There is a major poll running over at www.tinyurl.com/evilgood as to whether Michael Jackson was good or evil. Evil is currently in the lead! I think this poll is being recorded in some sort of record book, anyways, everybody go vote for good!

MJ had the most coverage and certainly was a more global figure than anyone on earth, I believe. The USA is improving, but there's still division. Worldwide and combined with the USA, MJ is the biggest. Period.

MJ had the most coverage and certainly was a more global figure than anyone on earth, I believe. The USA is improving, but there's still division. Worldwide and combined with the USA, MJ is the biggest. Period.
---------------

Get your proirities fixed. First,
MJ is MIchael Jordan. Secondly, Michael Jackson was a personality. Let's see, President that lead this country to great heights, and led the cause to end communism in Europe versus a person who sings and dances.

I'm not sure how online streams are calculated or tallied, but I can attest that there were people huddled around computer monitors all over my office building yesterday. Because of the online component, even if there's not a very accurate way to count the number of eyeballs watching online (although there may be; I don't know), I'm willing to bet the Jackson memorial blew away pretty much everything in terms of people watching. Including Super Bowls.

Hi br: Check out my last post from today. I have the video stream numbers -- highest ever for MSNBC. com and second highest (to Obama inauguration) for CNN.com. You are right -- huge online audience for live and on-demand video streams. Thanks. Z

It surprised me that Diana had more viewers, but she had a global impact too. There was not as much connection online then I guess.

br - it must be nice to be able to watch online from work. We have a big green restricted site message that comes up on our computers if we try to look at anything not related to work. I was even restricted trying to look up a cardiology term E to E prime, I am not sure which word set it off. The world could blow-up and we wouldn't know about it until we got home.

Michael Jackson had more viewing than the Lady Diana or Ronald Reagan, it is that this article doesn't want to give it to him.

Your organization may never give you the total figures, and looking at the article, he had more views than any of the other contenders.

Michael Jackson's Memorial was not available on all the major or local networks that broadcast news. You had to know where to go looking for him, to find the stream. His own website gave no clue - that his eulogy would be performed on a major news syndication or the internet.

If a major news organization like ABC would have agreed to capture the entire program as it did with the other aforementioned contenders, then you could compare and contrast. Remember what we are dealing with, and you will realize that nothing can get done if you don't allow the people to access a product.

Hi, ABC and every other major network and cable channel carried it. And I think you might not have read all the posts here very carefully. I am the guy explaining the combination of TV and online viewing were greater. Thanks. Z

You see Thalia, Michael Jackson won because we now live in an age of media that combines internet viewing and television viewing in its ratings. The interesting part is whether or not MJ would still have won had online viewing been available when Princess Di was killed. By the way I connect with Princess Di too, she was my age and she died way to soon, I would llike to see what she would have been like now! My mom gave me a big picture of her that I still have hanging.

I can't wait to see what the future is like with this new online media in oh say 10 or 20 years, will we still watch TV?

Good morning, EC and Dave. At the risk of bringing down a great deal of right-wing wrath upon my head, I wish to observe that Ronald Reagan wasn't all that to everybody. The man you credit with ending communism in Europe was actually very lucky in that his opposite number in the Soviet Union was Mr. Gorbachov. Remember Gorbachov? I credit him as much if not more than Reagan with bringing communism crashing down. Remember, a system under threat often reacts violently, but Gorbachov didn't let it happen. While Ronald Reagan's optimism was good for the country, he also did some damage (but no president is perfect!).

As for Michael Jackson (who predates Michael Jordan, btw, so he can claim the initials by precedence), he is more than all that at first glance. You need to place him in his proper context. Please remember that he managed to break the color barrier on MTV, the only music video channel at the time. He was incredibly talented, and as such, brought joy to all those who appreciated his music.

Please also be aware that this is a talented person who was discovered young, at a time when the country was tearing itself apart over Viet Nam and the Civil Rights movement, and when he started out, very few white people listened to black performers. Michael Jackson's incredible talent reached out across the color divide and began the process of changing that, of making the nation more united than divided, always a good thing. It is no wonder to me why he is so revered all over the world. On stage, at least, he has done all people of color proud.

As for his problems offstage ... I think very few superstars are undamaged by the rarified heights of the pedastals we have marooned them on. Very few of us are so grounded that our heads cannot be turned.

My priorities are straight (I hope!). I think Michael Jackson has earned this hoopla, or at least some of it.

Hello Jane, Thanks. Your sense of balance and being able to see both sides of an argument is a delight. The Reagan point, in particular, is a wonderful reminder. You will get heat for it, but you are right. Conservatives have managed to lionize Reagan in death and depict him as something he rarely was in life -- a great statesman and political leader. Reagan had a great team of image-makers around him, and they doing great image making for him in death. Z

Jane

Jane,
I am not a conservative. Just a person who is making a statement that differs from your opinion. You are making this a racial issue and I never stated anything that would infer that.

David,
I suppose Michael Jackson didn't have the same level of promoters and image-makers around him? Don't be hypocritical to support your position.

After all the number came in Michael Jackson beat out Reagan in viewership and came in very close to Princess Diana by about 1.5 million what difference does it make all of them were worldwide people and deserve our respect.

Hi, EC! I'm not calling you a racist by any means. (Though I dare guess that you are a basketball fan!) Nevertheless, I think the racial issue is significant and the only reason I raised it was to underscore what made Michael Jackson such a special individual. As I said, we must place him in context to understand how he has changed the cultural landscape and made it easier for us to overlook color in dealing with each other. We can't know where we are and how far we need to go to reach a more perfect union unless we keep in mind where we have come from.

Jane