Inkless Wells

Paul Wells on all the latest out of Ottawa—along with the occasional post about jazz. Follow Paul on Twitter: @InklessPW
He also offers his thoughtful perspective of Stephen Harper’s last 10 years in his recent eBook, The Harper Decade.

Categories: Capital Read, Inkless Wells

How we spent our weekend

by Paul Wells on Monday, June 29, 2009 12:15pm - 98 Comments

Special Michael Jackson commemorative issue. On newsstands (in the overprivileged central parts of the country, anyway) now. A 72-page issue, from conception to printing in less than 48 hours.

And if you get all uptight, you’ll only be encouraging us.

More by Paul Wells

Bruce

Okay, I'll go first: I am sick and tried of so much fuss being made over a child molester (don't care what the courts ruled) who had a handful of hits two decades ago.

Give it a rest.

http://intensedebate.com/people/avr avr

Amen to that. Praising him for anything more than a very little bit of talent, a very long time ago is appalling.

As I pointed out on the Billy Mays post yesterday (before it was moderated out of existence, thanks to someone's excessively delicate sensibilities – Weinman, perhaps?): it's a shame that the passing of a self-made entrepreneur will receive approximately 1/1000th of the coverage afforded Michael Jackson. But, who needs to talk about an apparently worthwhile human being, when you can institutionally gush over a deranged, narcissistic pedophile?
GGG

This is becoming a very trendy response to the MJ story, isn't it?
"Ooh, look at how intelligent and serious I am, I don't have time for these silly celebrity stories! I am so much better than the mainstream media and all the people who follow it!"
YOU give it a rest. Love him, hate him, think whatever you want, but arguably the world's most famous person just died, and it's a huge story with a tremendous amount of interest in it from a million different angles.
Can you still see us down here from your high horse?

http://intensedebate.com/people/avr avr

You misunderstand.

I have no problem with trivial entertainment-news-product. I have a problem with treating Michael Jackson, specifically, as a wonderful human being (a great humanitarian, even, I've seen some more unhinged types suggest) whose failings made him some kind of complex, tragic hero, rather than a middle-aged millionaire whose resources let him get away with sexually abusing small children. Compare with the vitriol directed at Bernie Madoff, today, on the occasion of his sentencing, for instance – and he only stole money.

Those of us expressing opinions along these lines honestly aren't trying to impress you with our seriousness, GGG. We're genuinely disgusted that people who ought to know better are extending so much goodwill and airbrushing the abuse, under the circumstances.

Scott in Ottawa

avr is right on the money. Not trying to impress anyone. Genuinely horrified that he is being celebrated without anyone weighing the fact that he destroyed several (dozens?) of childrens' lives. How many gold records are worth that?

Seriously. I'm asking. How many?
GGG

Very little of the news coverage (from "newsy" sources that is, I'm not counting crap like Entertainment Tonight, etc) I've seen or read has gone very long at all without mentioning all of Jackson's apparently many terrible flaws as a person. I actually think most outlets have done a very respectable job with that, and I see no reason to assume Macleans would be any different. Much of the coverage fawns over his talent one minute, as they should, then talks about his dark side the next, which they also should. Each side of the story is as important as the other. He was hugely talented, there's no denying that. His childhood was also very warped and sad and probably dictated much of the rest of his life. And if he's guilty of even some of the things he's been accused of, then he was also a monster.
But how do you know how Macleans has handled all of these things? You and several others here are crucifying them for an issue which you haven't read, which only makes you look foolish.

http://intensedebate.com/people/avr avr

Here's a couple of hints, GGG: "Special Commemorative Issue." The cover photo of Jackson at his prime, rather than the twisted, freakish plastic surgery experiment he became. The non-judgmental subtitle of "His Life and Art."

Now, question my inferences all you like, but what I see from this limited perspective is a positive treatment – possibly with one or two short interior counterpoint pieces named something bland and non-committal like "The Controversies: What Really Happened?"

