Joan Ball is a business professor at St. John’s University in New York and the author of Flirting with Faith: My Spiritual Journey from Atheism to a Faith-Filled Life.
I scared myself a bit today – while I’ve always prided
myself for being independent enough to see past the ol’ Republican/Democrat
divide, I’ve never actually
experienced a time in which my gut (as opposed to my head) agreed with an
outspoken Republican.
I’m referring to New York Representative Peter King, who finds it
repugnant that so much media and fan attention is being paid to Michael
Jackson’s death. King went so far to release a YouTube video calling Jackson a
pedophile and pervert, asking why the media was concentrating on Jackson rather
than the men and women serving in the military.
Intellectually, I strongly disagree with his statement.
Jackson was acquitted once and settled in another instance. Legally he was innocent (Update: a commenter below corrected me that legally, he was simply “not guilty”. I concede this point, though I stick by the intended message), something King would do well
to remember.
My gut, however, is uncomfortable to say the least. I’m uncomfortable with the circus of celebrity worship surrounding Jackson’s funeral and memorial, and worse, I’m uncomfortable with my discomfort! I believe in that whole “innocent until proven guilty” thing. Yet I’m conflicted.
Possible pedophilia aside (though that’s generally a pretty tough thing to put aside), my gut agrees that it is just plain disturbing to see the level of celebrity worship our society has reached. And it breaks my heart because there are so many men and women working to improve horrific conditions around the world who garner no recognition – not that they do it for the fame.
These two sets of emotions make it hard to distinguish if my gut is thinking ethically when I hear it cheer on King’s statement. (Sidenote: Hillary’s recent post, “Morality: Does It Come from the Heart or the Head?” tackles this very situation.)
In case you couldn’t tell, it seriously disturbs me to discover this part of me that’s in agreement with King, especially because my gut also knows it’s wrong to slander the dead.
Unfortunately, if I’m acting as my own judge and jury here, I think I have to accuse my gut of being quite unethical.
posted July 7, 2009 at 12:01 am
Great– just when I thought the media coverage would have a hope of dying down, “Michael Jackson” is dominating headlines again, thanks to Peter King.
This, like the Letterman-Palin thing, is just going to give Mr. Jackson more popularity than ever. Enter “Peter King” in Google News, and all you get are headlines like “The New Elvis: Michael Jackson’s Ghost Sighted Everywhere” (which cite Peter near the bottom).
Thank you, congressman, for making a political issue out of this.
For example, if you want coverage of Peter King to stop, you do NOT publish an article, “Peter King is a Lowlife Intolerant Racist” or some such. No, you IGNORE his tirade and let him fade.
posted July 7, 2009 at 3:23 am
Are you “scared” because part of you agreed with part of what the man said, or that he happens to be a Republican? Do you feel differently that he is a public figure as opposed to some average joe?
Although it was Independence Day weekend, he mentioned a wide variety of people other than those in the military that are under-recognized for their efforts – specifically police, firefighters, teachers and medical/hospice volunteers. There was nothing wrong with this part of his video, and he has a good point. Seriously – it was Independence Day, and there was little if any time devoted to those that are fighting and dying right now to protect our freedoms and way of life, and those that serve the public good. That is sad.
Not guilty ? innocent. There is a difference. King may have his suspicions, but he was wrong to say what he did about MJ. I agree that was over the top.
Our society is definitely star-struck. The fact that we overvalue celebrities and undervalue some of the very people he mentioned in his video says volumes about how our value system has become misaligned.
I don’t see that this is a political issue.
posted July 7, 2009 at 4:37 am
The greatest theft from American taxpayers, ever, has occurred and is still occurring on Wall Street yet Peter King chooses to speak out against the media over their coverage of Michael Jackson and while at it, slander Michael Jackson with personal opinion.
Toxic waste like Peter King are the true dangers to our society – not the generous and kind.
posted July 7, 2009 at 11:17 am
Just because he was not convicted of anything does not mean that Michael Jackson was not guilty. Tony Accardo never spent a night in jail but no one ever believed him to be innocent, for the simple reason that he was not. One can make a very good case that Jackson was aquited, not because of the lack of evidence, but because the jurors had no desire to be torn to pieces by an angry mob.
Peter King is a nasty person but in this case the nasty person is right. The media nonsense about Michael Jackson is just that, nonsense.
posted July 7, 2009 at 12:32 pm
there is NO “legally he was innocent”. there is “legally not guilty”, which is very different. O.J. Simpson was found “not guilty” and he MOST CERTAINLY was not innocent.
so, michael jackson could very well have been actually guilty of molestation. it was just not proven beyond a reasonable doubt in the jury’s mind. HUGE difference between “not guilty” and “innocent”.