Wedding coverage shifts to the people
Social media posts outdo TV pundits with quips, commentary and news
For the 1981 royal wedding of Prince Charles and Lady Diana Spencer, the major networks put a roster of all-time legends on a plane to Britain, including Tom Brokaw, Peter Jennings, Dan Rather and Barbara Walters.
The 2018 marriage of Prince Harry and American actress Meghan Markle lured a much lower wattage of TV personalities, such as Giuliana Rancic, Shepard Smith, Don Lemon and Al Roker. On HBO,
Will Ferrell with Molly Shannon were making fun of the whole thing in the personas of Cord Hosenbeck and Tish Cattigan.
While the actual wedding lived up more to the hype with its splendor and diverse and progressive surprises, the television coverage suggested
an industry that has lost its monopoly on the international conversation. This may be the golden age of TV, but live coverage of royal spectacles is a dying line.
Many tried to harness the moment. But the best way to watch the preand post-ceremony was with the sound off, and a running social media feed.
Television fared worse in the two hours before the ceremony, when the pointless filling of time was most noticeable, with the kind of formless blathering you’d expect while watching a slowspeed car chase. Most panels had so many voices, dead air was rarely an option.
“Guys, I did some research, and I’m not sure what page it’s on, on the longest royal kisses,” E Live royalty expert Melanie Bromley exclaimed. “With Charles and Diana, it was not quite four seconds.”
Meanwhile, early morning Twitter was on fire, beginning with the first arrivals of guests in the 2 a.m. hour Pacific time.
The BBC Three account tweeted with a shrug emoji, showing side-by-side photos of President Trump’s seemingly sparse 2017 inauguration crowd, next to the solid mass of people along the path leading up to Windsor Castle.
The ceremony itself was wonderful television and a blast of American culture, with an electric and animated Bishop Michael Curry quoting Martin Luther King Jr.: “We must discover the power of love, the power, the redemptive power of love. And when we do that, we will make of this whole world a new world. But love, love is the only way.”
The Kingdom Choir belted out a stirring “Stand by Me,” followed by a stunning performance from 19-year-old black British cellist Sheku Kanneh-Mason.
“This is the most subversive #royalwedding I can think of,” journalist and author Julia Baird posted on her Twitter feed. “Outspoken biracial royal wife, black preacher talks of social justice, black choir sings gospel version of ‘Stand by Me.’ It’s small, but it’s stunning. Diana would surely be thrilled.”
Social media didn’t just dominate with quips and perspective, but also with breaking news. While TV pundits offered platitudes upon the reveal of Markle’s gown (“She doesn’t just look stunning, she looks regal!” one “Today” pundit said, breathlessly), Twitter offered instant details; it was designed by Clare Waight Keller of Givenchy.
Too many commentators seemed to be using material they had prepared days before, or repeated adjectives until they lost meaning. (“It was amazing … breathtaking … incredible.”) Meanwhile, the unpaid masses watching in their pajamas were able to laser-focus on the moments that mattered.
Twitter GIF wizard @DanielleDASH captured four seconds as Prince Harry mouthed the words “you look amazing” to Markle, then bit his lip. It was easily the most authentic moment of the night, unseen on networks interviewing “experts” who appeared to be divorced from the real conversation, if they weren’t able to watch the ceremony at all from their overcrowded perches.
No less than a dozen channels broadcast the wedding for American audiences, including fashion-focused TLC and Spanish-language Univision’s “Harry Y Meghan Una Boda Real” celebration. Compare that to five channels in the Bay Area broadcasting the wedding of Charles and Diana. (CNN, less than a year old in 1981, ran a live BBC feed.)
If one must say something nice, most networks were appropriately quiet throughout the ceremony. (The exception was E, which let its pundits trade pointless analysis about the ceremony over KannehMason’s lovely solo.) The NBC “Today” crew fared the best with A-teamers Savannah Guthrie and Hoda Kotb, pros who at least know the value of silence. They reflected the audience, approaching the ceremony with enjoyment, without the fawning or too-serious analysis that weighed down other broadcasts.
The BBC made use of its home field advantage, with less clutter than the other networks, which sometimes crammed six or seven personalities on the screen at one time.
But CNN’s Anderson Cooper, so strong and comfortable during the annual New Year’s Eve celebration, had trouble holding together a broadcast with too many parts. His colleague Lemon fared no better, even with over-the-top British pundit Richard Quest by his side to ably fill the dead air.
“This is the beginning of a revolution,” Lemon kept saying, referring to the diverse elements of the ceremony.
“This is a 1,000-year institution that constantly knows that it has to change,” Quest corrected, in a statement that would make a good tweet. “But it changes slowly. The change takes place evolutionary, not revolutionary. That’s how it has survived.”
The same can’t be said for television, looking oblivious to the revolutionary change in conversation happening outside its overcrowded sets. While royal spectacles may continue for another century, the crown for royal commentary has been passed on to the people.
Peter Hartlaub is The San Francisco Chronicle’s pop culture critic staff. Email: phartlaub@sfchronicle.com Twitter: @PeterHartlaub