07-01-2009, 03:22 AM
(06-28-2009, 01:58 PM)Ph03n1x link Wrote: Yes but they also cover it in the UK even though newspapers don't make a profit in the UK. (Newspapers have an agenda). And they cover it on the BBC which doesn't even have adverts to make a profit with. But actually I don't watch TV or read newspapers much anymore so I don't actually know whether the ammount of coverage in the UK of MJ's death makes sense or not. What I do know is that the media in Europe, just as it seems to be the case in the USA, tend to run 24/7 blanket coverage on an issue for weeks and then forget about it and move to another issue. In the UK at least its not for direct monetary profit. And its not because its interesting or beneficial for the public either. Further, from what I've read there is blanket coverage of Micheal Jackson's death both in the USA's mass media and on the world wide web. You may belive its for direct monetary profit but my experience of media in Europe, (being run by the same people that run USA media), means I strongly disagree with you.
I understand that the media is run by certain corporation that dabble in manipulating the information being presented in order to further an agenda they have. This could be rupert murdoch, ted turner, and etc., I understand all that. The thing is, MJ's death and his controversial relationship wasn't apart of any agenda, this stuff sold, it boosted ratings. That's what happened here in America, people made ridiculously accusations to stir up controversy and boost their viewership or readers. While it may different on your side, I don't think its as complicated as you think it is, certainly in politics and media do have that kind relationship. Although I highly doubt that their was some mass conspiracy to tear him down for any other reason then primarily profit.
![[Image: Hypnotize.gif]](http://i291.photobucket.com/albums/ll287/Smellkiperjr/Hypnotize.gif)