A Bafflement

I realize this is a matter of personal taste only, but I have a question.

Why is it that when Luciano Pavarotti died nearly two years ago, there was almost negligible media coverage? Why was his obituary consigned to the top right hand corner of the local paper? Did CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS, FNC, LGBT, etc., etc. break into their regualr programming to announce that probably the greatest singer in the history of music had died? For that matter, were there hour-long tributes to him on any of those channels, or on the radio? Sure, there were old Met Opera and Three Tenors performances broadcast in Pavarotti's honor, on PBS. Besides that, Pavarotti's death was just a sad footnote to the day, and much of the planet seemed to shrug and put Britney Spears songs on their IPods.

In stark contrast, the world media fell all over itself to cover Michael Jackson's death the day before yesterday. People didn't seem to know whether to moonwalk in Michael's honor (whatever that was) or sob uncontrollably. You saw what it was in the first hours--breathless and frenzied reportage, followed by hasty and heavy-handed tribute. The world had been blindsided. All the networks seemed to forget for the moment about the disputed Iranian election, the truly frightening posturing of Kim-Jong Il, the hobbling economy, and the hours-old grief of Farrah Fawcett's loved ones. From on high, I would like to think that Luciano Pavarotti looked down and sobbed into his fabled white handkerchief, not merely because Michael Jackson had died, but probably because he was not mourned so publicly and such fervor.

Don't even try to figure out life, folks. There's no plausible explanation as to why two equally talented people are mourned in such radically different ways. But I would mention that to my knowledge, there was no moment of silence at any ballpark in either man's memory. Life goes on for those who have it, until suddenly, it doesn't.