THE POWER OF LOVE IS A CURIOUS THING: Today's featured NYT Vows column has prompted me to revisit one of my gnawing questions about the Times' Sunday Styles section: how much fact-checking is appropriate for a wedding announcement?
Because the narrative today is interesting: Girl dates Boy-LA for two years. Girl goes to NYC on business, where Boy-LA suggests she call Boy-NYC if she needs companionship. They have a "nice" time one night, but nothing happens.
Still, Girl decides to break up with Boy-LA and moves to NYC, where not until later on does she start dating Boy-NYC, who's simultaneously busy consoling Boy-LA as to the demise of his romance. They get engaged, and married on November 11 in NYC.
Now here's the thing: a number of their friends disapproved of the initial union, sensing a betrayal of Boy-LA, and did so to the extent that they refused to even attend the wedding, causing the bride to issue a "plea for understanding" after the ceremony.
Maybe it's just me, but I think most people get over that sort of thing by the time of the wedding if their friends really seem happy and in love . . . unless, that is, Girl's relationship with Boy-NYC started much earlier than what they're telling the Times, and it wasn't the cleaner Relationship-Meaningful Pause-New Relationship scenario they're painting.
None of which is meant to cast aspersions on the bride and groom -- I have no idea what the truth is here, and I'm leaving their names out of this post because I'm only interested in the broader issue: we don't know what kind of fact-checking and journalism went into publishing this article in the New York Times. Did the reporter attempt to interview Boy-LA? any of their friends? Or did she just rely upon the accounts provided by the bride and groom, who so clearly have an interest in painting their courtship as innocently as possible?
I don't want the Times to be pissing on anyone's wedding day, but at the same time, their obligation is to Truth and not hagiography, no? How truth-y do the Wedding pages need to be?
No comments:
Post a Comment