I think we're back into the generational thing again, comparing the media coverage of the passings of two "celebrities" -- Michael Jackson and Walter Cronkite. We were talking about it in the office this morning.

Over the past weekend, you couldn't find a newscast (local or national) that didn't contain multiple tributes to Cronkite, and his lasting effect on news, on television, and even on the U.S. as a whole -- e.g., President Johnson's lament that if he'd "lost Cronkite('s support for the Vietnam War), then he'd lost the country. President Obama talking about all of us losing a great friend.

But I suspect that the eulogies will end pretty quickly -- now that the weekend is over, and the funeral will not be a televised marathon. Compare that to the frenzy over Jackson's death, running non-stop for days, with the "live" televised funeral services bumping regular TV programming.

Did Jackson have that much more of an impact than Cronkite? Or was it only a demographic thing, where Cronkite is remembered pretty much only by Baby Boomers (or pre-Boomers). In fact, considering those demographics, would there have even been as much to-do about Cronkite if Jackson's hoopla hadn't set the stage (sorry!) for it?

I think not, and I think that there's a definite reflection of values transitioning from one generation to the next. So if 1969 was a watershed year for the Boomers (moon landing, Woodstock), then this year might mark the closure of their era.

What do you think, are Baby Boomers officially a past-their-prime generation? Do they realize it yet?