the deaths of michael jackson and farra focet

what the hell im a little shocked about the recent event and am curious about how the mieda is going to rember the two of them

Permalink Reply by Dilyn Corner on June 26, 2009 at 9:21pm: The media is mostly focused on Michael. I only heard about 5 minutes total today about Focet, but Michael might as well of had his own radio show today :\

Michael will probably be remembered by some of the media as 'the guy who ODed'. But I dunno. The media is funny about stuff. They don't cover stuff that actually is interesting half the time (IMO).; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by daniel jacobson on June 26, 2009 at 10:22pm: you r right i relly havent heard much about her as well the reson why they r focused on michael is becaus he misterissuly died but im more conserned about farra becaus her cancer and her othe most recent problems; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Ice2642 on June 26, 2009 at 11:42pm: to talk true, I not like much the michael Jackson's music, but I am unhappy with his die.

He was a icone of the music.

I believe the midia will won much money now with his die, like every superstar when die.; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by daniel jacobson on June 27, 2009 at 9:46am: i dont know about that yes he was a mucition ahead of his time and i was in to all of his fads what a dorl lol but michael sacted loke a real wierd do tward the end un like farra; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Jon Sheline on June 27, 2009 at 8:49am: The media can't seem to handle more than one "big celebrity" death at one time without oversaturating one of them.
Some of the younger members here on Geeks were just toddlers at the time, but in 1997, the world lost Princess Diana of Wales (8/31/97) and Mother Teresa of Calcutta (9/5/97). Look at the dates and see that their deaths were basically 5 days apart.
As I remember it, Mother Teresa's coverage was barely a blip in the wake of Diana's. Both of them were much loved by many, though Mother Teresa had quite a few more years of humanitarian efforts under her belt due to her age. Was that right or wrong? Who knows...it just is.
So, it seems to be a similar thing with Michael Jackson and Farrah Fawcett. Both were admired and respected by many people, but it seems the media usually has to choose one over the other.; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by daniel jacobson on June 27, 2009 at 9:44am: but mother terisa was barly known i knew princess dianna as for mother terisa i never herd of her so it was no bnig deal what was a big deal was how princess diana died being chased and exploited by the popisaritsa wtf; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Jon Sheline on June 27, 2009 at 2:06pm: Well, that's a matter for some debate. I would say that most people under 10 years old (or so) in 1997 probably don't know who Mother Teresa was, simply because they were very young when she died.
Fact is, as far as name recognition, they were both pretty high up there. If you ask a bunch of different people whether they know who Mother Teresa was, there will be many who do.
And it's true, Princess Diana was young, and her death was an accident...whereas Mother Teresa was quite old and her passing was not as shocking.
Anyway...I don't want to make it sound like I have personal feelings about Princess Diana's, Mother Teresa's, Farrah's, or MJ's deaths. As Ron says below, death is a part of life.; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Ron Knights on June 27, 2009 at 8:57am: First of all, it's really important to get your spelling right. It's Farrah Fawcett.

I don't watch TV these days, I have no idea what the broadcast media is doing.

I got tired of Michael Jackson 20 years ago.

He had some good music back in the 1980s. Ho hum.

Good music doesn't merit adoration in my book.

Michael's image was tarnished by the accusations of child molestation. He did nothing to help ease our minds on this subject.

Farrah Fawcett was a star in Charlie's Angels, way back in the 1970's. Then she left to make movies.

Farrah didn't do very well in the movies.

She eventually made some TV movies, and received some critical recognition.

But in my mind, she was a "former star," and pretty much faded over the years.

Farrah and Michael were people...

They had value as people. But I didn't worship them.

I am not overcome with grief over their deaths.

I won't spend a lot of time talking about them.

People get older, people die.

It's a part of life.; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by daniel jacobson on June 27, 2009 at 9:41am: verry true im not hurt or any thing im just curious in my book faarrah was much better than michael was becaus she didnt do any thing wrong like michael did with the child melostation in the 80 ni was a kid and i liked him and i did the faqds and had the red lether jacled what a dork i was lol but the age of michael is in a wasy schocking 50 yo; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Johannes S. on June 27, 2009 at 8:59am: Well.

RIP Michael Jackson AND RIP Farra Fawcett.

I think the media focuses on Michael more because he was a world-wide superstar and Farra... wasn't. Farra was famous in mostly English-speaking countries whereas Michael is known to every single person in the world who has lived and listened to the media in the past two-three decades.; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by daniel jacobson on June 27, 2009 at 9:37am: that is right but farra was a known movie star and model i have a play boy with her in it she was hot and she also had cancer and wasnt known for drugs and acting like an idiot like michael did numerious times; ▶ Reply to This