Publicity of Michael Jackson's death has been overkill

Publicity: It's a double-edged sword, one that can grant you unfathomed fame or be a total nightmare, such as the copious amounts of media coverage devoted to the late Michael Jackson, the proclaimed "king of pop." Everything about Jackson's life has once again been scrutinized under the journalistic microscope; ranging from the discovery of his drug addictions, reflections on his past altercations with publicity, the custody battle for Michael's kids between members of his family and even his public funeral, which the British Broadcasting Company (BBC) devoted two channels to the coverage of.

The media coverage in this situation has been absolute overkill, blocking the reporting of many other major issues that could be of interest to people. For instance, during the week of June 22-29, the Jackson death and the ensuing escapades received more attention than the election protests in Iran. Do people honestly prefer the trivialities of a dead celebrity to a brutal human-rights struggle that has far more of an impact on the world? An unknown college student may not be the best person to answer this, but I definitely consider the latter to be far more news-worthy.

Although I feel this way, what reasoning do I have for the media to report on something else? Michael Jackson is a man of public interest and notorious reputation. He's a public figure. In fact, he's been so entrenched in the public eye over the years that he has become libel-proof and has lost any right to privacy, especially in death.

I understand that debating Jackson's right to privacy is a lost cause and whether the many rumors about his "private" life are true or not is none of my concern. But what about his kids, an area of Jackson's life that has been focused on by the media: Do they have a right to a private life, even though their father was such a pervasive public figure? The answer is more complex than could be thought.

This situation is complex due to one major factor: Despite their father being such a famous individual, he was infamously protective of his children. When they were out in public, Jackson had his children wear colorful, feathered Mardi Gras masks to hide their identities (which, ironically, led the media to have more interest in them) and never allowed them out on their own for fear of possible media attention.

In a way, he was shielding his children from the public eye, giving them a right to a somewhat private life. The first time the children's faces were actually seen by the public was at Jackson's funeral, with the eldest child giving a tearful statement as to her father's love for them. So do these children still have any right to a private life without their "shield" to defend them?

The test that I will be doing under media law is whether or not Michael Jackson's kids fit the mold of the limited-purpose public figure, with the right to publicity exclusive to their father's death and the ensuing custody battle. According to the author of the textbook "Mass Media Law," Don Pember, and Clay Calvert, a mass communications scholar from the University of Florida, there are several factors that must be considered as to whether or not this is true: Does a public controversy exist, have the children voluntarily participated (i.e. had a major role) in this controversy, have the children tried to influence public opinion on this matter and does the right to publicity have a factor in this dilemma?

Considering the first question, the death of Jackson and the ensuing custody battle for the kids between those related to Jackson were definitely public controversies. In the hours after Jackson's death, the Los Angeles Times reported that messages transmitted on Twitter peaked at around 5,000 per minute, which caused the site to slow down considerably. A survey by the Pew Research Center also indicated mass public interest in the Jackson death, as 30 percent of individuals surveyed reported that they followed the stories regarding Jackson "very closely" with 28 percent of the surveyed following the coverage "fairly closely." Jackson's death has also sparked renewed interest in his music, with vendors selling over two million albums in the weeks after his death. Therefore, this story is a public controversy due to intense interest. No question about it.

As for whether the children voluntarily participated, or had a major role, in this controversy: True, they have had a significant role in the media coverage, with the aforementioned child custody battle that has taken place, but they did not voluntarily participate in said controversy. They are merely assets in this battle, with several bickering parties that were out to get them. In other words, the Jackson children are "accidental" figures in this situation, only being forced into the spotlight due to tragedy.

The answer is iffy regarding whether or not the children tried to influence public opinion on this matter. If one considers the open, tearful testimony of Paris, Jackson's eldest daughter, about her father at his public funeral as trying to change people's opinions about him, then the answer is yes.

But they shouldn't think that a young girl saying "Ever since I was born, daddy has been the best father you could ever imagine, And I just want to say that I love him so much" as something that would try to influence public opinion. It wasn't manipulative or deliberate; it was merely about the love she had for her father. They also haven't sought the public spotlight, if you could call it that, besides this speech. This, therefore, means that they are not public figures in the "traditional" sense.

But they can still be public figures due to Jackson's right of publicity, including the right to profit off of his many intellectual properties used for commercial purposes; does that necessarily trickle down to the children? It is known that part of the battle involving Jackson's family has been to secure Michael's right of publicity, which has assets that are rumored to be worth hundreds of millions of dollars. Despite all of the bickering by family members about this, one thing could work in the children's favor: Inheritance.