up so much to do it, as Michael did. Contraversy surrounded Michael Jackson, Walter did not have that. With Michael, we are trying to understand him but, with Walter, we already understand him, and that is the huge difference.

[Sunshine444]

I totally agree! Both Cronkite and MJ made contributions to the world. However, looking back over history, what lives on forever? Art - music, paintings, sculpture. Can anyone name a reporter from a hundred years ago? No. Cronkite was a lovely man with integrity who made a difference in the world and was great at what he did. MJ was the same, however because his talent was in the arts, he may very well live on for centuries, to the delight of his fans and the chagrin of his detractors. He was an artist, a humanitarian and a gifted special soul. Truth be told, we need more of both kinds of people - MJ and Cronkite. And we need less negative judgmental comparison critiques of them both, since they are both on the other side laughing at our squabbles right now. God bless them both.

[preternat]

Michael Jackson's "art" will live on because people paid so much money to make permanent recordings of it. The more accurate word for this kind of "art" is "entertainment".

You'll be able to keep buying copies and copies of entertainment, old and new, long after the current events that shape people's real, daily lives are forgotten. In that sense, it's even more important to review what the world *really* lost.

[nkadzi]

just another white man privileging another white man over a person of colour. I don't know who Cronkite is but i sure do know who Michael Jackson and his music of social and political conscience. maybe this writer has never listened and read the lyrics to some of Michael Jackson's songs. Man in the Mirror, an introspective song (and i think that is what the writer is trying to do, to offer an introspection of society) or he has not listened and read the lyrics of "we are the world," for they say, "there comes a time when we heed a certain call, when the world must come together as one" a song which raised millions for Ethiopia, or the writer hasn't listened to MJ's earth song, or black or white, or "heal the world, make a better place, for you and for me and the entire human race.." for that is what some of us are needing, just to heal the world and make it a much better place for our descendants. Cronkite's work was part of the fabric of life, and so was Michael's, please view both as serving different functions in the realm of human life!!

[coastalcarla]

If you want to know the reason why Walter Cronkite's passing was quickly passed over, go over to Freeper or Drudge. If conservatives truly rule the airwaves like everyone keeps saying they do, there are a heck of a lot of conservatives that are on right wing websites blaming Cronkite for causing us to lose in Vietnam. They're calling him all kinds of names. It's unbelievable. And it could point to the reason why Cronkite's death wasn't pushed more in the media.

[octopi]

They were both legends, the top of their respective fields. No need to disparage Michael Jackson to try and even out the coverage - there was plenty of that during the coverage itself. Cronkite was not there to entertain but to give us insightful facts, otherwise his life was relatively mundane, and there is only so much you can write or sensationalize about that (it's pretty much over already). The other thing is that Cronkite only touched two generations, the oldest ones in America at this time unlike MJ who touched at least one more (Generation X) and also reached audiences around the globe.

[Ironhelix]

Well said. MJ was an icon, worldwide. Cronkite was an American icon, who has been out of the public eye for a VEY long time. Obviously Mr. Schweizer felt it necessary to make the remark "...but also perhaps with an inappropriate affinity for little boys," to "even out" the coverage to damage MJ and build up Cronkite. It's pathetic.

Walter Cronkite would not have stooped to that scummy level. Honor them both appropriately.

[artistforobama]

Here's my two-cents. Both Mr. Cronkite and Mr. Jackson were part of the fabric of my life and many others in America and worldwide. Both were media figures, both were in front of our lives for decades, both made major impact in the respective fields of journalism and music. Because of that, they both warrant our attention. The difference? Mr. Cronkite balanced his public and private lives successfully and beat the statistics in his longevity. Mr. Cronkite's death was natural. He is being remembered appropriately. Michael Jackson, on the other hand, seemingly had difficulty in separating his public and private personas and had a premature expiration date. Mr. Jackson's death was unnatural. His coverage is appropriate because it raises some important issues. The exact issues you are raising in your article.

