Michael Jackson's Death Perhaps more Relevant than the Others -- what?
Posted: Thursday, June 25, 2009
by Teresa Ortiz
Freelance writer/Speaker
The backspace key was used on my opening statement more times than ever before. I wasn't even going to pen any thoughts or report on the three high-profile deaths in the past twenty-four hours. Heaven knows there is already a plethora of headlines from which to choose.
All this changed 15-minutes ago when I read one of these articles -- a statement written which frustrated me to no end and sent me on a mental tangent that left me wondering how many people have died in the past 24-hours.
It read like this:
" Yesterday began the deaths of three major figures, each of whom played a part in the advertising world throughout their careers. The latest and maybe most relevant is Michael Jackson , who reportedly died earlier today after suffering a heart attack; he was 50. Before him was Farrah Fawcett , who battled cancer for three years before succumbing to it; she was 62. And yesterday we learned of the passing of Ed McMahon who was 86.
( Link Heresp )
I couldn't believe this statement. Call me sensitive tell me I am reading too much into it whatever one might think, I can't help but be angry.
Since when do we rate the relevance of a person's life by how many records they sell, or how many movies they make?
Don't misunderstand, Michael Jackson was a legend in his own right. There is no arguing he had a big influence on pop music but what about the relevance of Farrah Fawcett and Ed McMahon? They each played a vital role in the entertainment industry. Nevertheless, shouldn't the most important issue be that each of their lives were relevant to their loved ones? Shouldn't their lives be measured by what kind of individual they were? Did they influence their circle of friends in a positive way?
What is being said about them now? Which one of these has the most tarnished history and personal demons? This is what I think of, and this is why I am saddened by their deaths. I don't know what it feels like to lose a loved one I am not worried about never hearing a new song by Michael Jackson, nor am Iworried about Farrah Fawcett never making another movie, or Ed McMahon's occasional appearance. Instead, I am thinking of their families who will never have another laugh, cry, or argument with them. I am thinking about how they must feel when the media replays the less than stellar performances of their personal lives.
What about the person who lost their loved one within the past 24-hours and nobody outside their little circle cares. To you who just might be reading, I am saying a prayer for you.
May the God of all comfort heal the hearts of each of these families. A sad and tragic day indeed, but shame on those who feel one life is more relevant than another is.
Teresa Ortiz
All this changed 15-minutes ago when I read one of these articles -- a statement written which frustrated me to no end and sent me on a mental tangent that left me wondering how many people have died in the past 24-hours.
" Yesterday began the deaths of three major figures, each of whom played a part in the advertising world throughout their careers. The latest and maybe most relevant is Michael Jackson , who reportedly died earlier today after suffering a heart attack; he was 50. Before him was Farrah Fawcett , who battled cancer for three years before succumbing to it; she was 62. And yesterday we learned of the passing of Ed McMahon who was 86.
( Link Heresp )
I couldn't believe this statement. Call me sensitive tell me I am reading too much into it whatever one might think, I can't help but be angry.
Since when do we rate the relevance of a person's life by how many records they sell, or how many movies they make?
Don't misunderstand, Michael Jackson was a legend in his own right. There is no arguing he had a big influence on pop music but what about the relevance of Farrah Fawcett and Ed McMahon? They each played a vital role in the entertainment industry. Nevertheless, shouldn't the most important issue be that each of their lives were relevant to their loved ones? Shouldn't their lives be measured by what kind of individual they were? Did they influence their circle of friends in a positive way?
What is being said about them now? Which one of these has the most tarnished history and personal demons? This is what I think of, and this is why I am saddened by their deaths. I don't know what it feels like to lose a loved one I am not worried about never hearing a new song by Michael Jackson, nor am Iworried about Farrah Fawcett never making another movie, or Ed McMahon's occasional appearance. Instead, I am thinking of their families who will never have another laugh, cry, or argument with them. I am thinking about how they must feel when the media replays the less than stellar performances of their personal lives.
What about the person who lost their loved one within the past 24-hours and nobody outside their little circle cares. To you who just might be reading, I am saying a prayer for you.
May the God of all comfort heal the hearts of each of these families. A sad and tragic day indeed, but shame on those who feel one life is more relevant than another is.