To the extent that this is competing for the same dollars that'd buy similar, even more shameless eulogizing from less journalistic sources, I can hardly blame Maclean's specifically for trying to cash in. But it's a troubling phenomenon from the media as a whole.
http://www.intensedebate.com/people/avr avr

Here's a couple of hints, GGG: "Special Commemorative Issue." The cover photo of Jackson at his prime, rather than the twisted, freakish plastic surgery experiment he became. The non-judgmental subtitle of "His Life and Art."

Now, question my inferences all you like, but what I see from this limited perspective is a positive treatment – possibly with one or two short interior counterpoint pieces named something bland and non-committal like "The Controversies" or "The Dark Days: What Really Happened?"

To the extent that this is competing for the same dollars that'd buy similar, even more shameless eulogizing from less journalistic sources, I can hardly blame Maclean's specifically for trying to cash in. But it's a troubling phenomenon from the media as a whole.
André

Besides, I think pound for pound Kenny Rogers had more hits than Micheal Jackson. That's saying a lot cause Kenny weighs a metric ton.

uncynical

I've never bought a McLeans magazine but I'm going to buy this one.
http://intensedebate.com/people/OntarioTown OntarioTown

Magazine sales boost strategy – hmmm….seems so for other magazines.

About Jackson's dancing – not original. At the time he'd be influenced as a kid – on every TV variety show – there were two mimes. They were Shields and Yarnell and they did that robotic style…..but hey, let the nutbar get kudos for it.
mark

You've got to be kidding-72 pages dedicated to a child molester! There used to be news in Canada. Thank the creator 'traditional' media is dying (not fast enough!). Disgusting – those who give time to molesters are encouraging others to do the same.
http://intensedebate.com/people/Jack_Mitchell Jack Mitchell

How is it possible to produce this much material this quickly?!? You guys make me feel profoundly unproductive.

http://intensedebate.com/people/sea_n_mountains sea_n_mountains

no offense to the fine folks at the big M, but Jack is suspect there are two issues worth considering before feeling anything profound: 1) how much of this is simply compiling existent material; and, 2) quantity vs quality.
john g

You are unproductive! I haven't seen a poem here in months! Get back to work, slacker!

http://intensedebate.com/people/Jack_Mitchell Jack Mitchell

I know, john, I know. Hopefully Canada Day will rejuvenate me! I missed a chance with Iggy's threat, too. But stay tuned!

Wotcher?

On Reliable Sources on CNN on Sunday morning, a woman reporter (I didn't catch her name), who has apparently written a considerable amount about Jackson, said that she got a call from MacLeans magazine in Canada asking her for material because they were going to jettison their planned next issue and replace it with an all-Michael Jackson issue.
Case solved.
André

80% adspace in what should be McLean's most read issue is going to be a massive cash grab.
http://www.intensedebate.com/people/DerekPearce DerekPearce

Maybe Wells can shed some light on this, but it's my understanding that media organizations have running files on people of note– for example, when it was clear John Paul II was close to death a few years ago, networks and publishers were compiling their obit coverage in advance…
http://intensedebate.com/people/Crit_Reasoning Crit_Reasoning

Speaking of productivity, Jack, I see that you've lapped me in the XP sweepstakes! Meanwhile, Sean Stockholm is nipping at my heels.

http://intensedebate.com/people/sea_n_mountains sea_n_mountains

any advertising as to core features that might make me search it out?
http://intensedebate.com/people/Mader Mader

Wow. Impressed, amused, slightly horrified…
Wassim

Is this "special issue" being sent out to subscribers?

http://intensedebate.com/people/macleans macleans

No. This Commemorative Issue will not be sent out to subscribers, but is available on newsstands starting today.

Wassim

Thank you for the response.

Anon

I can get uptight and not buy the issue. Win-win.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Crit_Reasoning Crit_Reasoning

I suppose you could always pretend to cancel your subscription for the nth time.

http://intensedebate.com/people/SisyphusThis SisyphusThis

Did y'all have to run hard to jump on the bandwagon ?

http://intensedebate.com/people/SeanStok SeanStok

You're gonna love their Billy Mays tribute issue, on newstands this Friday.

http://intensedebate.com/people/avr avr

That, I'd buy.

