Dear Media: please shut the fuck up about Chelsea Clinton’s wedding.
As US readers all know—unless you’ve been living under a rock—the daughter of Bill and Hillary Clinton is getting married this weekend, and even non-tabloid news outlets have been in a hot and sweaty lather about the prospect. How much do the flowers cost? Who made her gown? Is the Clintons’ security detail ruining some other bride’s Big Day? The media pile-on is especially ironic because Chelsea, the only child of two of the most recognizable and relentless over-achievers in American history, deliberately chose not to follow in her parents footsteps. She got an excellent education, built a solid career and seems to have created a happy, low-key life that’s not especially different from the lives of many other privileged young career women. So why the hell is America hyperventilating like her wedding is our new national reality show?
The Washington Post‘s Robin Givhan wrote:
Yes, her parents have talked about how excited they are about her impending nuptials. They have spoken about how emotional the day will be. Surely we are not so crass as to take parental pride as an invitation to snoop? Oh wait — we are.
This despite the fact that Chelsea Clinton has repeatedly refused to court the limelight herself, unlike, say, Jenna Bush, who managed to parlay a brief stint of do-gooding in Central America into a book deal and national publicity campaign. Or Bristol Palin, who turned the lemon of unplanned teen pregnancy into lucrative spokeswoman lemonade—thanks to pro-abstinence speaking gigs and a cable-drama guest spot—and then used the cover of US Weekly to tell her presidential wannabe mama that she was finally marrying her baby daddy. By contrast, Chelsea Clinton’s sole foray into the spotlight was to campaign with her mother in 2008, and even then, she was not exactly garrulous in public, preferring to introduce her mom, shake some hands and then fade into the background. I’m sure she could have used her family’s huge social capital to run for office or be a socialite/philanthropist—as Caroline Kennedy has done—but she didn’t. Chelsea Clinton went to school, got a job, kept her head down and worked her butt off. For that, I sincerely respect her.
Unfortunately, the media, perennially in the thrall of the Wedding Industrial Complex, simply cannot leave this discreet, hard-working woman alone. This week People magazine even has an article—cross-posted to CNN.com—about Marc Mezvinsky, entitled “Five Things To Know About Chelsea’s Fiance,” as though people are not only interested, but have the right to know about him. Poor guy. The article’s obviously what’s known in the magazine world as a “write-around”, meaning the subject didn’t co-operate in any way, so they just recycled a bunch of public knowledge for the sake of attracting eyeballs. Granted, Mezvinksy’s not a total stranger to the public eye—his mother was a well-known Congresswoman and his father earned notoriety after he went to prison for fraud. Still, I doubt Mezvinksy ever envisioned CNN posting an article about “getting to know him.” Because really, he’s just a young Wall Streeter, one of a gazillion perfectly nice but undistinguished young banking dudes in New York who marry equally accomplished young women. Now, though, he’s become worthy of the 24-hour news cycle, and I honestly feel a bit sorry for him.
As if the endless hyperventilating about the cost of the wedding and the dress and the flowers and the traffic in Rhinebeck weren’t enough, a fair amount of ink has been spilled—especially in New York press—over the fact that Mezvinsky is Jewish and Clinton is Methodist (hey, just like my parents!). It’s a bit offensive that their religion is considered worthy of nosy speculation. The People article says that “there’s no word if Chelsea’s converting yet” but noted that she had attended a Yom Kippur service with her fiance last year, implying that people of one religion can’t possibly attend a holiday ceremony of another religion unless they’re considering switching teams. I think it’s pretty safe to say that if Chelsea hasn’t converted already in order to have a Jewish wedding, she likely won’t do it at all…not that her religion is anyone’s goddamn business anyway.
So what dubious cultural lesson can we take away from this media feeding frenzy? Givhan explains:
If there is anything particularly noteworthy about Clinton—and this is a sad reflection on our pop-culture universe —it’s that as the child of two public and controversial parents, she seems well-adjusted, intelligent and pleasant. Yet, here we are doing everything possible to transform her wedding into a media circus that only Bethenny, Bristol or a host of bridezillas could appreciate.
This is how our culture rewards decorum.
It’s also proof positive that our culture simply refuses to believe that privacy is worthwhile and desirable. Or that any young woman could squander her potential for media “stardom” by preferring an unremarkable life of education and hard work over the cheap lure of narcissism and fame-whoring.
Mazel tov, Chelsea and Marc. I hope you get to go right back to being inconspicuous, and soon.
Thank you for posting about this. I’m not much older than Chelsea and always admired 1) the way her parents protected her privacy while in the White House and 2) what hard work she did maintaining that privacy as an adult.
The “easy” choice would have been to be in the public eye. Chelsea’s choice to be a private person is harder due to her parents, but she has done an amazing job. Hopefully the wedding will be a blip and she can go back to her private life soon.
