By Jim Selman | BioThere is a maxim in critiques of the media that the content of programming reflects what the audience wants. I find this hard to believe. Surely, even the most ardent Michael Jackson fan must tire of ‘experts’ dissecting the autopsy, second guessing why he died and manufacturing hypothetical scenarios of what his will might or might not say. John Daley had a hilarious segment of would-be experts and reporters in a frenzy seeking some ‘degree-of-separation’ with the famous man: “I met someone who knew someone who met him once at an airport….” Daly followed this with a spoof of a reporter walking through an empty house pointing to where (supposedly), Jackson’s furniture used to be.
Until recently I assumed that this kind of coverage was simply banal and that one could simply turn it off. Unfortunately, all the channels now seem to follow the same programming formats—a breaking story followed by days of drivel with experts ‘counterpointing’ each other on whether Rush Limbaugh is really gay or whether Sarah Palin is really going to make a play for the presidency in 2012. Could it be that it is less costly to cover one story ad nauseum rather than maintain