Blues Clair

Hey Sisyphus go easy, be kind, it's a recession.

Dee

Congratulations, Maclean's is one step closer to being a British tabloid, cashing in on a obviously talented but severely flawed celebrity. This isn't journalism, it's just cheap hucksterism.

R. Somers

Have any of you even read the issue? How can you know if it's not "real journalism" if you haven't read it?

And if it offends your moral sensibilities to buy the issue, try reading it at a library, then come back and give us your opinion.

Seriously, you guys are just as sensationalist as you're accusing Maclean's of being.

Dee

Was MJ innovative? Yes. Was he influential in music and popular culture? Clearly. Is his death worth 72 pages of coverage in Canad's self-proclaimed national newsmagazine? No.

I don't read tabloid newspapers because they are a waste of time and money, and inherently predictable. Sadly, a large portion of Maclean's magazine content is also heading in this direction.

Paul Wells

Boy, I’ll say. When we run 25,000-word histories of each election campaign, we’re ripping that right out of the pages of Star Weekly. My two trips to Afghanistan and Michael Petrou’s award-winning Haiti coverage both had National Enquirer written all over them. Nancy Macdonald’s four-part series on water quality will be capped by a fifth instalment on Jennifer Aniston’s favourite water brand.

Quick question: where would you situate the golden age of Maclean’s as a Serious Newsmagazine, Dee — and which three specific articles do you recall as emblematic of the noble mission we have since abandoned?

Two Hats

Paul, I don't at all agree with the invective this special issue has launched (like some other commentators, I'm impressed that you could pull it together so quick; I expect to be even more impressed when I see it's quality), but I'll take the opportunity to say that the magazine is slowly getting in content as sensationalist as the headlines. (The same thing happened at the Post.) I understand that the over-the-top sizzle sells magazines; but hopefully management realises that fair, balanced reporting sells subscriptions.
You've a long way to go (and you in particular, among others) before the reporting is even half as "bad" as the headlines, but it's never to early to stop that journey. I was surprised at how much I liked the new magazine a few years ago; I hope you keep me as a subscriber for a long while.
This comment doesn't at all apply to the special issue. As a concept it is perfectly legitimate and I reserve judgement on the thing itself until I get to see it.
Dee

Methinks he doth protest too much. Or maybe Paul is just sleep deprived from a long working weekend.

Note I said "a large portion of Maclean's magazine content". For there is undoubtedly some excellent wheat amongst the chaff in Maclean's last few years of publication (which I typically read online). I don't think there is any denying that the magazine has shifted to the right since Kenneth Whyte came into the picture in early 2005, with a more tabloid, in-your-face style. For example, see the recent cover story on Guy Laliberte, founder of Cirque du Soleil.

And so I haven't bought Maclean's since the early noughties because of this editorial shift and due to this propensity to showcase tabloid-y crap and sensationalism (hi there, Steyn!).

I buy publications based on their overall quality and, although there has been some excellent journalism in Maclean's in recent years, there has unfortunately been more dross than NMA winners. Why buy a magazine if you end up not wanting to read a majority of its' articles?
http://intensedebate.com/people/Inkless Inkless

All of which ignores my question: Which were the three really great articles you remember from our really great golden period?
Dee

This is your criterion for a good magazine, not mine. Nevertheless it's interesting that The Walrus cleaned up once again at the National Magazine Awards over Maclean's. So, one could argue if you want to read really great articles, The Walrus is where you should plunk down your hard-earned magazine money.

