Newest TV Trend: The Dead Celebrity News!

[Fazor]

I had to rant about this, but this is my first chance. Okay so we had some others, but then Farrah died quickly followed by the Thriller himself. But are we now doomed for the next few months to see all these the-life-and-times-of-suchandsuch specials every time someone remotely famous dies?

What got me is that I had recorded the US / Rugby match Saturday, and as the end of the first approached, the station announced there was breaking news, and that the second half of the match would be moved to ESPN2. This effectively meant that I did not have the second half available to watch (yeah, I know they replayed it later that night, and I caught it then).

Well, this big, breaking news that pre-empted the rest of the in-progress game was the death of former NFL QB Steve McNair. But the thing that really "grinded my gears" was that it was something that just happened, and there was no information yet. The press-conference from the police was litterally "We can confirm that Steve McNair and at least one other person are dead, but we don't know any details at this time. Thank you."

It was something that could have been covered over a comercial break. But ESPN turned the next few hours of their programming into McNair-Gate 2009: live coverage and clips of Steve from his days as a QB.

I thought that was tacky, un-necessary, and a blatant attempt to milk ratings via the death of an ex football player.

I'm keeping my fingers crossed that this won't be a continuing trend, but I'm not optimistic.

[Larry Jacks]

I've seen similar things following a plane crash where talking heads and alleged "experts" speculate for hours about the cause. That's very close to journalistic malpractice IMO. Instead of saying "We don't know", they speculate continuously and almost always horribly wrongly. But then, there are so many 24 hour "news" networks and they have a lot of airtime to fill.

Other obnoxious trends are the latest "missing white girl" programs. They'll pick one story and go on for weeks about it. Don't boys or children of color go missing, too? A little publicity of those cases might actually help a few families find their missing children.

[Swift]

I was speculating with my wife the other day as to how long Michael Jackson's death will reported on a daily basis. I suspect on the "serious" news outlets (like CNN and Fox) we are talking weeks and on the entertainment channels we are talking months if not longer.

Thank goodness I have books and my computer to keep me entertained.

[sarongsong]

Newest TV Trend...Newest? :lol: ...I don't think so.

[Trebuchet]

Other obnoxious trends are the latest "missing white girl" programs. They'll pick one story and go on for weeks about it. Don't boys or children of color go missing, too? A little publicity of those cases might actually help a few families find their missing children.

You're referring, I think, to the utterly despicable (my opinion) Nancy Grace. My dear wife, unfortunately, is almost certainly watching her at this very moment. I don't see how she can stand it.

Based on how long the Anna Nicole Smith saga dragged on, we can look forward to MJ, a much bigger celebrity, being with us for a very long time. Of course he lacked some of her physical attributes which made the stations so fond of showing her picture.

[raptorthang]

The media is in a wierd state of frenzy. There are 24/7 news services without enough meaningful material to maintain an audience. They start chasing stories that will capture niche audiences. On CNN, 10 million watching a blip about Michael Jackson's pet monkey (yes, that was a story) is better than 5 million watching the latest on Iran or the economy, etc.

140,000 people die every day (UN figure) but that is trumped a million fold in attention given a celebrity murder trial as with OJ Simpson.

As Marshal Macluhan predicted 'the media is the message'.

The irony is in journalists' view of themselves. So many denounce the easy access to news and pseudo news on the Internet. These aren't 'researched...blah...blah... but then these same journalists write about Michael Jackson's nosejob ad nauseum or filled volumes of newspapers with the 'news' on O.J.'s bloody sock.

[Tucson_Tim]

I suspect on the "serious" news outlets . . .

You hit the nail on the head. There are no more serious news outlets. Maybe the BBC but I can't get that regularly. Give me the old days with an hour of news each night, reported with no editorializing.

[Tucson_Tim]

You're referring, I think, to the utterly despicable (my opinion) Nancy Grace.
That's my opinion too. Where oh where did the old CNN go?

[sarongsong]

That's my opinion too...Yup! ...and her "frequent guest host", Jane Velez-Mitchell, takes Nancy's schtick even further into Yuckland, but with (seemingly) less (facial) make-up! http://www.bautforum.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

[Tucson_Tim]

Sometimes I blame the media for what we have now but they are giving the public exactly what the public wants. Back many years ago the news department of a network was not expected to make any money--it was a public service--if it did make money, well fine. Now its' strictly for-profit.

