Are we over emotional ?

Don't you read books then jinglebellfrocks. Think you're just having a go at Monica because of her post on a previous thread. `and Anniebach/Imperfect27 for news presenters repeating the same old/same old gruesome stuff the natural consequences of ill health of a rock star might actually be a welcome diversion.

Yes, I read books. I do prefer 'page turners' though.

As for the rest of your strange post, I haven't a clue what you are talking about.

Do you really think I can remember what has been said on threads days after I have read them? Or who said what? #ageingbrain

A bit of punctuation in your last sentence might be helpful.

Oh dear, there you go again jinglebellfrocks, Be careful about taking on the role of grammar police it can come back and bite you on the bum.

tigger M0nica treated Jings comment in a light hearted manner , so why are you getting aerated about it?

Elvis Presley died in 1977 (on my 17th birthday) and back then the world was a much smaller place. The internet didn't exist for us and our news was far less world focussed than now. Social media didn't exist. You can't compare something like this with something that happened nearly 40 years ago. The truth is we don't know the extent of public reaction to many things in Britain, let alone the rest of the world. External reporters were much more limited in our news nightly reports because the technology used now didn't exist. In deed we didn't have dedicated news channels at all.

It's a different world, that's all.

I only want to understand your sentence tigger.

Oh how I agree. Couldn't believe that BBC Breakfast was almost completely dedicated to re-running the same quotes and footage ad nauseum. And again on the lunchtime, evening and 10 o'clock news. Very sad for his family and friends but surely not for the rest of the world who didn't know him personally. (From a BBC insider, up to this morning they had received over 600 complaints regarding their coverage of the event.)

Oh! I think I understand. It should have been a new paragraph.

It's clear now.

I agree it was a bit ott. But not "emotional" at all, at least not in the hand-wringing, wet-eyed sense.

It seems to be over and done with now, at least. There will no doubt be some coverage of the funeral. But I think a lot of the coverage is down to available air time, producers being contemporaries of Bowie, combined with a good dose of pride in an exceptional artist and entertainer whose career spanned forty or so years.

And I think music DOES touch people. It does me, anyway..

I am not surprised that the BBC has received complaints about the coverage time given to this event. I thought it was too much when there are so many other newsworthy items to report. I wanted to know how the food drops in Syria were going.
My hard hearted husband said this morning 'It's one day AB.(after Bowie).'
I think he thought it was too much as well.
However, it is sad when famous people die and it is natural,if you are a fan, to feel a sense of loss.

I can see why his image is on the front page of every national paper today - photogenic and photo-loving creature that he was. TBH I was much too busy being a mum in the 70s to pay any attention to him.
Most of those grieving are men in their 50s - the group who run the media.
I agree with the Welsh news on S4C that gave him a minute just before the sports news. But not with the pundit who said (If i understood correctly) that he was the greatest artist of the 20th c.
I think Picasso is my nomination.

This is almost a new thread on its own.

Greatest popular entertainer/artist of C20

For me it would be,

Elvis Presley
Michael Jackson
Freddie Mercury
John Lennon
Tina Turner

What are your favourites Gransnetters ?

Burt Bacharach. Without a doubt.

1)George Gershwin ( sorry, that's stretching it.)
2) Bob Dylan
But more up to date Dear old Macca, still going strong .

wilmerknickersfit - I wasn't referring to this thread

But jinglebellsfrock, I need to keep my posts short so you can process them

Totally.

The Independent had a whole supplement devoted to Bowie. They cannot have put that together overnight, were they expecting it? And they had pages and pages devoted to him in the main paper.

Perhaps they have a whole stack of pre-prepared stuff for people in the media who are getting on a bit!

And I wouldn't underestimate the ability of newspapers to rise to the occasion - they had quite a lot of time and plently of staff available to prepare that supplement.

The DM on the other hand relegated him to page 6. Their front page headline was the resignation of the head of the Environment Agency

The antidote to long posts

jingl, I think your saying that the "evil bastards" - and yes, thank you, I knew who you meant - would have triumphed if we didn't spend enough time mourning (if one can really mourn someone who was a complete stranger) David Bowie was bizarre. While it is right to feel sorry for the family of anyone who dies, I don't think we need the endless news coverage. In my case, David Bowie was not someone special and I chose not to watch the news as much as I usually do so as not to have to put up with what I thought were over-emotional reactions. I hope this post is not too long for you.

tigger, newsreaders and reporters are not there to please themselves

" I think your saying that the "evil bastards" .... would have triumphed if we didn't spend enough time mourning (if one can really mourn someone who was a complete stranger) David Bowie was bizarre."