Great articles from Maclean's in the past?:
-the great reporting on rape in the military by Jane O'Hara in the late '90s.
-too many articles to mention by Peter C. Newman on the Canadian big business establishment
-the entertaining political columns of Allan Fotheringham when he was in his prime (probably around the mid to late 70s)
-the coverage package on Trudeau's death in 2000 was excellent
-as was the coverage by Maclean's of the 2002 Olympic Winter Games
-and I have always, and still do, find Brian D. Johnson's articles and criticism very readable

Is that enough for you? When I flip through Maclean's at my local barber now, I find the occasional nugget of journalism but most of it I flip by.
http://intensedebate.com/people/Inkless Inkless

I certainly share your soft spot for 2009 winners of National Magazine Awards. And for the Walrus, which is currently begging for money on its website:

http://www.vimeo.com/4597845
http://intensedebate.com/people/Inkless Inkless

I certainly share your soft spot for 2009 winners of National Magazine Awards. And for the Walrus, which is currently begging for money on its website:

http://www.vimeo.com/4597845
Dee

All the more reason to subscribe to The Walrus. Which I do.
http://intensedebate.com/people/WesternInterest WesternInterest

Doesn't stop you from commenting on everything, though does it?

john g

Prediction: this issue will be Maclean's best selling issue this year.

Don't blame Maclean's, or the paparazzi, or anyone else in the business of exploiting the comings and goings of celebrity; the blame rests solely with a celebrity-obsessed population that can't get enough of superficial stuff like this.
http://intensedebate.com/people/GeoffM GeoffM

Behold, the Walrusian prose of staunch Dee! Witness, "MacLean's" (for how you deign to wear that mantle still evades me), how effortlessly he shifts to bludgeon you with your own Wellsian voice (hi there, brackety chitchat!). Arise ye voices of old, for though ye be withered and/or dead, ye were readable, sometimes (in your prime).

Bill Simpson

Strange responses to Macleans actually doing its job! I am buying one for sure. FWIW, Paul's initial observations on why Jackson's music was interesting and significant is the most intelligent I have so far read or heard.
Not Stephen Colbert

Without having read the issue in question, I say kudos to Maclean's for deciding to commemorate the passing of a man who, quite clearly, left a huge mark on the public consciousness, both good and bad. I trust that it won't just be 72 pages of fawning over how great his music was, because, apparently unlike many other commenters, I have some degree of appreciation for Maclean's.

And one more thing: the widespread tendency of so many people to assume guilt despite the lack of a conviction (and I'm sure as hell not just talking about Michael Jackson's case here) is infuriating. I'm sure, of course, that all of you are way smarter and more informed than the jurors who actually, you know, heard and examined the evidence. How the hell would they know what they're talking about?

Scott in Ottawa

I would never confuse my opinion with a court of law. But it is worth noting that in one of the many many cases against Jackson he paid an out of court settlement of $23m to a 13 year old who accused him of molestation. Do you think that was simple expediency? Wanted to settle to avoid the legal fees? Just better to pay out to avoid the nuisance? Or is that a desperate man paying everything he can to avoid jail time?

http://intensedebate.com/people/Thwim Thwim

"Everything he can"? Seriously? You obviously have no idea of the amount of money Jackson was worth at his peak, and he was notoriously bad at managing his money. The upkeep on his residence for a year would be considered a lottery win by most people. 23 million is a chunk, true, but was hardly "everything he could"

http://intensedebate.com/people/avr avr

Let's rephrase that as "using whatever of his not-inconsiderable resources was necessary," then. It hardly affects the outcome.
http://www.intensedebate.com/people/avr avr

Let's rephrase that as "using whatever portion of his not-inconsiderable resources was necessary," then. It hardly affects the outcome; he still quite clearly appears to have paid off a victim to forestall further legal action in a way that does not suggest efficiency of the justice system was his highest priority.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Thwim Thwim

Actually, it does. Consider if you're a celebrity/musician, a large part of your earnings is reliant on your image. So, Jackson's options were to run that first accusation through a lengthy court process, exposing private details of his life to millions of eager snoops wanting to see how he lives, and as well exposing him to the ongoing vilification and hatred of both the envious and the "hang-em-high" crowd who feel any accusation is tantamount to proof, and in essence taking a severe hit to his livelihood and earning potential, or to settle.