I feel vaguely smarmy when I read details about the wedding. I’m not invited, I don’t know them, have no reason to need to know, and mainly I don’t think they WANT to world to know.
But, but, if she doesn’t try to live up to what the media expects then how is she going to fail to meet the media’s expectations and then implode for our viewing pleasure? It’s not a very effective Catch-22 if people can just opt-out, now is it?
*exasperated sigh* This is why I’ve largely lost my faith in mainstream journalism and vastly prefer blogs.
I guess we Yanks should be glad we’re not English and therefore don’t have to hear ad nauseam about how Prince William keeps “teasing” the press by not proposing to his girlfriend yet.
Ok, I admit that I will look at any pictures of the dress that appear. But the rest of it is just offensive. Isn’t there some struggling actor somewhere who wants this attention?
The ironic thing is that, for all the gratuitous nastiness Bill and Hillary have borne from the right wing press, no one gives them credit for achieving one of the right’s ostensibly most dearly held goals-to marry, stay married and create a loving, supportive family for their child. Can’t stand it, Fox News, can you?
I feel bad for her…so many people (especially women) say that they felt like they had to live up to others’ expectations of their weddings instead of being able to do what they wanted and this can’t make that any easier. I also tend to think that the way the paparazzi acts, which is culturally supported, is one indication of our society’s failure to respect the importance of consent.
Eh. I doubt Chelsea reads this stuff or cares. The media can write whatever it wants to about you. That’s their prerogative. I don’t feel sorry for Chelsea or her fiance since I doubt they’re actually paying attention to this stuff anyway.
As I have often said, with this new 24 hour media bombardment, finding items that are truly news worthy seems to be harder than finding WALDO!
your words are mine regarding Chelsea and her upcoming nuptials….
Who CARES!!!?
Cat, to be honest though the British press barely covers William by which I mean the broadsheet newspapers. Obviously the tabloids cover it but the tabloids cover Paris Hilton, The Kardashians and Katie Price, they’re hardly arbiters of taste.
By contrast, that surprised me about the Chelsea Clinton wedding was that The New York Times has been salivating all over it. I mean I would probably have expected a picture and a small article on the wedding day (that’s how a similar event would be covered in the Guardian or the Times) but not the massive pre-wedding hype they’ve indulged in.
Of course, I remember being a teenager and occasionally Chelsea became the focus of the media.
And what was everything’s favorite thing to say about Chelsea Clinton??
…That she was sooooo ugly. I heard that during her (and my) teen years. And then, she grew up and people were like OMG she’s sooo pretty now! Ugly Duckling, et al! I mean, if I were her, I’d be inconspicuous too. Damn sexist media, scoring girls only on their hotness. Perhaps she does have a great political mind, but got so disgusted with the wolves who tear public women apart that she said NO thanks.
I have a lot of affection for Chelsea. She’s carried herself with extraordinary grace in the face of major bullshit. Plus we have the same hair, so you know, that’s a bond beyond time. And I admit I want to see the dress I can’t help it sorry.
I saw two cable news people (women, of course) talking about how surprising it is that Hillary’s been involved in wedding planning. Because she’s a ball-crushing cyborg and not a loving human mother. Plz.
thank you! The media’s attention to Chelsea’s lavish wedding in the face of our ongoing recession, the oil spill, race and gender issues, and oh yeah, the failure to grant all people in the U.S. the right to marry isn’t just a none new story it’s insulting.
PS. I met Chelsea, and I think she is an astute and interesting young woman, but that does not mean I care about her wedding or want it to take news time away from actually things impacting our world. There’s a difference btwn critiquing media attention & critiquing the woman whose getting it.
Thanks for this Sharpie! I have been massively disgusted by not only the intrusive coverage but by various commenters on blogs speculating about how far along she may be.
Repulsive.
I do want to see what her wedding cake looks like. I hope she gets one of those amazing ones they do shows on.
Yes, I am obsessed with cakes. Please don’t judge…
@JetGirl: One of the stories I saw today says that she’s serving vegan food, so—if that’s true, which it may totally not be—I imagine that the cake will be vegan. Which…meh. I have had vegan cakes that were acceptable, but never one that was terrific.
@JT: I agree about all the terrible things that were said about Chelsea when Bill was in the White House. Some of them were truly unforgiveable and I hope she didn’t hear about them at the time.
::side-eye at John McCain::
And then to have the whole Lewinsky thing happen when she was a teen? I can’t blame her for a minute for choosing to stay out of the public eye.
~liking the rock that I’m under, and making it more comfortable to stay under for a longer period of time~
Becky, I will make you a vegan chocolate cake that is very very tasty. Though probably not for your wedding.
I agree Becky, and I hope you are not one of those women who read magazines that feature celebrities or watch non-news television ; )
Of course her wedding does not matter but neither does 75% of what is covered in the media.
[...] The Harpies on why Chelsea’s wedding doesn’t matter [...]