View Full Version : Baby? What baby? World media mad for the royals

Colorado Media Newsroom
July 22nd, 2013, 12:47 PM
From The Denver Post:

http://blogs.denverpost.com/ostrow/files/2013/07/20130722__EUBritainRoyalBabyAnnouncementProcedure1 _GALLERY-270x179.jpg
The Guardian had the right idea on its homepage: “Not a royalist?” it asked. If you didn’t give a hoot for the obsessive royal baby watch and attendant hoopla, you clicked on the tab and were delivered to the latest world news–free of baby talk.
Breathless accounts of the Duchess of Cambridge’s trip to the hospital, coverage of the Royal announcement of early labor, the constant cable TV news updates and the world media on high alert was the latest case study for students of the media. Was it the mere fact of a hot new celebrity pushing U.S. media buttons again, or was there something historical about the heir to the heir to the heir? Why would Americans care?
The lack of news had exactly zero effect on the amount of frantic overage.
Why, on an infographic about royal baby obsession from Pew Research Center (http://www.ibtimes.com/royal-baby-most-americans-arent-interested-infographic-1355295) does the U.S. show up as the sixth most-interested country in the world? Why does the U.S. count as only one-third as interested in royal baby news as in Princess Diana’s death?
The Twittersphere had a blast, of course. @JohnFugelsang joked, “It’s always newsworthy when a member of the Royal Family experiences labor for the 1st time. #RoyalBaby” @MoRocca tweeted, “Upon delivery the attending physician will spank the royal baby, before being beheaded for assaulting the future monarch #RoyalBirthProtocol”
And, in a nod to “Game of Thrones,” @meninblazers asked, “Is it wrong to be secretly hoping Duchess of Cambridge gives birth to three dragons?”
Variety columnist Brian Lowry wrote that CNN expected a baby bump in the ratings. “(Unfortunately for TV which needs pictures to flesh out marathon coverage the Royal Family is being appropriately circumspect, when what producers would really like is for them to pull a Michael Jackson and dangle the baby over a balcony.)”
The American TV audience cared, while pretending that it didn’t, because years of training have primed that audience to hang on celebrity “news.” A bump in the ratings is irresistible for media outlets. And the idea of a brand new celebrity — a royal– as bait for paparazzi for years to come is too much for the media to resist.

More... (http://blogs.denverpost.com/ostrow/2013/07/22/baby-what-baby-world-media-mad-for-the-royals/15351/)