BBC News defends Jackson coverage

As with any major news story, there are questions over how much coverage the news organisations should give to it, and there have been grumblings that the BBC did too much about Michael Jackson's death.

Mary Hockaday has blogged a response on the BBC Editor's site:

Some stories divide audiences, and clearly there are those who aren't interested in Michael Jackson. But we have to try to serve a whole range of readers, listeners and viewers - and undoubtedly a great many of you were extremely interested.

The audiences to our main television bulletins were a little higher than average for a Friday evening and the statistics for our online content broke records: more than 8.2m global unique users, the second highest since Obama's election. The BBC News mobile site had its biggest-ever figures on Friday.

Hockaday, though, seems to be answering a different charge - should the BBC have covered the story at all - to the one she sets out to deal with - should the BBC have done as much.

I doubt if there's anyone who would argue that Jackson's death should not have been on the news, and very few would be able to suggest that the story shouldn't have been a lead. And, unquestionably, there was a desire to know from the public.

The question is if the 'desire to know' was in balance with the 'amount to tell' - given that BBC News Channel astons were still trying to portray 'Jackson dead' as breaking news during elevenses on Friday, it might be fair to suggest that there was, by then, a shortage of actual information to impart might mean a slightly less steely gaze should have been fixed on the expired man.