Most TV execs and news editors are pretty good at what they do. The moment they sensed (and a good editor CAN sense these things) or saw (the overnights and weekly adjusted figures provide the bald facts) their audiences tiring of schlocky, endless, banal MJ stories would be the moment they stopped.

The disparity between the internet trending data and the TV news running order suggests each is targeted at an “audience” which, although it has significant overlaps, wants different things.

Nick (a UK-based TV reporter)

Of course there is going to be a spike in interest and then a steep decline. How long, exactly, did you expect people to maintain interest? You would need to compare the spike and decline to another historic event of equal magnitude to draw any reasonable conclusions. TV is basically ignoring Flogpost and Twit numbers because they like to think they have their own audience. Are they right? Are the same dopes who are surfing the internet also watching television? How much overlap is there between the two groups? There is no way to tell because the groups are in constant flux. Are we comparing apples with oranges? There is no way to tell. These are questions you need to ask yourself before drawing conclusions. The problem is that there are too many unknowns.

In the meantime, you need to put on your clown boots, do a jig for us, and post it to Youtube.

30 million viewers doesn’t sound to me like anyone has lost interest in MJ, except maybe one spoiled, grumpy, middle-aged blogger with nothing better to do:

http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/08/jackson-service-draws-30-million-viewers/?hp

-Ambrose Pierce

In the meantime, I’ve already read/seen/heard all I need to know via blogs/internet. TV can only dredge up “Entertainment Tonight” vault crap.

I agree with Liz & Tony G. Michael is a global phenomenon and will continue to dominate the news, irrespective of device and platform, for a long time and would perhaps be among the highest news “trend” for 2009, albeit on a very sad note.

Anita

wait till tuesday and he will buzz again, as LA goes down

C

Meanwhile, the mash-ups and tributes will continue, fueled by a genuine connection with Jackson (as seen in millions of people watching videos and purchasing his music) and the ongoing MSM (especially cable network) feeding frenzy. As we get closer to 2010, we’ll see plenty of “story of the year” recaps taking up big chunks of airtime. Of course, any huge revelations regarding Jackson’s demise will spike the coverage.

I look at the Jackson’s as the first disruptive death in the Internet age. The numbers we saw that day (especially the truly remarkable Google numbers leading them to believe themselves under attack) were unprecedented. No single event has affected Web traffic this significantly http://bit.ly/wpKhb. These numbers, the growth of Twitter, the remarkable #Iranelection phenomenon, and imagining what will happen the next time a disruptive global event takes place (e.g., major city disaster), must have led to a lot of revised contingency planning in data centers all over the world. To me it’s truly amazing that one single person’s death could lead to the expenditure of this much human energy.

When ever I turn on the television there is at least one report or mention of Michael Jackson still on a daily basis (sometimes even every couple of hours if I manage that much time to sit and watch).

I guess for those of us who have other things to do the interest is fading, as it would appear with the graph information you have supplied, however I would have to say that as this blog is about MJ himself then perhaps the information is not entirely true.

Either way, whatever media the more shocking the information the more interest there is likely to be. Yes?

Rgds
Adirec

“The BBC said today [July 1st] it had received 748 complaints, with one senior source revealing that there were 10 to 15 times more complaints from viewers about Jackson than about BBC executives’ expenses, which were published last week.”

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/jul/01/michael-jackson-bbc-coverage

Plus, nothing will ever beat the sheer number of searches/tweets when he was initially pronounced dead. Nothing will ever be as shocking/worth discussing.

Your data means jack shit.

You can keep iterating MJ stories all day long if you can back it up with some visuals, an interview with someone tangentially connected, and a recitation of his career achievements.

Not to say that doesn’t really make for unwatchable TV, but that’s another topic…

Your own “YouTube Most Played” list show that there are no Jackson videos being watched.

Twitter trending topics suggests that the Iran Election, Air France, Wimbledon, and Jackson are all topics worth discussing.

And though limiting the BlogPulse Search to people is a bit confusing to me, I see 8 other names there that could be talked about.

The point is that Jeff’s data isn’t trying to suggest what should be covered, just what that one subject shouldn’t.