Comment: Of course, media covered Queen’s funeral for hours

Was the event inconsequential for most Americans? Sure, but outlets were giving viewers what they wanted.

By Jonathan Bernstein / Bloomberg Opinion

Not only am I willing to cut U.S. news networks some slack for their decision to provide hours and hours of live coverage of the funeral of Queen Elizabeth II on Monday. I am also prepared to defend their general indulgence of America’s fascination with the British royals, even in the face of more obviously urgent and important news.

I fully concede that the royal funeral had pretty much zero news value, while damage to Puerto Rico from Hurricane Fiona is a huge ongoing story. (“Hey @MSNBC — Maybe cut away from the endless funeral of the monarch of ANOTHER COUNTRY and let us know what is going on in #PuertoRico where ACTUAL AMERICANS are in crisis?” read a typical message on Twitter.) Nevertheless, I can’t really blame CNN, Fox News, MSNBC or any of the other news channels or websites that provided live coverage.

News programs are produced and broadcast by private corporations, which care about readers and viewers. And like it or not, it has never been the case that news coverage alone is enough to sustain a business. Back when Americans bought newspapers, I bet more of them got them for the sports scores, stock market reports, classified ads, TV listings and comics than for the sober analyses of Washington, D.C. legislation. Sure, a lot of people paid some attention to the news, and maybe some people paid a lot of attention; but even then, the news has always had its share of celebrity and spectacle.

To survive as a business venture, the news media have to fulfill the demand for plenty of things that aren’t important. Yes, news outlets have some self-interest in being seen as conveyors of serious information about the world, and therefore in establishing reputations for strong journalism. When they fall short in significant ways, such as when CNN went out of its way to boost Donald Trump during the 2016 presidential nomination process, they deserve criticism. But no realistic media critic should expect them to be interested in only that, or to take a pass on high-interest, basically harmless spectacles such as a royal funeral.

And I’m not going to blame the audience, either. I myself have well below average interest in the royals, and I’ve watched almost none of the coverage. And everyone has something that fascinates them that isn’t exactly consequential. Put on hours of coverage of the purely ceremonial aspects of the opening day of a new Congress, and I’ll be there. (Thanks, C-Span!) Celebrity-watching in general strikes me as nothing to be embarrassed about; no worse, and probably a lot better, than being fascinated by the various forms of violence that also produce reliably robust TV ratings.

Nor is there anything wrong with proudly free Americans gawking at the fancy trappings of foreign aristocrats; even ones who once considered the United States their personal property. After all, it’s been almost 250 years, and the U.S. and the UK have been good friends for about half of that. Many of us live in places there were never British colonies, and most of our families entered the U.S. long after it was independent. Enjoying the pageantry of the royals isn’t really much different than listening to the Beatles or Amy Winehouse or, for that matter, watching Shakespeare.

At any rate: The news media was prepared to provide this coverage, and maybe even made a little extra money doing it. They do need eventually to get around to covering serious problems in the U.S. But I’m not going to begrudge them the time they spend paying their respects to the queen; and to the audience that wanted it.

Jonathan Bernstein is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist covering politics and policy. A former professor of political science at the University of Texas at San Antonio and DePauw University, he wrote A Plain Blog About Politics.

Talk to us

> Give us your news tips.

> Send us a letter to the editor.

> More Herald contact information.

More in Opinion

toon
Editorial cartoons for Wednesday, July 2

A sketchy look at the news of the day.… Continue reading

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) speaks during a news conference at the U.S. Capitol on Friday, June 27, 2025. The sweeping measure Senate Republican leaders hope to push through has many unpopular elements that they despise. But they face a political reckoning on taxes and the scorn of the president if they fail to pass it. (Kent Nishimura/The New York Times)
Editorial: GOP should heed all-caps message on tax policy bill

Trading cuts to Medicaid and more for tax cuts for the wealthy may have consequences for Republicans.

Burke: Assessing dangers to democracy, knowing how to respond

In judging a threat consider Trump’s intent and his ability to carry out his intentions.

Oppose passage of ‘Big Beautiful Bill’ in Congress

The so-called “Big Beautiful Bill” threatens half of America’s children. (“Medicaid cuts… Continue reading

Stand up to oppose cuts to Medicaid and more

I am a senior citizen, having believed for the years of my… Continue reading

Skip the private fireworks displays, please

As everyone knows, our great country’s birthday, The Fourth of July, is… Continue reading

Comment: ‘Big Beautiful Bill’ will be hard sell to public

Republicans now must explain its cuts to health coverage, SNAP and clean energy credits and additional debt.

toon
Editorial cartoons for Tuesday, July 1

A sketchy look at the news of the day.… Continue reading

Dowd: Trump obliterates any sense of reliance on facts, truth

Any attempt to set the record straight is met with charges of having a lack of respect and patriotism.

Saunders: Price to pay for GOP senators who defy the president

Trump wants his Bill Beautiful Bill passed; and soon. Republicans’ future may hinge on it.

Comment: GOP’s Big Beautiful Bill extreme on immigration, too

Currently, $18,000 is spent for every undocumented immigrant. The bill increases that five-fold.

Comment: Term limits in Congress would only make it weaker

Limiting terms would result in a younger Congress, but would transfer power to lobbyists and staffers.

Support local journalism

If you value local news, make a gift now to support the trusted journalism you get in The Daily Herald. Donations processed in this system are not tax deductible.