In Defense of the MJ Obit Writers

In the week-plus after Michael Jackson's death, there's been quite heavy criticism of the press coverage. I've never been a cable news apologist, and won't start now. The oversaturation is comical.

But the complaint that seems off base goes something like this: Journalists spent so much time talking about Jackson's faults while he was alive, yet they all the sudden write glowing obituaries that portray him as a barrier-breaking musical genius. What gives?

The simple answer is scope of coverage. For the past 15 years, the news on Jackson has been grim and the press focus has been narrow -- dispatches from trials, a publicity stunt here and there. There'd been little reason to remind readers of Jackson's musical talents beyond the obligatory paragraph or two.

An obituary, be it for an international icon or a little-known artist, is an appraisal of someone's entire body of work. Naturally, in the case of Jackson, the obit writer would focus on what made Jackson famous in the first place -- the music.

This isn't to say that some of the pre-death Jackson coverage wasn't in bad taste or that the volume of ink spilled (I know, dated reference) after those first obits wasn't excessive. But the fact that there initially was such a jarring change of tone in the Jackson coverage seems to say less about choices made by news outlets and more about the tragic turn Jackson took.