[kleindoofy]

... where did the old CNN go?
CNN created its own problem and got the snowball rolling down the hill.

How?

Well, the "old" CNN (back in the 80's/early 90's) worked on the original premise that people wouldn't have to wait until 6/7pm to watch the news. They broadcast a continual news show that more or less repeated itself every twenty minutes, adding new items as the day went along.

The problems started when people didn't just watch for twenty minutes, but started staying tuned. CNN then constantly had to come up with new material to keep people's attention.

Of course, where are you going to get something new every few minutes? Answer, 1. cut your journalistic standards, 2. make every rain drop that falls from the sky a "breaking news bulletin."

CNN created its and our problems simply by having created itself.

Many aspects of the way the media makes totally unimportant crap into "headline" news reminds me of parts of A Brave New World, i.e. keep the mindless masses concentrated on flashy lights and bunnies. That way they will lose sight of what's really going on, giving potentially malevolent powers more leeway.

[hmungotto]

The press-conference from the police was litterally "We can confirm that Steve McNair and at least one other person are dead, but we don't know any details at this time. Thank you."

I can confirm that at least one person besides Steve McNair is dead.

[Phamph]

I had to rant about this, but this is my first chance. Okay so we had some others, but then Farrah died quickly...
Farrahs dead??? :eek:

[novaderrik]

it's easier to "report" on this stuff than it is to put their mad journalism skillz to the test and actually talk about all the stuff in the world that really matters- the details are kind of fuzzy, but i recall that we may be involved in a couple of wars or something, and there might be some sort of a problem with something called "the economy", but they don't seem to be talking about it since the deaths of the self proclaimed "King of Pop", an "actress" that was famous for being pretty while holding a gun or something on a tv show 30 years ago, a guy that screams at me to buy stuff late at night, and now a guy that used to make a lot of money playing a schoolyard game.

[Ara Pacis]

Well, we (or the media) make celebrities bigger than life. It only makes sense that the next step is to make them bigger than death. After all, people are still seeing Elvis, aren't they?

[mugaliens]

Funny you should bring this up now. I spent ten seconds watching a baseball game while thinking, "that guy sounds just like Howard Cosell."

It's because it was HC. I flipped back about an hour later and it was still HC. They were replaying the entire baseball game!

[sarongsong]

...the next step is to make them bigger than death. After all, people are still seeing Elvis, aren't they?Michael Jackson in Irag (http://shock.military.com/Shock/videos.do?displayContent=194153&page=1) http://www.bautforum.com/images/icons/icon6.gif

(04:25 video)

[kleindoofy]

... we ... make celebrities bigger than life. ...
To quote Tonto (well, almost): “What You Mean 'We,' Paleface?”

... people are still seeing Elvis, aren't they?
Yeah, but going back to night school to finally finish the fifth grade helps cure that.

I'm guessing there's a correlation between the number of people who worship celebs like gods and the number of total losers who desperately need to 'get a life.' Something like 1:1.

[Larry Jacks]

You're referring, I think, to the utterly despicable (my opinion) Nancy Grace. My dear wife, unfortunately, is almost certainly watching her at this very moment. I don't see how she can stand it.

She's only one of the ones I had in mind. The 24 hour "news" networks each seem to have at least one just like her.

[Swift]

Sometimes I blame the media for what we have now but they are giving the public exactly what the public wants. Back many years ago the news department of a network was not expected to make any money--it was a public service--if it did make money, well fine. Now its' strictly for-profit.
Go back some time and watch the movie Network (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0074958/), which came out in 1976. At the time it was kind of a farce, but looking at it now, it was practically a documentary about the current state of things.

[Fazor]

Newest? :lol: ...I don't think so.

Yes, I admit I should have said "latest" or "current", as I do realize we've had this before.

Everything is a bandwagon with the media. If there's a current "hot topic", they'll jump on any similar stories and "report" (use that word loosely) them to death. The current bandwagon topic is celebrity deaths.