That he settled for a *lot* less than "everything he could" suggests to me that while he didn't like what the court case would entail, he certainly wasn't viewing it as life-or-death.

http://intensedebate.com/people/NotStephen Not Stephen Colbert

It's been reported that his advisers recommended he settle due to his health, rather than going through the rigours of a trial. Beyond that, it could have been any number of things, including some of those you mentioned. Maybe he committed some tortious but non-criminal act that warranted a settlement. Or maybe he did commit a crime, but as the only legal action in relation to it was a civil case, which are not well-known for leading to imprisonment, it's highly unlikely that his chief motive was to avoid jail time. Which, based on the lack of criminal proceedings, doesn't seem to have ever been much of a possibility.

I don't really know what the truth is. There may be some people who do, but I doubt any of them are posting here.
Mike T.

What this thread demonstrates quite clearly is that people are more than willing to jump to quick conclusions based on their impressions and second-hand information. $20+ not to have to face serious civil allegations might not have been that bad a deal, guilty or innocent.

http://intensedebate.com/people/avr avr

Acquittal is hardly proof of a negative, especially in jury trials of celebrities. That the state is unable to criminally convict has no bearing on the facts of what happened, and any public scorn that arises should logically follow regardless. Or are you one of those die-hards that believe OJ Simpson really, really didn't do it?

http://intensedebate.com/people/NotStephen Not Stephen Colbert

Acquittal is hardly proof of a negative

Nor is conjecture. Michael Jackson seems to have been found guilty by reason of eccentricity in the court of public opinion, but eccentricity and child abuse aren't exactly the same thing. If you'd like to present the results of your investigation into the matter, though, I'm willing to listen.

And even though I think OJ probably did it, I'm not going to call him a murderer as if the matter has been settled because, as you may recall, it hasn't been.

You're free to have an opinion on Michael Jackson's guilt or innocence, but please don't act as if your opinion carries the weight of truth.

http://intensedebate.com/people/avr avr

You're free to have an opinion likewise, but please don't act as though state action and state action alone through the criminal justice system is the only way to establish the truth. I'm not saying that Jackson is guilty because I believe he is; I'm saying that I believe he is, and that the criminal justice system failed in that instance due to a corrupt, naïve or gullible jury, not because the facts appear to have exonerated him. What kind of world would we live in if the only facts allowed to be considered truthful were those tested in a court of law?

(On that note, it occurs to me that someone has to have written some kind of interesting analysis of jury nullification for celebrity defendants. Why does it happen? Is it the false sense of familiarity? Do jurors fear vengeful obsessive fans? Do the pure spectacle of celebrity trials themselves just derail any critical thinking the jury might otherwise perform?)

http://wakinguponplanetx.blogspot.com Candace

What I've never understood about the reported settlement in the 90s and the court trial – where the hell was Child Services? What *thinking* parent is going to let their child spend the night with a man in his 30s and (later) 40s? And if they did so, without insisting upon being present themselves, then I think those kids need new parents.
Mike T.

One thing that appears to happen a lot in Macleans is people trying to bolster their argument by screaming for family services (it's a variant of WON'T SOMEBODY PLEASE THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!) Trust me, it takes a lot more than allowing sleepovers to get your child yanked by the state.
http://wakinguponplanetx.blogspot.com Candace

I realize that. My point is that none of this would have happened/not happened (depending on where you stand regarding the situation) if the kid's parents had exercised better judgment. Just sayin'

If MJ wasn't famous, would they have allowed that? I don't know the parents, but I'd put money on the answer to that question being "NO."

And even allowing for the parents being starstruck, as Brian Williams on the Nightly News put it in his interview with Quincy Jones, MJ's sanity appeared to have left the planet some time ago.
Lord Kitchener's Own

Just on the failure of the criminal justice system (and this doesn't diminish your point necessarily) I'd point out that, as far as I know, the criminal justice system never did ANYTHING (beyond investigation) with regard to any allegations against Michael Jackson. Not just no convictions, no charges. I don't believe Jackson's legal problems can be summed up as the criminal justice system failing "due to a corrupt, naïve or gullible jury, not because the facts appear to have exonerated him", because Michael Jackson not only was never convicted of any crime, he was never CHARGED with any crime. After the settlement in the 90s, the police investigation was dropped for lack of evidence (and lack of further complainant support) and no charges were EVER laid.

