Small rant

From the perspective of a historian, I think it's important to remember this as the fortieth-anniversary of the assassination of President Kennedy. And even though I hadn't been born yet, I am a product of the 60s and as such was moulded by the assassinations of John and Robert Kennedy and Martin Luther King, so I probably get how much it effected the nation more than say, today's teens. I understand the desire to play 'what if', to look at things from various angles. But it's been my experience that one-hour television shows really just can't do much more than muddy the waters of history. Much as I love 'educational' TV, I'm often annoyed at the oversimplification of historical issues. And of course, in the case of the Kennedys, it goes WAY beyond historical analysis. There's the scandal spin.

It seems like they're pulling as much Kennedy 'tell-alls' out of mothballs as they can, whether it's documentaries on John Jr's early death, or the 'Kennedy Curse', or 'bad boys' in trouble with the law. Gee, people, can't we give the family a rest? This has got to be a very difficult time for them; every years we dredge up 'new' footage, interviews, etc. that really are done to death. It's like there's a huge mystique built around the Kennedy name that I just don't get. I mean, except for their wealth and lifestyle, they're people just like anyone else. What gives? It's like you can't turn on the TV without seeing either the Kennedy clan or Michael Jackson on. There's a such thing as media overkill. I'm just not impressed with fame. It doesn't put you above the law and it doesn't mean you should be held up to some higher standard than the rest of us, either.

When I look at how much media hype the charges against Michael Jackson are already garnering, and what kind of media ride we may be in for, it's just mind-blowing. If it goes to trial, it'll make the OJ Simpson case look tiny. But I have to ask--if he's guilty, than that would make him a child molester and frankly, scum of the earth and unworthy of all this attention. If he's innocent--and of course, that's the presumption--than it's a lot of muckraking that amounts to unpaid publicity--but this may be an exception to the idea that there's no 'bad publicity'. Aren't there more important news stories to cover? Somehow I don't think the Michael Jackson story will be one of those 'blips' along the bottom of the screen that go quietly away. But it annoys me how these sorts of stories are beaten to death because everyone falls upon them like sharks, with their commentaries, etc., looking for their own pit of fame whilst riding the coat-tails of the subject. And it's not just the news folks--how many 'friends' of parties on all sides will come out of the woodwork.