My gripe was ESPN turning a 30 second bulletin of an ex-player's death into a three-hour pre-empt everything on the channel "live coverage", which was made worse by the fact that the only available information was "Yes, he is confirmed to have died. No further comment at this time."

[Buttercup]

I hear you, Fazor. :( I'd wondered the same thing when Billy Mays' death (sorry for it; condolences to family and friends) was headline news. I'm sorry, but it was?? And Steve McNair? Never heard of the guy.

Our society is continually devolving into a "Bread & Circuses" state of existence.

What's next, daily updates on Cher's hairdresser?

Give me the days of CBS, NBC, ABC and real news. :rolleyes:

[Larry Jacks]

Everything is a bandwagon with the media. If there's a current "hot topic", they'll jump on any similar stories and "report" (use that word loosely) them to death. The current bandwagon topic is celebrity deaths.

I've heard the term "media front" to describe it. Like a weather pattern, a media front will spring up and pass through (days, weeks, or even months later) until the next front comes along. It's about as good a term as any.

[Swift]

I've heard the term "media front" to describe it. Like a weather pattern, a media front will spring up and pass through (days, weeks, or even months later) until the next front comes along. It's about as good a term as any.
Given the "storm" of attention to this media front, do you think we, as consumers of TV, could apply for Federal disaster relief? :D

[Tucson_Tim]

Go back some time and watch the movie Network (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0074958/), which came out in 1976. At the time it was kind of a farce, but looking at it now, it was practically a documentary about the current state of things.

It's been years since I last saw it. Maybe I will give it another look-see.

[Swift]

Looking at the title of this thread, "Dead Celebrity News" sounds like it should be the title of some actual program on an entertainment channel. Tell you what Fazor, I'll split the license fee for the name with you: 75% for you, 25% for me. :D

Tonight on DCN, Day 274 of the dead MJ watch - who will get the houseplants? And, from our overseas bureau, dead celebrities in Europe!

[Fazor]

Looking at the title of this thread, "Dead Celebrity News" sounds like it should be the title of some actual program on an entertainment channel. Tell you what Fazor, I'll split the license fee for the name with you: 75% for you, 25% for me. :D

Tonight on DCN, Day 274 of the dead MJ watch - who will get the houseplants? And, from our overseas bureau, dead celebrities in Europe!

I think it's already a division of E!. Alas! One day I'll have a breakthrough idea that hasn't already been done.

[Tucson_Tim]

The older I get, the more I look at what a dead celebrity did with all their wealth and fame. Let's face it, they acquired the wealth and fame by the public heaping adoration and money in their direction. And I don't see anything wrong with this as long as somewhere down the line the celebrity puts pack something into society. I admire (and I am somewhat jealous of) the many years of intense work and energy and natural ability it takes for someone to reach the top of the pyramid for that field, be it a professor, a scientist, an astronaut, a singer, a dancer, an athlete, etc.. (But rarely does a scientist cross over into celebrity status.) All I ask is that a celebrity turn the valve on that faucet the other way for a while and put something back--and it doesn't have to be money.

[kleindoofy]

... the public heaping adoration ... in their direction. ... I admire (and I am somewhat jealous of) the many years of intense work and energy and natural ability it takes for someone to reach the top of the pyramid for that field ...
Why does Paris Hilton pop into mind? :lol:

[NEOWatcher]

The older I get, the more I look at what a dead celebrity did with all their wealth and fame. Let's face it, they acquired the wealth and fame by the public heaping adoration and money in their direction. And I don't see anything wrong with this as long as somewhere down the line the celebrity puts pack something into society.
I don't disagree with you, but you also have to include the "let the buyer beware" factor into that "put back" concept.
Some people just get carried away, and it goes both ways.

[Tucson_Tim]

Why does Paris Hilton pop into mind? :lol:

Yeah, a celebrity due to being born with money and being good looking. I don't know what to say about that. I guess that one lies squarely in the lap of the public.

[Tucson_Tim]

I don't disagree with you, but you also have to include the "let the buyer beware" factor into that "put back" concept.
Some people just get carried away, and it goes both ways.

I understand what you're saying. Due to the adoration factor, a celebrity can sway the masses.