Now , of course, one can argue that the criminal justice system failed by never ever charging Michael Jackson with a crime, but it should be pointed out that the criminal justice system (/criminal jury) never failed to convict Jackson, as Jackson was never charged with anything in the first place.

As for how paying off a large legal settlement rather than fighting tooth and nail to clear your name looks, well, does it look THAT much better than ACCEPTING a large legal settlement while not assisting police and prosecutors to criminally prosecute an alleged child abuser to the fullest extent of the law?
Lord Kitchener's Own

Grrr. Close tag.

http://intensedebate.com/people/BCerInToronto BCerInToronto

An impressive turn-around by the sales and marketing department. If this exercise generates revenue that can be used to support actual journalism bu Macleans, then I suppose this is a positive thing. Let's just watch the balance between the vegetables and the ice cream.
http://www.intensedebate.com/people/BCerInToronto BCerInToronto

An impressive turn-around by the sales and marketing department. If this exercise generates revenue that can be used to support actual journalism by Macleans, then I suppose this is a positive thing. Let's just watch the balance between the vegetables and the ice cream.

Canuckistanian

yes, b/c covering the death of one of the world's most famous people cannot under any circumstances be deemed "actual journalism".

Sea Otter

He was the biggest selling male performing artist in history, and for a number of years was the biggest celebrity on the planet. (Bill is right in that Paul Wells did an outstanding job in outlining the significance of Jackson's music.) Toss in the fact that his life was a tragedy from every possible angle, and of course media outlets like Maclean's are going to cover it.

The only shocker to me in all of this is how long he lived. Let's be honest – dude was a regular dead pool pick for about the last ten years. He was anorexic, had multiple surgeries, clearly had mental health problems, and was abusing narcotics daily for years. Did anyone really expect him to reach old age?
http://intensedebate.com/people/DerekPearce DerekPearce

I'm definitely picking this up. Celebrity biography– especially in the wake of the death of a celebrity– is a cultural phenomenon. I still have a couple of commemorative issues of publications from back when Princess Di died. Believe it or not, you can be fascinated with celebrities/ fascinated with the examination of the concept of fame, and still be interested in Steve vs Iggy, or wear and tear on the army in Afghanistan, or how interest rates will affect the housing market. They're not mutually exclusive.

I didn't chose this avatar for nothing!
http://intensedebate.com/people/Ed_Sweeney Ed_Sweeney

A 41 word blog entry???

Slacker!
http://intensedebate.com/people/SophiaGeffros SophiaGeffros

I think I missed the height of Michael Jackson's run- the first time I became aware of him, he was being tried for child molestation- so whilst I can't say that I'll be running out to buy the magazine, I can say that good job on getting it out so quickly. Besides, I'm still anxiously awaiting my canada day issue, which I'm sure will be awesome.
Scott in Ottawa

Actually, if you want to be pedantic about the "everything he could" at the time of the trial, that was indeed the case. It was revealed then that Jackson was pretty much broke, Neverland went up for sale, and he decamped to the Gulf to live rent free. The $23m was pretty much all he could muster.

http://wakinguponplanetx.blogspot.com Candace

The 23 million was a settlement in the 90s, not the court case he was acquitted in.

It was also revealed in that case that the parents of the child had laid similar claims against another celebrity.

I have no idea whether MJ was a pedophile or not. He was definitely an example of the axiom that the line between genius and insanity is thin.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Inkless Inkless

Except we're not jettisoning the next issue. This special extra issue will in no way perturb our previously planned schedule of shovelling right-wing tabloid crap off the back of a truck. Because we care.

Wotcher?

Hey, I'm just reporting what she said. And she did say "jettison".
If she maligned you, you'll have to take it up with her.

