Farrah, she of the hair and teeth and tan, golden and lean, every young male's fantasy and every young woman's object of envy, died of cancer. And how disturbing is it that the news reports are not only specifying the type of cancer, but are adding that little rider - usually acquired from sexual activity! And, at least in the NY Times, she is a sidebar, while...
...over on center stage, the king is dead, long live the king! Michael Jackson is reported dead of a heart attack, and the eulogies are there from family, friends, music moguls etc.
Now of course I appreciate that Michael was the bigger star, which probably accounts for the discrepancy, but is it only due to that? Forgive me for trotting out a feminist rant, but, if Michael had not died, would Farrah have had a front page spread? Or would she still just be a sidebar?
How do we measure their respective worth? Certainly in terms of fortune, Jackson wins hands down. In terms of notoriety he does too. So maybe we should ask, if another pop icon, such as Britney Spears, had died, given her notoriety as compared to that of Ms. Fawcett, would she have graced center stage?
Someone recently suggested that happiness is how many people tell your story once you are dead. I'm sure Michael Jackson is a happy man by this definition.
No comments:
Post a Comment