One could also argue that a celebrity has already "put back" by giving the public the joy of watching them do what they do--of course we had to pay for it. Watching a pro soccer player flip upside down to kick the ball through the goal is quite a treat, I must admit.

[Tucson_Tim]

. . . the self proclaimed "King of Pop", . . .

Just curious. Can you give a link or a reference where Jackson said this himself?

[Ara Pacis]

All I ask is that a celebrity turn the valve on that faucet the other way for a while and put something back--and it doesn't have to be money.

A lot of them do, and are often criticized for it.

People don't like celebs being politically active, especially for reasons of which a particular critic is critical.

People don't like celebs choosing one charity over another charity, such as choosing an environmental issue instead of a dying children issue.

People don't like celebs choosing a charity only after they become ill with some disease, such as how Christopher Reeves only supported Stem Cells Research after he became paralyzed.

People don't like celebs having fundraisers for rich people to donate because then non-rich people don't get into the functions.

People don't like celebs talking about their charities when they pay money for tickets, they just want them to "shut up and act/sing".

There's no pleasing people.

[mugaliens]

A lot of them do, and are often criticized for it.

People don't like celebs being politically active, especially for reasons of which a particular critic is critical.

Questions are rhetorical, Ara - not directed at you. :)

I believe this is because people identify with their own causes, identify with a celeb, and when the two are conflicted, internal discord results, so who's at fault? Themselves? Their inability to appeciate others even if they're different?

Of course not. The celeb gets the blame.

People don't like celebs choosing one charity over another charity, such as choosing an environmental issue instead of a dying children issue.

United way is but one possible solution...

People don't like celebs choosing a charity only after they become ill with some disease, such as how Christopher Reeves only supported Stem Cells Research after he became paralyzed.

:confused: What's he supposed to do - ignore it and support PETA, instead? Come on - he was thrown from a horse.

People don't like celebs having fundraisers for rich people to donate because then non-rich people don't get into the functions.

Isn't that the idea of a fund-raiser? To get rich people to donate?

People don't like celebs talking about their charities when they pay money for tickets, they just want them to "shut up and act/sing".

There's no pleasing people.

Well, I'd have to agree with this one. Celebs are getting paid to entertain, not advertise. If I paid $100 for a ticket, as I have on one occasion, I wouldn't want the time used by an advertisement, regardless of how worthy the cause might be.

Of course, it was a 2.5 hour show, so a minute's worth only cost $0.67...

[matthewota]

Other obnoxious trends are the latest "missing white girl" programs. They'll pick one story and go on for weeks about it. Don't boys or children of color go missing, too? A little publicity of those cases might actually help a few families find their missing children.

I totally agree. I cannot understand why the media concentrates on missing white women, especially if they are young, blond, and attractive.

I remember once there was a plane crash in India, This local news (Los Angeles) reporter stated "There were two Americans on board, but they were naturalized citizens of Asian Indian ancestry"

This really upset me, because the reporter apparently felt that naturalized citizens were somewhat less than native born ones.

[Fazor]

This really upset me, because the reporter apparently felt that naturalized citizens were somewhat less than native born ones.

Or that either were any more or less important than anyone else on board.

[Larry Jacks]

I remember once there was a plane crash in India, This local news (Los Angeles) reporter stated "There were two Americans on board, but they were naturalized citizens of Asian Indian ancestry"

This really upset me, because the reporter apparently felt that naturalized citizens were somewhat less than native born ones.

The vapidness of the Press is never ending. I remember a comedy show (possibly Saturday Night Live) with a fake news story about a horrific plane crash where everyone died, "but not to worry, there were no Americans on board."

[HenrikOlsen]

I'm reminded of a Swamp strip, with a news report about a plane crashing after a bird strike where everyone on board died, it wasn't until the reporter mentioned that the bird was a duck that the viewer (who was a duck, naturally) reacted in tears.

[Ara Pacis]

I totally agree. I cannot understand why the media concentrates on missing white women, especially if they are young, blond, and attractive.

I remember once there was a plane crash in India, This local news (Los Angeles) reporter stated "There were two Americans on board, but they were naturalized citizens of Asian Indian ancestry"

This really upset me, because the reporter apparently felt that naturalized citizens were somewhat less than native born ones.

