Where is Kate Middleton? Where has she been? Why are the images being photoshopped? Was that even her in that video? What are they hiding from the news media?
Well, now we know.
And once again the news media and the world of journalism will sit by the arrogant position that everyone everywhere has the right to know everything about everyone else.
Of course, if you truly believe that, you are dumber than I am because as far as humanity is concerned, that idea is absolute crap.
But journalists are seekers of the truth so their missions are true and their hearts are pure.
Yeah, okay.
Do you find me skeptical? Good.
I’ll start by picking on Norah O’Donnell and the CBS Evening News with their approach on the night the news was released and the video was viewed by everyone everywhere.
“The shocking news,” O’Donnell said. “Only 42 and the mother of young children.” O’Donnell then tossed it to Charlie D’Agata who called it, “very private news” going so far as to criticize the entire social media response to the unfolding of events leading up to the announcement, a response interestingly enough that CBS and virtually every other outlet leaned on, featured and even mimicked in their ongoing coverage of the news media’s royal scavenger hunt.
Yes, the “very private news” that perhaps was more than nudged a little into the public forum because nothing is out of bounds in the search for the truth.
For the dessert course, we were treated to a less than informative but obligatory Q&A with Medical Correspondent Dr. Jon LaPook, who while a noted physician in his own right, is not an oncologist nor privy to any first-person information contained in the diagnosis or treatment. That said, he looks good on TV and certainly knows more than 99% of us.
That’s simply one example on one platform, from one outlet.
So perhaps for now, the world’s curiosity has been sated while journalists take a momentary breather before going back on patrol.
In the days following, not much better.
What We Know About Catherine, Princess of Wales’s Cancer Diagnosis. The New York Times.
What Catherine, Princess of Wales, says between the lines in her video. The Washington Post.
With the Post’s added sub-headline of:
The video’s creation means the royals are taking this very seriously.
What the hell does that even mean?
As if because they are members of the House of Windsor they don’t have to fret over such things?
As if the rest of humanity doesn’t panic when they get a cancer diagnosis?
Who is more out of touch here, the general public or the journalists trying to appeal to them?
Meanwhile, why not let us take a brief look at how the Fourth Estate handled it all since the first indications back in December that something was amiss.
(You were expecting a timeline, weren’t you? Not happening, try People Magazine)
Let’s just say that news coverage took on an accusatory, even visibly annoyed tone in speaking to all that has transpired. Almost as if to say, “You’re hiding information from us” and “Why isn’t the palace telling anything?”
Maybe it’s because in truth, it’s none of your Buckingham business.
(I’m taking a shot here, it may work, it may not)
Perhaps what we think to be the legitimate news media was not actually shouting out claims of conspiracy, cover-up, AI infiltration, photoshop, and body doubles in order to theorize and make accusations but ABC, CBS, NBC, Fox, CNN, et al were certainly were making good use of those other outlets with plenty of time and resources who felt free to openly speculate and wax less than poetically.
Hey, we’re not saying this but here’s what others are thinking…
When the heavy hitters of legitimacy are leaning so heavily on the paparazzi and tabloids to lay the groundwork or even form the body of their coverage, it’s time to go on hiatus for some serious retooling.
Not to say that any of this is new or even surprising but every once in a while, is it wrong to hope that those who report the news might stop and say, “This much isn’t necessary”?
You know, maybe the mother of three kids didn’t really feel like coming out and letting the world know what her condition was and if she did, maybe now is not when she wanted to do it.
It’s not like this business hasn’t turned a blind eye in the past.
Throughout history, the press in its eager search for the truth and all things knowable has certainly kept a lot of secrets, or at least a lot of personal information quiet in a sort of barter system with public figures.
How long was William Randolph Hearst fooling around with whoever he was fooling around with, how long before the public really knew how wheelchair-bound FDR was, and what did the press corps get in return for not paying attention to who was being snuck out the back door of the White House while Kennedy was there?
And these are really ancient examples. Just imagine who agreed to keep something quiet only yesterday.
A while back, I wrote about why there is so much coverage of the Royals, especially in this country and I said it’s because that’s what the people want.
I think it’s just as true as it’s always been but must we constantly push so hard and cross so many lines in order to feed those appetites?
I’m being super critical here, but at a time when the number of people who don’t believe what the news is telling them is higher than those who trust what we say, maybe we should be a little smarter and a little kinder.
Journalism didn’t give this woman cancer and certainly didn’t force her to disappear or photoshop family pictures but by pushing so hard for every possible, personal detail all the time, is the mission still being accomplished, or are things, as usual, going too far?
I really believe that these questions need to be asked as a matter of routine. It’s well apparent that they are not being considered in editorial meetings or coverage discussions as much as they should be and when they are not, those lessons are lost on the next generations behind the microphone, camera, and byline.
By all accounts, this is all about someone who appears to be a nice lady, a mother, and a spouse who just happens to be a member of a royal family. She’s a public figure but really is of no more importance than anyone else. Unfortunately, she and her family members give us things to gossip about from time to time.
The price they pay?
Maybe.
Perhaps ask a few high-profile journalists, past and present who consider themselves so distinguished, so humane and so above reproach how they felt or would feel sitting on the same bench under the same circumstances as this 42-year-old mother of three.
So, while the news media may not deserve to be burned in effigy, every once in a while, we should be feeling a little bad about some of the things we do.
As I said, now we know.
Happy Now?
Bill Zito has devoted most of his work efforts to broadcast news since 1999. He made the career switch after serving a dozen years as a police officer on both coasts. Splitting the time between Radio and TV, he’s worked for ABC News and Fox News, News 12 New York , The Weather Channel and KIRO and KOMO in Seattle. He writes, edits and anchors for Audacy’s WTIC-AM in Hartford and lives in New England. You can find him on Twitter @BillZitoNEWS.
