Update - And the Fan Fare goes on. (See below)

Another day, another Michael Jackson drug story.

Since the King of Pop died last Thursday of cardiac arrest, many news outlets and reporters have seized on his possible prescription drug use as a reason. It makes for a good story and, after all, the King of Pop did admit to an addiction to painkillers in his past.

Update here: Saturday’s spotlight shone on a group of at least five physicians who prescribed drugs to Jackson, according to an unnamed law enforcment sources cited in a Los Angeles Times story.

Friday’s headlines quote an unnamed Los Angeles law enforcement official as saying police found Diprivan, which also goes by Propofol, in his rented Los Angeles mansion. Earlier this week at various times, we heard about needle marks in his body, a nurse whom he had begged for drugs, a stomach full of pills and a head with only fuzz on top. In the immediate days after his death, the key was demerol use.

 Most all sourced to unnamed people familiar with the situation — in some way.

The chase for news about Jackson’s drug use this past week mirrors the scramble to get news of his memorial service and funeral these past two days. (Read our blog about that here.) A public memorial was going to be Thursday, then Sunday, then maybe Monday, before it became Tuesday. A funeral would be at Neverland, and then at Forest Lawn cemetery and still no one really knows. And so it goes on.

In these stories, there’s always a scramble for news. It happens. (Anyone remember David Carradine and autoerotic asphyxiation.) That’s not saying we’re going to ignore the question of whether Michael Jackson died of a possible drug overdose. Or, other parts of the dark side to Michael. We haven’t. (Read about that here.) After all, where there’s smoke…

But chatter about memorials and innuendoes of drug use are two different things. One is an event, the other impacts a legacy. And so, we leave to you. Michael Jackson, was he on drugs when he died? And if so, why? Or, is all the media speculation, as Shakespeare said, much ado about nothing?

Police in Thailand are working to solve the mystery of actor David Carradine’s death last week in a Bangkok hotel, and they have said not to expect any answers for a month.

His family, however, is ready to settle at least one question: whether the media should publish photos said to be the actor’s body, discovered naked and hanging in his Bangkok hotel room on June 4. 

Carradine’s death has sparked intense media speculation about how he died (Click here for that story). Theories have ranged from suicide to murder to accidental autoerotic asphyxiation. All are speculative, none are confirmed.

When a Thai newspaper, Thai Rath, which is known for lively coverage of crime and celebrities, published grainy photos on Saturday that it claimed showed Carradine’s hanging body, an attorney for the actor’s brother, Keith Carradine, said the family will take legal action against people or media outlets that publish the photos.

“The family wants it understood that … any persons, publications or media outlets will be fully prosecuted for invasion of privacy and causing severe emotional distress if the photos are published,” said the statement from attorney Mark Geragos.

Thai police have declined to confirm the authenticity of the photos. (Click here for that story). They did say media were not present at the crime scene and the picture was not leaked by them. Thai Rath did not give a source for the photograph or show the face. We here on the Fan Fare blog have seen it online, and at best it appears highly suspect.

The events bring to mind the leaked police photo of Rihanna after she was allegedly attacked by singer Chris Brown back in February. The photo caused a stir and was not published by some media outlets but was published by others. A key difference was that it was said to be a police photograph, which was later substantiated, and it was clearly Rihanna.

Media outlets daily juggle questions of what should and should not be published, and each case often has a different answer depending on details. The story of Carradine’s death and the speculative information on how he died, as well as the photo published by Thai Rath, have again sparked debate here among some of our reporters on what details should and/or should not be published.

We thought Fan Fare readers might like a chance to tell us what they think. So, when does publishing salacious details — real or imagined – of a death and, perhaps, a real photo go too far? Or, put another way, when does the right to privacy trump the public’s right to know?