They know their audience: American citizens by birth. I think the implication is that it would be worse if it was american citizens out doing business or vacationing, but if it's persons who were origionally from that area travelling back, well, maybe they were homesick for some other country and weren't acting american enough. The moral of the story is: If you're gonna marry America, don't cheat on her, or else.

[DonM435]

I suppose that when I hear that other Americans were involved in an event far away, I am reminded "Hey -- that could have been me."

[closetgeek]

I admire (and I am somewhat jealous of) the many years of intense work and energy and natural ability it takes for someone to reach the top of the pyramid for that field, be it a professor, a scientist, an astronaut, a singer, a dancer, an athlete, etc.. (But rarely does a scientist cross over into celebrity status.)

Tuscan Tim Here you go (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jqLPHrCQr2I)

(link to a video with sound, don't yell at me if you click it at work)

[closetgeek]

A lot of them do, and are often criticized for it...

...People don't like celebs talking about their charities when they pay money for tickets, they just want them to "shut up and act/sing".

There's no pleasing people.

I disagree. I think celebs who get involved in charities tend to get a lot of positive attention. It's when they get involved in hot button topics and grandstand when they get criticized. I speak only for myself here but they have the right to their opinion and are lucky enough to have the forum to express their ideas. It's when people relay their opinions as fact, as though being able to act gives them some authority on the topic that annoys me to no end.

[Tucson_Tim]

Tuscan Tim Here you go (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jqLPHrCQr2I)

(link to a video with sound, don't yell at me if you click it at work)

Thanks. It's too bad the real word doesn't recognize inventors/scientists as much as they deserve. There are too few crossovers.

[novaderrik]

Just curious. Can you give a link or a reference where Jackson said this himself?

this was a response to me saying a few days ago that MJ was the "self proclaimed king of pop"..

in response, i will say that i read it on the internet and saw it on tv, so therefore it is full of truthiness.
now i can go back to ignoring anything Michael Jackson related once again.

[Tucson_Tim]

in response, i will say that i read it on the internet and saw it on tv, so therefore it is full of truthiness.
now i can go back to ignoring anything Michael Jackson related once again.

I had to look that word up. From reference.com:


Truthiness is a term first used in its current satirical sense by American television comedian Stephen Colbert in 2005, to describe things that a person claims to know intuitively or "from the gut" without regard to evidence, logic, intellectual examination, or facts.

[Romanus]

What bugs me is both the coverage and its hypocrisy. Can't tell you how many celebs are mocked, brushed aside, or decried as drug-soaked losers until they're dead, whereupon the commentators come out with their "Their life was a great tragedy...", or "Who knows what demons haunted them late into the night?..." The faux sadness, the patched-together encomiums...it really is too much.

[kleindoofy]

What bugs me is both the coverage and its hypocrisy. Can't tell you how many celebs are mocked, brushed aside, or decried as drug-soaked losers until they're dead, whereupon the commentators come out with their "Their life was a great tragedy...", or ...
Not only the commentators.

If one posts on a forum, yes even terribile dictu, on BAUT, and dares to voice an opinion that certain celebrities' deaths--and I'm not talking about Jackson--just may be less of an accident and more the result of drug and overblown ego abuse, many people get all upset.

Celebs have a way of transplanting emotions and objectivity.

Didn't Freud say something about 'projection' ...

[Ara Pacis]

What bugs me is both the coverage and its hypocrisy. Can't tell you how many celebs are mocked, brushed aside, or decried as drug-soaked losers until they're dead, whereupon the commentators come out with their "Their life was a great tragedy...", or "Who knows what demons haunted them late into the night?..." The faux sadness, the patched-together encomiums...it really is too much.

Not just celebs. This happens at most funerals. Maybe if people thought more of the tragedy aspect of a person's life while they were alive and tried to help overcome them, there would be fewer deaths of such a nature.

[Tucson_Tim]

It seems that it is okay to talk trash about someone (doesn't matter who) when they are alive but when that person dies it's only proper to say (or remember the) good things. Is that just human nature? A cultural thing? I realize they are not around to defend themselves--but is that the only reason?

