“Wasn’t the coverage a little more than excessive?” writes Kelly Haney.

“Wasn’t the coverage a little more than excessive?” writes Kelly Haney.

Overblown coverage of royal wedding, says Trail Times reader

Letter to the Editor from Kelly Haney of Trail

About the media coverage of the latest royal wedding on May 19.

Wasn’t the coverage (pre, live and post) more than a little excessive? Yes – anyone can marry into royalty these days and we’ve already had a few examples of that including in other monarchies.

And yes the Americans – after all of that Revolution behaviour – go nearly half-crazy with excitement when an American woman manages to marry into royalty.

American broadcast journalists burbling away at their microphones and gushing over clothes and hair and everything. It was almost touching … almost.

But the live-action coverage on May 19 and the following day was all too much. Almost all the television stations covered the wedding including CTV and CBC all-news channels – four hours in duration including repeats the next day.

Was this necessary?

It felt like a very deliberate display of media clout in the world and not in a nice way.

It was not an example of objective, intelligent journalism … and overdone.

Surely the CRTC (who I of course will complain to) reprimanded them for it?

Where was the news, the world news? Had the world stopped spinning on its axis because an American woman managed to marry up? Albeit into royalty.

It had turned into another example of a rather sick society, like that disgusting Viagra commercial on television as well.

The print media – for the most part – was not quite as silly about it all but with real and fake news stories about guns, guns and what stories make the news today and what real stories do not receive media coverage after all North American society – or who reports on it – seems to be heading down the loo.

Kelly Haney

Trail