Dan Rather decries media coverage of the royal wedding

Pin it

Fact: I'm a sucker for rants made by old, curmudgeon-y newsmen, even if whatever it is they're complaining about barely makes a lick of sense. (Remember that time Andy Rooney went grocery shopping and complained about the myriad of fresh produce options? It made my heart swell.)  Anyway, sometimes these guys actually have legit complaints, and when they do we should all listen up. Case in point: Dan Rather and his beef with the American media's over-zealous royal-wedding coverage.

In a column he wrote for the Huffington Post, Rather expresses outrage over the vast media resources being spent to cover what is really nothing more than an ultra-extravagant display of pomp and ceremony:

Remember those who have the least amongst us, struggling after more than a year of unemployment, a long commute they can no longer afford, or the diagnosis of a medical condition that could kill them and bankrupt their family. The networks couldn't ignore the devastating storms that killed hundreds in the South, but you had the odd juxtaposition of that news being delivered by anchors sitting in front of Buckingham Palace…

It is a legitimate news story, a big event for one of America's most stalwart allies… What bothers me is the hypocrisy. The idea that we can't afford to throw resources at an important foreign story, but can afford to spend this kind of money on a story like the royal wedding is just plain wrong. The idea that we can't break into regularly-scheduled programming for an address by the president is wrong as well. When the topic was the "Birther Story" (better referred from here on out by the first letters of those two words), the networks jumped right in.

He's got a pretty good point. Though to be fair I am also a sucker for ridiculous-looking hats, so it's nice to see hours of my morning television programming being devoted to their opulent display.