And, to be fair, I made no mention of shovels, righ-wing tabloid crap or trucks.

http://intensedebate.com/people/avr avr

LKO, I'd like to point to this as exactly the kind of commentary I'd like to see – sober analysis of his impact on popular culture that manages not to descend into maudlin, airbrushed (and <em<far too respectful) deification in the Princess Diana mould.
http://intensedebate.com/people/avr avr

LKO, I'd like to point to this as exactly the kind of commentary I'd like to see – sober analysis of his impact on popular culture that manages not to descend into maudlin, airbrushed (and far too respectful) deification in the Princess Diana mould.
http://www.intensedebate.com/people/avr avr

LKO, I'd like to point to this as exactly the kind of commentary I'd like to see – sober analysis of his impact on popular culture that manages not to descend into sentimental, airbrushed (and far too respectful) deification in the Princess Diana mould.

Lord Kitchener's Own

Thank you. I would have thought you'd deem my evaluation as also "over-the-top". I don't know about sentimental and "too respectful" but I've been as surprised by the negative comments (legal/moral/sanity issues aside, I'm talking here just about his talent and influence) as you have by the positive coverage.

For example, above, you say that "praising him for anything more than a very little bit of talent, a very long time ago is appalling" which just boggles my mind. Again, to deny him praise for his talent and influence on the moral grounds of not wishing to laud him because of the accusations against him is one thing. It's legitimate to say "I won't praise the talents of Jackson, he's undeserving of praise because I believe he did X". That's one thing. However, your comment suggests that Jackson was a particularly limited talent of no lasting consequence or influence. I just don't see how anyone could argue that. Sales aren't the ultimate arbiter of course, but one doesn't sell over 800 million albums with nothing but a "very little bit of talent" and I don't see how one can turn on a Top 40 radio station in 2009 not not hear Michael Jackson's influence. I really believe that Pop, R&B and Hip Hop would be ENTIRELY different genres today were it not for the influence of Michael Jackson. Besides, even putting aside what I view to be his obvious talent, you just can't sell more records than Madonna, the Rolling Stones, U2 and Frank Sinatra, COMBINED, and not influence a lot of people.

André

All the credit you attribute to MJ is true if you consider music to be an industry more than an art.

Lord Kitchener's Own

I think that's too harsh. I really do think MJ's impact on popular music is much more than his commercial success, I'm not sure though that I'm knowledgeable enough musically to articulate that impact well.

I'd argue that in a way, he was SO influential that his influence on the sound of popular music is in some ways so pervasive that we don't even recognize it often. When you here a cool beat in a hip hop song, or a neat riff you can't quite place, it's not unlikely that it came from Michael Jackson. His bridging of R&B and pop was a hugely important legacy (not that he was the only person doing so, but he was probably the most influential). As a singer, I always think back to the old days of the Jacksons. Take a listen to Jackson circa 1966-75. Then take a listen to a young 14 year-old Stevie Wonder. A person unfamiliar with the two men would have a heck of a time picking between the two.

I really do think people who dismiss Jackson's legacy too easily should go take a listen to Thriller again (the album, not just the song). You may have forgotten how good Michael Jackson really was. There's a pretty short list of singers who have a twenty year stretch of such great work as MJ did from 1967-1987 (and he had 2 albums that sold 30 million units each after 1987). Now, the truly great stuff was 1967-1982, but even though I'm not personally a huge fan of Bad, that album had 7 hit singles, FIVE of which went to Number 1 (more than any other single album) so it's hard to leave Bad out of his "golden period". I think both "Off the Wall" and "Thriller" are much better personally, but again, 5 Number 1 hits on a single album. Pretty impressive.

Mulletaur

What I find amusing and vaguely worrying about the whole Michael Jackson phenomenon is the seemingly huge number of people who worship the guy (yes, present tense) despite the fact that he was having sex with minors (according to Jordan Chandler), addicted to a variety of opioids (according to his family) and was, well, a total freak. Trying to discuss his faults with 'Cult of Michael' members is like trying to discuss the Bible with Christian evangelicals – the more you point out the obvious contradictions and faults, the more entrenched and dare I say fanatical their beliefs become.

It makes good business sense for Macleans for putting out a "special commemorative issue" – members of the 'Cult of Michael' are sure to buy it. Perhaps Macleans can use the extra dough to fund a trip to Afghanistan and Pakistan for Wells to report on the recent action there.