This is what they were thinking of when they coined the term “wall-to-wall media coverage.” Egads, it’s everywhere.

But what I find truly interesting is how the media is covering this story, in addition to how much. Some recent observations I’ve read and heard:

• The media coverage seems more like a eulogy than journalism.
• Princess Di and Mother Teresa died right around the same time. Which got more media coverage?
• Which has been covered more, the passing of Michael Jackson or the passing of recent American presidents? Follow-up: Which should be covered more, and which is more relevant/important?
• Even Sean Hannity, who proudly proclaimed last night that he would NOT be devoting wall-to-wall coverage of the Jackson funeral on last night’s show, spent the first two segments of his television program on solely that.
• It’s disrespectful to the dead to bring up his sordid recent past. I wonder if Elvis and Jim Morrison were afforded that same respect.

The first observation perhaps captures all of these sentiments. When did journalism en toto become People magazine, or journalism lite? Journalism used to mean covering all sides of a story, unearthing and reporting on all relevant facts and information. They way the mainstream media has conveniently elided the less flattering syllables in the MJ story is striking. Perhaps they are afraid of accusations of racism (which Rev. Al Sharpton threw out anyway). Perhaps we all are.

We need to be fair, they retort. We need to be respectful during a time of a family’s mourning. Hmm. Funny how that same standard of fairness and respect for privacy is not applied to the living…especially if that living person’s name is Sarah Palin.

You see, the media picks winners and losers. It shouldn’t. It didn’t used to. But it does. And they walk lock-step with one another, each stepping over the next to be more laudatory of their favorite children (Obama, Michael Jackson, Madonna) and more derogatory toward their designated pariahs (Palin, Bush, e.g.).

You call for fairness, mainstream media? Fine. Let’s just have that standard applied across the board. Enough with the agendas. Look again at your numbers. They’re flagging. You are a dying breed. There are many reasons, but this is certainly among them—chief among them: unapologetic bias and agenda engineering.

As for the throngs that apparently thirst for this wall-to-wall coverage: stop craning your necks long enough to keep driving past the proverbial car wreck. There is real news happening out there. You’re missing it. Stuff that truly will affect your day-to-day lives. On this, silence. You don’t care. You don’t act. You don’t pay attention.

But why would you? When things go badly, the media will simply prop up another villain for you to throw tomatoes at. Whether you have all of the facts to justify your vitriol will be up to you, these days—not the mainstream press. Those days are long gone.