Members of the media report from outside Buckingham Palce on April 5 in London. (Dan Kitwood, Getty Images )
Prince William and his bride-to-be Kate Middleton could never have had an intimate wedding. They've invited 1,900 guests, after all. But the British couple's big day has set off a massive media frenzy rivaling the recent coverage of natural disasters, wars and government breakdowns combined.
There have been hundreds of hours of royal-themed TV programming already, with plenty more coming, including wall-to-wall coverage of the ceremony at historic Westminster Abbey.
Every major U.S. news organization plans to be there with its top talent April 29, from CBS' Katie Couric, NBC News' Brian Williams, ABC's Barbara Walters and Diane Sawyer to Fox News' Shepard Smith and CNN's Anderson Cooper and Piers Morgan. CNN alone will have at least 125 reporters on the ground in London to cover the story, and BBC America, having kicked off its 184 hours of royal reportage in December, will air a 51/2 -hour live, commercial-free broadcast on wedding day. (Much of the live wedding day coverage starts between midnight and 2 a.m. West Coast time, though the network news shows and many cable channels will re-air footage throughout the morning and the day.)
Frothier coverage is coming from likely suspects around the dial, such as nuptials-obsessed cable channels TLC, which has 89 hours of wedding-related shows, and Wedding Central. It's also on tap from unexpected sources such as the Weather Channel (Al Roker will host "Wake Up With Al" all week from London starting April 25) and Game Show Network. Everyone from Comedy Central's Stephen Colbert, who failed miserably in royal etiquette lessons on segments dubbed "My Fair Colbert," to Kathy Griffin, Tori Spelling and Perez Hilton have staked out a piece of the Wedding of the Century.
It's so relentless, it raises the question: Does anybody really need this much royal wedding coverage? And by the way, aren't there radiation leaks, violent insurgencies and economic issues in dire need of media attention?
TV executives are quick to defend the massive manpower and airtime devoted to the prince and his future princess, since an early estimate by British Culture Secretary Jeremy Hunt put the potential worldwide audience for the wedding at upward of 2 billion people, perhaps the largest viewership of any program in history.
"The world is looking for unifying events, happy occasions where we can celebrate together," said Perry Simon, general manager of BBC Worldwide America. "These opportunities don't come along very often."
Trend watcher Jamie Gutfreund of Intelligence Group said the event will bring out the Anglophiles and the romantics. "Since we don't have our own royalty, we're still fascinated by the British royal family and we're familiar with the players," she said. "And there's no downside to this story — it's about people coming together in love to renew and rebuild a family."
CNN's Morgan, a self-proclaimed monarchist who's known the royal family for two decades and will broadcast his talk show, "Piers Morgan Tonight," from London the week before the wedding, said the royal event is "ratings and circulation gold." "It's two Super Bowls and an 'American Idol' finale," he said. "For a few hours, people might not be thinking about all the terrible things going on in the world or in their lives. They'll be cheering on this couple. I think we need stuff like that."
Morgan said media honchos would be remiss if they didn't respond to a wedding of this magnitude. "If 2 billion people watch, then the media coverage is in proper perspective," Morgan said. "If only a half-billion watch, we've overdone it. But I think it's going to be absolutely huge."
There are always choices to be made, said Mark Lukasiewicz, vice president of NBC news specials and digital media, but the media conglomerate won't scrimp on breaking news even as it focuses heavily on London with more than a dozen anchors and correspondents based there in the week leading to the wedding.
"You use your gut and your editorial judgment, and you try to bring the audience what it wants," Lukasiewicz said. "We're very flexible, and we hope very smart about allocating our resources. We don't have to sacrifice one story to cover another."
One of the few U.S. polls on the issue, a Vanity Fair/"60 Minutes" survey taken early this year, found that 65% of Americans said they didn't care about the royal wedding. TV executives were quick to dismiss it, saying it doesn't reflect their own internal fact-finding or consider the 750 million people who watched Charles and Diana's wedding on many fewer media outlets that existed at the time.