i understand them wanting to publish this pic. it's gotta be one of the hottest pics available at the moment. but for the front cover, they should have put a better picture. that one is horrible. it's meant to be a tribute, so why not put one of his more iconic pictures? like a still from "thriller"? i saw it yesterday and was disgusted. i flicked through it today and they've actually said in the caption that it was a picture of his "lifeless body". so he was technically dead in that picture
Actually just back from M&S and I have to say that from sales point they might have it bang on. They were flying off the shelves. Every person in front of me bought it.
They are feeding the ghoulish obsession the public has with celebrity deaths. Put a nice pic on and call it a tribute chances are only the diehard fans would buy it and keep it as a reminder of their idol. This way they flog it to everyone interesed in every salacious detail.
I think they would fly off the shelves without that picture on the front. The fact it's a tribute issue to MJ guarantees it's sale. They could have easily but the picture inside if they were so intent on showing it. I actually think the opposite to you... it will probably be the diehard fans that buy it regardless of the sick picture
Actually just back from M&S and I have to say that from sales point they might have it bang on. They were flying off the shelves. Every person in front of me bought it.
They are feeding the ghoulish obsession the public has with celebrity deaths. Put a nice pic on and call it a tribute chances are only the diehard fans would buy it and keep it as a reminder of their idol. This way they flog it to everyone interesed in every salacious detail.
And with that one post OK! can answer everyone in this thread. We can all agree that its disgusting to publish it on the cover but if they have seen their magazine fly off the shelves then that will be their justification for doing it. Morally it may still be wrong but enough of the general public obviously dont agree.
We can all claim the moral highground and deride the magazine but as long as enough people actually go out and buy it then they will continue to act in a manner that has seen them publish tributes to people who havent died and photos of those that have.
I didn't think you could go lower than the Jade Goody tribute issue, before she had died. But this is truly sickening.
I'm not a fan of MJ but publishing pics like that is a step too far imo. You can expect that sort of thing (to a certain extent) on the internet but not from a magazine.
I'm not a fan of MJ but publishing pics like that is a step too far imo. You can expect that sort of thing (to a certain extent) on the internet but not from a magazine.
Even the links to it on the internet gave us the courtesy of warning us of the graphic and distressing content before we clicked on it. I've had that cover staring at me in the face this afternoon at Sainsburys while with my young son. Outrageous.
I saw this on the front page of The Star in the supermarket today and I couldn't believe it. Even for OK this is extra hideous. It's bad enough they use a photo like that, but worse that they claim it is part of a tribute issue.
I saw the magazine today in Sainsbury's and was shocked literally open mouthed shock that they would put that picture of what was believed at the time a critically ill man by the media but in actuality was already dead on the front cover!! It was not the endotracheal tubes etc that was distressing its what you'd expect given that he'd had a cardiac arrest its just the fact that OK! thought it was acceptable to not only publish it in their magazine but also on the front cover and as a warped tribute. And OK! is sold pretty much everywhere there's no escaping it, at least on the internet you know and are warned before clicking on these images. I cannot believe people would want to buy and keep this magazine as a tribute issue I honestly can't.
I will admit to having a ghoulish flick through Jade's wedding one while standing ina queue and even that made me uncomfortable but buy this? Not a chance in hell.
Will a photograph showing a dead (or nearly dead) Michael Jackson sell more magazines? Maybe so, but would a regular reader want to leave that on their coffee table?
I thought OK! was a feel-good fantasy magazine, I thought the Jade tribute (even though it was a week early) was in keeping with the magazine, but this is more like a trashy web magazine.
I feel really sorry for all the other stories in the magazine. Just imagine what they would say - Hey mum I'm in OK! this week, you can't miss it it's got a dead guy on the cover!
This pic was shown on Larry King Live the night MJ died, Larry called it "Great reporting" Disgusting really but he died the way he lived, in the public eye.
In my local Asda today there were four rows of shelving, and the ok magazine was on the second from top shelf and amazingly, at kiddy height on the bottom shelf. I was disgusted so I turned them all round to face the other way. Not much I know, but it made me feel better.
That pap who chased that ambulance and was shoving his camera in the window of it has made a mint, so they'll just do it all the more now.
We know they did it to Diana. More interested in getting pictures than actually helping her, but at least no one bought them or printed them.
It's a whole new ball game now obviously. It's apparently quite alright to stick a pap picture of a dead celeb on their cover.
as mentioned earlier, the Express took a different moral position on Diana, saying they would never consider publishing the pictures of the dying Diana that were allegedly touted around. They do seem to have an inconsistent moral compass.
Comments
To be fair it only came to light some time later that he would have been dead at the time the pic was taken.
I think they would fly off the shelves without that picture on the front. The fact it's a tribute issue to MJ guarantees it's sale. They could have easily but the picture inside if they were so intent on showing it. I actually think the opposite to you... it will probably be the diehard fans that buy it regardless of the sick picture
I've just sent a complaint about it.
It's completely disrespectful and distasteful.
This was a special edition rushed out I believe
And with that one post OK! can answer everyone in this thread. We can all agree that its disgusting to publish it on the cover but if they have seen their magazine fly off the shelves then that will be their justification for doing it. Morally it may still be wrong but enough of the general public obviously dont agree.
We can all claim the moral highground and deride the magazine but as long as enough people actually go out and buy it then they will continue to act in a manner that has seen them publish tributes to people who havent died and photos of those that have.
Sad but true im afraid.
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=98598711191
Even the links to it on the internet gave us the courtesy of warning us of the graphic and distressing content before we clicked on it. I've had that cover staring at me in the face this afternoon at Sainsburys while with my young son. Outrageous.
More like who on earth would want to print them in their magazine and in the case on the front cover.
That pap who chased that ambulance and was shoving his camera in the window of it has made a mint, so they'll just do it all the more now.
We know they did it to Diana. More interested in getting pictures than actually helping her, but at least no one bought them or printed them.
It's a whole new ball game now obviously. It's apparently quite alright to stick a pap picture of a dead celeb on their cover.
I will admit to having a ghoulish flick through Jade's wedding one while standing ina queue and even that made me uncomfortable but buy this? Not a chance in hell.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QuXRaJFdmKU
That's the type of disgusting behaviour that's being rewarded and encouraged by magazines and newspapers buying these pictures.
I thought OK! was a feel-good fantasy magazine, I thought the Jade tribute (even though it was a week early) was in keeping with the magazine, but this is more like a trashy web magazine.
I feel really sorry for all the other stories in the magazine. Just imagine what they would say - Hey mum I'm in OK! this week, you can't miss it it's got a dead guy on the cover!
The Enquirer will have gone to Def Con 5.:eek:
No problem for me - I wouldn't wipe my backside on this glossy version of The Scum, if I had dysentery.
as mentioned earlier, the Express took a different moral position on Diana, saying they would never consider publishing the pictures of the dying Diana that were allegedly touted around. They do seem to have an inconsistent moral compass.