Exactly the same way I laughed when I heard Lisa "Left-eye" Lopez of TLC had been killed in a car crash, at the heart-wrenching age of 30. Not because it was funny, but because I wanted to react. These were two people - two artists who'd made a real impact on my life. Who I'd sat listening to for hours, whose videos I'd watched in fascination, whose words I'd looked up and tried to decrypt, whose charisma and laughter, such as I'd perceived it, had touched me at some stage or other in such a way that I came to view them as heroic figures.
But of course, all this has actually very little to do with those two individuals, as once they were, and far more to do with me, and my tastes in popular culture, the cds I buy, and my subsequent definition of my tastes as a characteristic of my identity. It's intensely personal, and of course it's a purely one-way street. Moreover, if you're going to be so dogmatic as to make statements like "such & such is my favourite song/record of all time" or "so and so is my absolute hero for life", as I have, then inevitably you've situated yourself firmly inside the realm of hyperbole.
So when such news as this breaks, I feel as if I should - well, feel. And of course I don't, not really, I'm not about to burst into tears because it just isn't that kind of loss. So nervous, guilty, awkward laughter is the only thing that comes out. Which is more emotion, certainly, than I manifested over the death of Diana, or Jade Goody, or Heath Ledger, or Anthony Minghella, or any other public figure I'd simply spent less time investigating, thinking about, and building up in my mind as a symbol of artistic genius and triumph over adversity, and tragedy all at once.
Where are the messages about Iran?? Cry my worldy, politically-preoccupied peers on Facebook. Good question. But why didn't you ask it on the day Neda was killed, or anyone else for that matter, rather than the morning after Michael Jackson has died. Michael Jackson doesn't negate Iran, as far as I'm aware, and there's a time and a place for everything. Just because I contribute to the sharing of old favourite michael Jackson videos doesn't mean I thumb my nose at Iranian students fighting for liberation, and I resent the implication that it does.
The bad news is, it's far too easy to be sarky about the death of Michael Jackson. It's not shocking in the same way that jokes about Madeline Mccann were or are. Micheal Jackson became a media circus in himself, and had become such an eccentric it almost feels as if he died of natural causes, in fact in some ways it's amazing he lasted as long as he did given the odds stacked against him and the apparently limited average life expectancy of child superstars.
I think it's even easier to be sarky about Jackson than Jade Goody's death. In such cases, cracking jokes in an attempt to shock and appall is a waste of time and effort, while cracking jokes out of apathy is just mundane, we've heard them all before - it's far more useful and original to, I don't know, make some intelligent commentary about it, rather than either fuelling the frenzy - or simply criticising it as idiocy. I'm referring of course to Charlie Brooker and what he had to say about Jade's death - a million miles from the irritatingly obvious "why do all these idiots care so much" discourse that 85% of those commenting about it adopted (with the remaining 15% admitting they actually did care, and commenting about it from that perspective).
I suppose the above is targeted at journalists who churn out rubbish like this, with disconcerting rapidity.
What's unbeleivable about Hadley's article, apart from the paradox of the media complaining about the media by criticisng the public reaction it created itself, is that under a seemingly insightful byline such as the second half of hers here, she then proceeds to defend the public reaction to the death of Diana as in some way legitimate, or presumably more legitimate at least than the public reaction to Jackson's death (which funnily enough hasn't really fully occured yet).
Surely the massive, gaping difference between Michael Jackson and Diana is that she never produced anything that could realistically have meant something to people on the scale of Micheal Jackson's contribution to music, or its reach. And yet people took to the streets in angry, devastated tears, to mourn her as a person, presumably, just like grieving relatives - something which is impossible to do if you are not actually a grieving relative who knew the person - so what on earth is that if not "false emotion"?
People cried over Take That splitting up too - and of course it was an over-reaction. But if you think about it, it's just as logical because it kind of represented the end of an era, and that now no new music would be made, no more live shows could be attended, no new records to be bought and enjoyed (mercifully of course, in retrospect, that turned out not to be the case). The people who bought Michael Jackson's newest records and enjoyed them, myself among them, will see this as a loss which can be relieved by no such resurrection, fascination with the man himself aside. And he really was fascinating to me, but then again, I find Pete Burns fascinating. Which just goes to show.
On the brighter side, at least we still have Janet, another long-time object of my tendency towards heroification (and unlike the Take That sarcasm, this I genuinely mean).
I'll leave you with that song, as well some of the brilliant comments made in response to Hadley's article. For once, internet commenters restoring my faith in humanity rather than annihilating it. Those Guardian moderators deserve a raise.
"Why are you telling us? You want to have a word with your colleagues, who are plastering Jacko all over the front page of the website and newspaper in an attempt to force the Diana effect. Nothing more annoying than the meedja telling us not to listen to the meedja."
"Bringin' up Diana again, ugh! More blanket coverage from the lazy media on corpse stories. Get out there and do some journalism."
"What WAS the point of this article? You've basically said, "Look at you all talking about Michael Jackson. I'm not talking about Michael Jackson, I'm talking about you talking about Michael Jackson"
Balls."
"This article is so quick off the mark, I question whether you even had time to actually gauge how people are reacting before you started writing it."
"Hadley, go back to discussing dresses. This is the antithesis of the Diana moment, as in Jacko was everything she wasn't. Poor and talented, tragic and flawed. There is something deeply moving about the Peter Pan of pop who ironically spent millions trying to extend his life span dying young."
