Earlier today, I read a tweet from CNN reporter Don Lemon about how the late King of Pop, Michael Jackson, never provided evidence of having Vidalago, and I tweeted him back saying, “I don't believe it was M. Jackson's job 2 offer the media any proof of his skin condition. That's a bonus, not a requirement.” And with that tweet, I wondered where is the fine line between getting research for an article and just being overzealous. Paparazzi are no doubt overbearing, but journalists don’t have to be. So why is it some of us feel like we are entitled to have all of this personal information about celebrities when it’s really not our business or the public’s business?
Last Wednesday, I froze when I overhead someone tell our Chicago Defender’s News Editor that Michael Jackson was in the hospital for cardiac arrest. I hoped for the best, but when I read on TMZ’s site that Michael Jackson had died on Thursday, June 25, 2009, I went into complete denial. Of course I did what any Web Editor would do; I started checking respectable news sites to see if they agreed. CNN continuously said that he was in the hospital, but yet they kept using his name in past tense. When I left the newsroom, the verdict was still out. But after work, I went to CNN’s live screening of “Black in America 2” at the DuSable Museum and the host announced to the crowd that Michael Jackson had indeed passed away. That was a hard pill to swallow. But I’m sure it was harder for Michael Jackson’s family to hear about through rumors from a website or news cameras before the doctor could potentially even tell them.
Since then, I’ve updated the Chicago Defender website regularly about news on just what happened to cause cardiac arrest, Michael Jackson’s will, who is fighting over custody of Michael Jackson’s children and where the public viewing will be for Michael Jackson. People are reading this stuff nonstop, and of course, as a fan, I want to know too. But when does it stop? Was it selfish to demand a public viewing when Michael Jackson’s family hadn’t even had a week to grieve? Is it fair to start forums on why Katherine Jackson or Diana Ross should or should not be allowed to care for Michael Jackson’s children?
His fans want to know what’s going on with Michael Jackson, but as Janet Jackson said at the BET Awards, “To you, Michael Jackson is an icon. To us, Michael is family.” And regardless of him being famous or not, there’s still a family who mourns him. If the media does not get every single detail of Jackson’s life, it’ll be okay. If the media does not see medical documentation of whether he had a skin disease or not, it’ll be okay. But what we don’t need is the media going off on a tangent if they don’t get the information they want about Michael Jackson—it was bossy when he was alive and now it’s just flat out tasteless when he’s dead.
I honestly think that funerals should be private for just family and friends, the kind that can open your refrigerator door without you looking at them funny. Everybody else should be happy to even hear the news about a time and date, or see an interview afterwards. Because as close as you thought you were to Michael Jackson, his family and friends really were. The Neverland animals are more entitled to go to Jackson’s funeral than any fan is because they had the unconditional love that some of his finicky fans did not.