MEDIA COVERAGE OF MICHAEL JACKSON'S DEATH

I've waited a week and a half to write about the media coverage of Michael Jackson's death. It just seemed too hard in the beginning. There was so much to say, and - in another way - so little to say. Because in the end the coverage is pretty much what I would have expected it to be - there's really nothing surprising about any of it.

Every now and then something happens that generates absolutely saturation media coverage from both serious and tabloid media - Jackson's death is one of these events. And when this happens you see the best of journalism and the worst of journalism. Great writers from legendary publications write some thoughtful and striking pieces, and - at the other end of the spectrum - madness rules. This is just the way of it I guess.

The American showbiz website TMZ broke the story first, and they've had some other significant scoops in recent times, so they are obviously good at what they do, and you have to give that to them. Getting the scoop is an important part of journalism, and they got it. But as the first reports filtered through, I found myself not believing the story when it was just on the TMZ site. It was when the LA Times reported it that I sat up and took notice. And I don't think I was alone in that.

Also like a lot of other people, I had very mixed feelings about Jackson's death. There's no denying that he was an exraordinarily gifted entertainer, but what a questionable lifestyle he led. I once read a book written by Jordy Chandler's uncle, which was so restrained and balanced in its approach that it was extremely credible and believable. Jordy Chandler was the boy at the centre of the first high profile child abuse scandal. The book told a story frighteningly similar to that told in the later child abuse court case. I know he wasn't convicted of any crime, but I do believe Jackson hurt these boys. He may well not have thought he was hurting them, but maybe that's what all paedophiles think. As I say, mixed feelings indeed.

But in the hours immediately following Jackson's death, it wasn't really the time to talk about the darker sides of his life, and most of the media coverage here in New Zealand didn't. And I'm okay with that. It's a social convention that you don't speak ill of the dead, and I think to a degree it is and should be a media convention too.

Actually one of the best things about this past 10 strange days has been getting to see and hear Jackson's music again - and to remember how great it was before it all started to feel a little tarnished.

I haven't sought out much other Jackson coverage - there's such an enormous amount of it online, I haven't even really gone there. I've been content with reading my daily Herald, listening to radio reports and watching the TV news. The Herald has done the best job for me. Their coverage has been thorough and considered, but not over-kill. The paper has run some excellent pieces of writing from some of the respected overseas publications - the David Randall piece from the Independent in today's Herald is a great example.

On TV ONE news, Tim Wilson looks a little earnest, and Dominic Bowden rather lightweight. David Farrier strikes a better balance on TV3.

And if you're not troubled by mixed feelings like I am, and you just want to be a fan - grab the colour lift-out section from this week's Woman's Day. It's simply a pretty pictorial of a pop star who has died. Maybe that's enough. And maybe soon we can all move on and a tortured genius can rest in peace.