At this stage I would settle for the cicada cacophony over the relentless multiple CNN orgasms over the royal baby. It is like CNN anchors have been in an orgasmic relay from one to the next– Wolf Blitzer to Anderson Cooper to Piers Morgan back to Cooper.
There is actually a CNN royal commentator named Victoria Arbiter whose job is to be the arbiter of all things Victorian. For instance, she said it was “brilliant” of Kate to deliver a boy first time, meaning in her very first pregnancy. Not to be left behind CNN’s superstar global correspondent Christiane Amanpour spoke how the royal family was blessed with “good genes”. I suppose she meant as opposed to you and I who were just handed with the leftover that survived after embedding the British royals with the best of the best.
"I can’t believe we finally, after all this waiting, know that we have a boy," Arbiter gushed but because she is British she managed to make her observations sound deep. "My first thought, I have to say, was this is how brilliant a royal Kate is. There are women throughout British royal family history that have panicked over not being able to deliver a boy. And here we are — Kate did it first time."
Brilliant a royal? Really? For becoming pregnant and delivering a baby? Reathefucklly? Where does CNN find them? It seems in Britain unless proven otherwise all citizens are royal watchers.
CNN should officially announce that its royal baby reporting will last until he reaches puberty or Charles becomes the king, whichever happens first. Speaking of Charles becoming the king, the media makes it a point to underline that the baby is third in line to the throne. The first in line to the throne, namely the 65-year-old Charles, is still waiting. The second in line, namely the 31-year-old William, is also waiting and already going bald.
It is amazing how this giant anachronism called the British royalty is being perpetuated with the collusion of the broadcast media. CNN’s new approach seems to be pick a story with obvious ratings potential, give it saturated coverage and wring it dry till every ounce is out. They did it with the George Zimmerman trial and they have done it with the baby.
I don’t know how “serious” journalists such as Cooper, Blitzer and Morgan retain their equanimity while navigating through the swirling banalities of such stories. From the baby’s weight to the baby’s likely name they discuss everything threadbare, asking half a dozen talking heads to weigh in on whether it would be George or James as if both these names are staggeringly original. I am grateful that no one saw a grand cosmic plan in the baby’s weight of 8 pounds and 6 ounces.
Even The Guardian feels compelled to report online that Kate and William had spent their first day as parents or that Kate would have to spend most of Tuesday in hospital.
In keeping with the anachronistic parade the birth was announced in a framed document mounted on a royal easel and displayed in the forecourt of the Buckingham Palace. Rather than saying it straight that Kate and William had a boy, it said, “Her Royal Highness The Duchess of Cambridge was safely delivered of a son at 4.24pm. Her Royal Highness and her child are both doing well.” She did not give birth. She was “safely delivered of a son”.
Commoners give birth. Royals are “safely delivered of” babies.