Michael Jackson: When so much becomes too much

By Remote Control on Jun 26, 09 08:49 PM

At about 11.30pm yesterday Sky News flashed up the headline: Breaking News: Michael Jackson has died.

By that point it had been speculating about the condition of Mr Thriller for about an hour, ever since Tmz.com first reported that Jacko was in hospital.

When TMZ then reported that the King of Pop was dead, Sky, and the other 24-hour news channels for that matter, began to do the same, but pointing out that they were just repeating what TMZ was saying. Still, it didn't stop much speculation and pre-emptive tributes from "friends" of Michael Jackson.

What sort of friend responds to hearing from a website or news channel that his/her friend has died by then giving out a tribute before the death is confirmed?

Anyway, the purpose of this post isn't to slag off the premise of round-the-clock news. They serve a purpose, and their challenge is to fill 24 hours a day, striking a balance between forward planning and judging how much time can be given over to breaking news.

To that end, the death of the King of Pop was a god-send. And while people across the world are talking about the death of Michael Jackson, the news channels seemed to spend today locked in last-man-standing battle to see who could talk about nothing else for longer.

Flicking through the news channels on Sky at the moment (9pm), Sky News, BBC News 24, CNN, Fox News, NDTV (India's news channel) France 24 (whose presenter just said: "The fans want him back, but Michael Jackson simply won't be coming back) and Al-Jazerra were all carrying news on Michael Jackson, almost 24 hours after he died.

That flashing banner saying "Breaking News: Michael Jackson has died" was still on both BBC News 24 and Sky News at 1pm today - more than 12 hours after his death had been confirmed. Can news really break for this long without moving on?

There's a time for tributes, and a time for reporting the facts, but in this case, that time didn't need 12 hours to develop. Essentially, Sky and co were dealing with a one-fact story: Michael Jackson has died of a heart attack. There were a number of other factors, such as the dash to hospital, the role of the web in breaking the story (which it didn't need 12 hours to break) and the fact he was due in London in two weeks for his concerts.

In that 12 hours, what else was happening? Well, there's Iran, there's the economy, there's the Government's decision on changing primary school education, MPs expenses and so on.

These got barely a fleeting mention on BBC Breakfast, and seemed to get thrown out of the window completely over at Sky, only to be replaced with the sound of scraping barrels as even more friends, fellow entertainers or complete randoms were wheeled out to pay tribute. I mean, hasn't David Cameron got better things to do?

We got celebrity comments via Twitter, and reaction on the mood at Glastonbury. By teatime tonight, well, here's what LDP Editor Mark Thomas said on Twitter: "Mica Paris and Tony Blackburn just agreed on BBC TV that Jacko's demise was bigger event than death of Elvis."

While over on Sky, according to another Tweet: "now interviewing a Michael Jackson impersonator. Can hear the barrel being scraped. Wonder if he'll go all the way with his act?" The answer was no, Sky were happy with a bit of moonwalking.

Yes, Michael Jackson's death is big news. It's one of those events where we'll remember where we were when we heard it, rather like the death of Diana (stuffing newspapers at a paper shop) and the 9/11 terror attacks (watching Neighbours until the BBC cut across it.)

But it's still a one-fact story. So far, that fact has filled long hours on the 24-hour news channels, and we haven't even got the autopsy results yet. At what point does so much become too much? At the point where a story is no longer breaking. And that happened long before lunchtime on this one