"Well I was going to have a collective outpouring of grief, but now that Hadley Freeman (whoever she is) has said we're not allowed to, I won't.
Regards, The Nation.
Seriously Hadley, how overblown is your sense of self regard that you can pontificate on stuff like this? At least wait until the body's cold."
But of course, all this has actually very little to do with those two individuals, as once they were, and far more to do with me, and my tastes in popular culture, the cds I buy, and my subsequent definition of my tastes as a characteristic of my identity. It's intensely personal, and of course it's a purely one-way street. Moreover, if you're going to be so dogmatic as to make statements like "such & such is my favourite song/record of all time" or "so and so is my absolute hero for life", as I have, then inevitably you've situated yourself firmly inside the realm of hyperbole.
So when such news as this breaks, I feel as if I should - well, feel. And of course I don't, not really, I'm not about to burst into tears because it just isn't that kind of loss. So nervous, guilty, awkward laughter is the only thing that comes out. Which is more emotion, certainly, than I manifested over the death of Diana, or Jade Goody, or Heath Ledger, or Anthony Minghella, or any other public figure I'd simply spent less time investigating, thinking about, and building up in my mind as a symbol of artistic genius and triumph over adversity, and tragedy all at once.
Where are the messages about Iran?? Cry my worldy, politically-preoccupied peers on Facebook. Good question. But why didn't you ask it on the day Neda was killed, or anyone else for that matter, rather than the morning after Michael Jackson has died. Michael Jackson doesn't negate Iran, as far as I'm aware, and there's a time and a place for everything. Just because I contribute to the sharing of old favourite michael Jackson videos doesn't mean I thumb my nose at Iranian students fighting for liberation, and I resent the implication that it does.The bad news is, it's far too easy to be sarky about the death of Michael Jackson. It's not shocking in the same way that jokes about Madeline Mccann were or are. Micheal Jackson became a media circus in himself, and had become such an eccentric it almost feels as if he died of natural causes, in fact in some ways it's amazing he lasted as long as he did given the odds stacked against him and the apparently limited average life expectancy of child superstars.
I think it's even easier to be sarky about Jackson than Jade Goody's death. In such cases, cracking jokes in an attempt to shock and appall is a waste of time and effort, while cracking jokes out of apathy is just mundane, we've heard them all before - it's far more useful and original to, I don't know, make some intelligent commentary about it, rather than either fuelling the frenzy - or simply criticising it as idiocy. I'm referring of course to Charlie Brooker and what he had to say about Jade's death - a million miles from the irritatingly obvious "why do all these idiots care so much" discourse that 85% of those commenting about it adopted (with the remaining 15% admitting they actually did care, and commenting about it from that perspective).
I suppose the above is targeted at journalists who churn out rubbish like this, with disconcerting rapidity.
What's unbeleivable about Hadley's article, apart from the paradox of the media complaining about the media by criticisng the public reaction it created itself, is that under a seemingly insightful byline such as the second half of hers here, she then proceeds to defend the public reaction to the death of Diana as in some way legitimate, or presumably more legitimate at least than the public reaction to Jackson's death (which funnily enough hasn't really fully occured yet).
Surely the massive, gaping difference between Michael Jackson and Diana is that she never produced anything that could realistically have meant something to people on the scale of Micheal Jackson's contribution to music, or its reach. And yet people took to the streets in angry, devastated tears, to mourn her as a person, presumably, just like grieving relatives - something which is impossible to do if you are not actually a grieving relative who knew the person - so what on earth is that if not "false emotion"?
People cried over Take That splitting up too - and of course it was an over-reaction. But if you think about it, it's just as logical because it kind of represented the end of an era, and that now no new music would be made, no more live shows could be attended, no new records to be bought and enjoyed (mercifully of course, in retrospect, that turned out not to be the case). The people who bought Michael Jackson's newest records and enjoyed them, myself among them, will see this as a loss which can be relieved by no such resurrection, fascination with the man himself aside. And he really was fascinating to me, but then again, I find Pete Burns fascinating. Which just goes to show.
On the brighter side, at least we still have Janet, another long-time object of my tendency towards heroification (and unlike the Take That sarcasm, this I genuinely mean).
I'll leave you with that song, as well some of the brilliant comments made in response to Hadley's article. For once, internet commenters restoring my faith in humanity rather than annihilating it. Those Guardian moderators deserve a raise.
"Why are you telling us? You want to have a word with your colleagues, who are plastering Jacko all over the front page of the website and newspaper in an attempt to force the Diana effect. Nothing more annoying than the meedja telling us not to listen to the meedja."
"Bringin' up Diana again, ugh! More blanket coverage from the lazy media on corpse stories. Get out there and do some journalism."
"What WAS the point of this article? You've basically said, "Look at you all talking about Michael Jackson. I'm not talking about Michael Jackson, I'm talking about you talking about Michael Jackson"
Balls."
"This article is so quick off the mark, I question whether you even had time to actually gauge how people are reacting before you started writing it."
"Hadley, go back to discussing dresses. This is the antithesis of the Diana moment, as in Jacko was everything she wasn't. Poor and talented, tragic and flawed. There is something deeply moving about the Peter Pan of pop who ironically spent millions trying to extend his life span dying young."
"Well I was going to have a collective outpouring of grief, but now that Hadley Freeman (whoever she is) has said we're not allowed to, I won't.
Regards, The Nation.
Seriously Hadley, how overblown is your sense of self regard that you can pontificate on stuff like this? At least wait until the body's cold."