[nkadzi]

artistforobama, i am sure people across the atlantic dont know who Cronkite, he is predominantly known in the USA, and Michael Jackson, known over the globe!!

[rocker57]

I think you are all missing the point of the article. Its not about Walter Cronkite not getting enough coverage regarding his death, its the fact that all the other issues get put aside in order to report a celebrity death. What Walter Cronkite said upon the death of John Lennon was that "The death of a man who sang and played the guitar overshadows the news from Poland, Iran and Washington tonight."
The news reported non-stop coverage on Michael Jacksons' death for 24/7 for a week, whilst coverage on Iran, the war, health care etc got largely ignored. Sure, I understand that MJ death was sudden, and because of the person was more salacious with regards to reporting. But what is really sad, is that largely, people know more about celebrities than about world events - things that can actually shape our world. Personally, I am more interested on how many soldiers are dying, will Nth Korea destablize if Kim Jong is dying and if the economy will actually recover, then hearing one more story regarding celebrities or semi-celebrities.

[Jeff Schweitzer - Huffpost Blogger]

At least one person understood my article.

[Sunshine444]

I agree with you. However a point is to be made that most celebrities, given their wealth and status, do very little to make the world a better place, either through their artistic gifts or through life actions. MJ did all of that - messages in his music and in his largely unknown humanitarian giving.

http://www.thesilencedtruth.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=65&Itemid=59

So, while it is good to know about the news in the world, it is even better to make an effort to change the world in beneficial ways. And this is not accomplished by speaking negatively. It's accomplished with good words and good deeds and good thoughts. The more we focus on negative news, the more we contribute to the problems in the world. We can be aware of issues, and then focus on positive outcomes with our thoughts and actions.

[preternat]

..."in his largely unknown humanitarian giving."

That's a very good point. So... how much of this positive message were people really interested in, compared to the other aspects of his life and influence? Entertainment value was always what drew the money in the first place, not philanthropic intentions.

Not to mention, the Michael Jackson entertainment industry was much bigger than just MJ the person. Billions of dollars spent for the purpose of entertainment, *not* to make the world more informed, or a better place.

Cronkite died old, long after his achievements were made. So people today who weren't touched by him just don't care about history that far back? Well, the entertainment industry thanks you for that.

[mddem]

I think the death of Michael Jackson has far more news relevance than that of Walter Cronkite. Mr. Cronkite died of natural causes after a long, accomplished life. His achievements were heralded when he retired, two decades ago.

As for Michael Jackson, I think the death of yet another celebrity who could have likely abuse the medical system to maintain a drug addition is very much news--particularly during a public debate about how to reform the nation's health care system.

Then again, I assume you are focused on real news and not what passes for news on the "E" Channel and Larry King Live.

[privategirl]

Jeff, I agree with you to a point. No one media wanted to know what Walter Cronkite did in his personal life. He was one of their own and they repected him as such. I wish the media treated Michael with the same level of respect but unforunately they did not. They speculated, assumed, and judged his personal life without no real proof.

[Clavis]

The best thing the top 1% in this country could have done to protect its own interests was to help the American people get as stupid, ignorant and anti-education as possible. Mishun Akumplisted!

[Mav]

Michael Jacksons death was a tragedy. He was much too young and his short life was riddled with pain.

Walter Cronkite lived a long, happy life....so he himself said in an interview not too long ago. He was 92.

I don't think I will ever get over the life and death of Michael Jackson.

[sandpiper1]

As much as I admired Walter Cronkite, he was a great journalist who was non biased and did not give in to punditry as so many journalists are now doing, I don't think the deaths of these two legends can be compared.
Mr. Cronkite was 92 years old and was no longer in the public eye, he was from a different era and medium, Michael Jackson was a young man of 50 in the prime of his life and who was still in the public eye. They both have earned their place in the history books and will be remembered in their own special way for their respective contributions.
RIP MJ and WC.

[countfloyd]

Neither should have their name in the history books.