Teresa Ortiz
This Article has been viewed 1,021 times. (Not updated in real-time.)
More commentsTeresa, I didn't have any plans on profiling the deaths as well. But once I was swarmed by the mass ... I felt I should take my memories and feelings in a different direction.You've done well with your article! Thanks for sharing it with us. R.I.P. Michael J. Jackson2009.Hi Ronyae.Thank you for the comment. Not only Michael Jackson, but Farrah Fawcett and Ed McMahon too! Only God knows.
You didn't mention Sky Saxon, guitarist for the 60s garage band "The Seeds." Why not? Because, in the greater social sphere, he was not as relevant. So irrelevant to the greater population that you probably never even heard of Sky Saxon while he was alive. Not only is the general media entitled to make judgment calls about relevance, they must. How many protesters died in Iran? How many do we know by name? Finally, what stock we put in the various news services says something about our ability to discern editorial from facts.Hi Annon, thanks for your input. No, I have not heard of him. But that does not mean his life is not as relevant as anyone else's. He may have been "unknown" in many arenas, however, 'Known" and "Relevant" are not the same thing and this is exactly my point here.The other reason I did not mention him, even I had heard of him is because he was not one of the three that died in the last 48 hours and he was not compared to Michael Jackson as Farrah Fawcett and Ed McMahon were. Still, I did give place to the many "unknowns" who have died in the last 48 hours.Obviously the article that spured mine was an editorial, most people who read and write understand the difference between factual reporting and editorial reporting. However, editorial writing can affect ones thoughts and personal opinions.Blessings to you. Teresa"The other reason I did not mention him, even I had heard of him is because he was not one of the three that died in the last 48 hours and he was not compared to Michael Jackson as Farrah Fawcett and Ed McMahon were. Still, I did give place to the many "unknowns" who have died in the last 48 hours."
One of the three that died? You're reinforcing my point. Sky Saxon died on the same day as Farrah and Michael, you're implying he was not relevant (and nobody expects you to know a little-known song writer, his life not being relevant to your own).
Relevancy, by its very definition means the importance of the subject's "relationship" within a particular social context. So, to weigh relevancy is obviously, necessarily fair and expected. If it were not so, the national media would be a continuous obituary stream, because everybody must have the same relevancy. One such pinnacle of relevancy might be Time Magazine's "Man" or "Woman of the Year."Hi Anon,I already acknowledged the context in which the author of the article meant by relevancy in terms of entertainment. Your point and my point are two different issues.Please forgive my assumption, thank you for teaching me a valuable lesson. May God comfort and strengthen those mourning the loss of Sky. I should have caught that - silly me. Blessings to you! Teresa
Teresa, other than it's rather sad and disgusting lionizing an individual who had such obvious flaws (my opinion), and I feel for his family, I only have two words for you: RIGHT ON!!!MarkHi Mark,Thank you for the input, I agree with you 100%. And thanks for the "right on" :-)I have been praying and thinking about Farrah's son of and on all day. I know he must pay the price for his choices, but I can't help but hope a little mercy will grant him the ability to go to his mom's funeral. And not because it is Farrah Fawcett, but because it's his mom.Blessings to you! Teresa
hi t,i thought of the families first, i didn't know about ed mcmahon until you told me, and farrah fawcett was a very troubled woman. i saw her totally out of it on david letterman one night, and i thought maybe it was me, but it was all over the news the next day. this doesn't diminish their deaths, but michael jackson? he deserves to be signaled out in my opinion, as i believe he is the best entertainer since elvis.ed mcmahon talked and laughed for a living, and farrah sometimes acted well, but what michael jackson achieved, against all odds, still amazes me, and i know what a troubled life he had, maybe now he'll be able to rest in peace,my best to you,sueHi Sue,Thanks for the comment. I am not saying he didn't achieve amazing things. I was a fan, in my opinion Michael was more troubled than Farrah was.I guess I was just trying to say that just because he achieved more, didn't mean he was life was more relevant than another. And after Ben pointed out some things in his comment, I did say I recognized that in terms of the entertainment world, yes, big difference.Thanks for sharing your thoughts. Only God knows. Big hugs, t
