Blogs » Your Advocate: an editor's blog » Should we keep all Michael Jackson coverage out of the paper?


I've complained about all of the national media coverage on Michael Jackson. For almost two weeks after the pop star's death, "Good Morning America" led its morning program with the story, even though there wasn't any news to report.

By comparison, the Advocate has put the story on the front page only once -- the day after Jackson's death. We've had follow-up coverage, such as the investigation into Jackson's Houston doctor, on inside pages, but we have not devoted anywhere near the attention to the story as you'll find if you turn on the TV set.

Even so, I had a longtime reader call today to say he was sick of all the Jackson coverage in the Advocate. He was so bothered by it he was thinking of cancelling his subscription. He said he knew not one single person who cared at all about Michael Jackson.

I tried to explain that we recognize few people will be interested in every story in the newspaper. We hope most people will find enough content of some interest to make their subscription worthwhile.

What is the right level of coverage for Jackson at this point in the story?