ETA: I can understand the "why beat a dead horse?" if the horse was bad while alive. But then why praise the dead horse?

ETA: Or is it the Golden Rule? We'll talk nice about the dead person so when we die people will only say nice things about us (and not mention the bad things we did)?

[Veeger]

The media is in a wierd state of frenzy. There are 24/7 news services without enough meaningful material to maintain an audience. They start chasing stories that will capture niche audiences. On CNN, 10 million watching a blip about Michael Jackson's pet monkey (yes, that was a story) is better than 5 million watching the latest on Iran or the economy, etc.

140,000 people die every day (UN figure) but that is trumped a million fold in attention given a celebrity murder trial as with OJ Simpson.

As Marshal Macluhan predicted 'the media is the message'.

The irony is in journalists' view of themselves. So many denounce the easy access to news and pseudo news on the Internet. These aren't 'researched...blah...blah... but then these same journalists write about Michael Jackson's nosejob ad nauseum or filled volumes of newspapers with the 'news' on O.J.'s bloody sock.

Though this poster was banned and unable to respond, I happen to agree with him completely. The 24/7 news program must keep itself viable when there is no "real" breaking news, so it begins to create breaking news. Local news channels in the U.S. have been doing the same thing for decades. They throw out teasers making the news seem very important; too big to miss; and yet the story generally turns out to be insignificant. The program is sold, the sponsors are happy and the program executives meet their yearly goals.

Several years ago, CNN began to shift its programming to a different demographic, focusing on the younger, more liberal viewer, who was wired-in and raised in the information age. It is not the same CNN who kept viewers riveted as they rescued the baby in the well in Midland, Texas. Cable TV was a 'new' thing then. Its serves a whole new market now and people like myself are not necessarily part of it.

News of dead celebrities has always captured peoples attention. What make things different is the age of instant information, 24/7. It can be a wonderful thing or a pain in the backside - depending on your interests.

[Ara Pacis]

Several years ago, CNN began to shift its programming to a different demographic, focusing on the younger, more liberal viewer, who was wired-in and raised in the information age. It is not the same CNN who kept viewers riveted as they rescued the baby in the well in Midland, Texas. Cable TV was a 'new' thing then. Its serves a whole new market now and people like myself are not necessarily part of it.
The so-called "24 hour news cycle" is a farce. Most of the programming on the news stations has ceased to be news, much less up-to-the-minute news like the old Headline News Network used to be. It is now mostly commentary, or recordings of earlier commentary. There is precious little news on any network. Although I applaud the Big three broadcast networks for having their late-night/early morning time slots filled with reporting news while CNN, Fox, MSNBC etc, air repeats of fluff.

[DonM435]

Up until about 1980, when someone important or famous died (think Adlai Stevenson, Hubert Humphrey, John Wayne ... ) the 11 p.m. newscast would tell you to stay tuned for a special about him or her. They'd delay the start of The Tonight Show or whatever by half an hour and present a biography/obituary. I presume that this happened on all three networks. Simple, and reasonably dignified.

I suppose that the advent of the 24-hour cable news stations made this unnecessary.

[DonM435]

. . .

ETA: Or is it the Golden Rule? We'll talk nice about the dead person so when we die people will only say nice things about us (and not mention the bad things we did)?

I am reminded of the alleged Yogi Berra quote: "If you don't go to peoples' funerals, they won't come to yours."

[closetgeek]

It seems that it is okay to talk trash about someone (doesn't matter who) when they are alive but when that person dies it's only proper to say (or remember the) good things. Is that just human nature? A cultural thing? I realize they are not around to defend themselves--but is that the only reason?

ETA: I can understand the "why beat a dead horse?" if the horse was bad while alive. But then why praise the dead horse?

ETA: Or is it the Golden Rule? We'll talk nice about the dead person so when we die people will only say nice things about us (and not mention the bad things we did)?

It's how the human brain works. When someone dies, we acknowledge the loss. On the other hand, say you end up going to the funeral of someone who you found to have less then desirable qualities; chances are, there will be people there who actually cared for this person. You are not going to sit there and talk about how relieved you are that they are gone, you are going to be polite to those that are mourning.