I remember when Mother Teresa died, and that same week Princess Diana died. The amount of coverage on Diana was almost what we are seeing now with Mr. Jackson, and Mother Teresa was put into the back pages. Strange where our priorities take us. Good job.Hi Michael, I remember that as well. You make a good point, it boils down to what society deems success.The news media will always be this way, but it doesn't make it right and it doesn't change the facts that each life is equally important - what they do with that life will make a difference one way or the other.Blessings to you! Teresa
Hi Teresa.Wow! Your article sure got a lot of comments. It's all very interesting.Personally, I'm with you, but the media are not. They make a big deal about reporting a celebrity's death and totally ignore the thousand other people who died at the same time. One might be tempted to say, but the celebrity touched so many more lives than the "common" person ever could. But consider friends and friends of cousins and friends of aunts and friends of sisters, etc. and you've added up quite a few people who are affected by the loss of one particular person.Well, this is one of my hot buttons and you wrote a great article to it.Hugs,DianneHi Dianne,I know, I am surprised. Thank you for your input, you said it well, maybe you should have written this piece instead :-)I think would got me was the use of the word relevant. There is no questioning Michael Jackson's accomplishements, I am a fan, but this was not my point.I appreciate you and you are relevant to me :-) Big hugs, Teresa
Death is death and each have a story line. "What you do for others?" I am not too musically inclined, however, music is the rhythm of the soul...With the "beat of a jerking movement" as it was in Motown and the 'Moon Walk' laid out by Hank Ballard and the Midnighters (back when their was James Brown and the Famous Flames), he kept the inside (the heart) of the world's souls moving. Thanks TeresaVery good points. Thank you for sharing your thoughts. Blessings! Teresa
I never heard one song from him, I don't know who is Farah Fawsett, but for sure micheal killed himself, so why I have to suffer for his mistake?Hello there, Thank you for your comment. I am soory, but I am not sure what you mean by you are suffering because of his death, if you don't know his music.May you be blessed! TeresaIt appears if you do not know, it would be to your advantage to not comment. Negative or positive. "If you do not know him, how do you know he killed himself?" People die many ways, as yourself, you just died with your comment. Those are what you call "Rhetorical Florishes."
Great article Teresa, I think the line that irritated you was uncalled for as well. I didn't write about any of the passings that day either although out of the 3 Michael was the one I was most familiar with. I do find it troubling that people feel free to comment on how troubled he was, and how many demons he had. He was never convicted of harming any child and I personally doubt he did. What he did to his appearance leads me to believe he was hurting as we all do in some way shape or form. His money I feel made it possible for him expose some of his hurt in away that most of us can't. Again thanks for sharing.Hi James, thanks for reading and commenting. I agree, he was hurting and I believe he was a little boy trapped in a grown up world. He never had a chance to be a kid and that is unhealty and not as God intended for anyone.Blessings to you! Teresa
Great Article, Teresa. I was intrigued about this as well. One subject I am very interested in is apologetics. This topic relates to apologetics because it shows how obessed we are in our culture with celebrity. Many people live purposeless lives because they don't believe in anything that they can't touch. They don't recognize the intangible aspects of life. So they fail to find meaning in life. To fill the void of significance in their life, they live vicariously through celebrities. I'd call this celebrity worship. The obsession with the lives of celebrities is driven by this search for meaning. I recommend a great book that sheds a lot of light on this titled, "Kingdom Triangle" by J.P. Moreland. It is very thought provoking.Hi Jim, thanks for reading. I agree with you. I haven't heard of that book, I will check it out. One of my favorites is apologetics as well. You might enjoy some of my biblical articles here on searchwarp. My most recent is "the subsititionary death of Jesus: Answers to biblical questions part 4". Check it out when you have a chance :-) I look forward to reading more of your work. I love the info you are offering to help others. You are right. The bible is filled with information and lessons about money. Especially the book of Proverbs. Maybe you could share some of those insights :-) Thanks again for reading and for joining my fan club. Blessings to you! TTeresa,As I get time, I am reading your articles. They look very interesting. I have some of the biblically oriented stuff coming up. I'm just getting warmed up. So stay tuned!woo - hoo, I will be watching for them :-) Thanks again for reading.
More comments
We want your comments! If you can read this, you don't have javascript enabled, so you can't use this comment system. Please enable javascript.