Why Is This News?
Cidu Bill on Mar 3rd 2010
When I saw the headline, I thought there was something more to the story. But no, it’s apparently just a woman who was rushed to the delivery room on her wedding day. Gosh. Aside from the fact that this has been a cliche since the time of Rock Hudson and Doris Day, hasn’t this happened a zillion times?
I’d like to give a shout-out to my cousin here…
Filed in Bill Bickel, media | 29 responses so far
Frank the curmudgeon Mar 3rd 2010 at 02:49 am 1
Neither “off beat” nor news.
furrykef Mar 3rd 2010 at 02:54 am 2
Maybe it happened like this:
Reporter: Hey, did you hear about this? This couple had a baby immediately after they got married. Rushed ‘em straight to the maternity ward after the wedding.
Editor: *voice dripping with sarcasm* Oh yeah, that would be a fantastic story. You should cover it right now!
Reporter: You think so too? I’m on it!
Editor: No, wait, I –
*reporter slams door as he excitedly runs off*
Editor: …Oh well. At least this’ll keep him busy enough not to write that article on boogers.
jjmcgaffey Mar 3rd 2010 at 06:20 am 3
In general, I find that ‘offbeat’ means ‘it was a really slow news day, so we’re going to do a dog-bites-man story…again.’
Powers Mar 3rd 2010 at 06:53 am 4
Actually, I kinda doubt it’s happened a “zillion” times that someone’s water breaks during her own wedding reception. I’d never heard of it before.
Nicole Mar 3rd 2010 at 07:22 am 5
IMHO — in this day and age mainstream news does everything it can to avoid reporting on real news. Witness the Tiger Woods apoplogy — as Bill pointed out three major networks covered it live, yet often news items that really effect out lives are ignored or glossed over.
Kit Mar 3rd 2010 at 09:09 am 6
Would it be too cynical for me to say the news-worthy part is that the couple “wanted to do the right thing”?
Karen Mar 3rd 2010 at 09:14 am 7
I’m kind of embarassed that this happened in my hometown of Toledo. Now USA Today readers are going to think all Toledo natives get knocked up before their wedding, are dumb enough to think the baby won’t arrive during the 9th month of pregnancy, and name the kid something weird like Tova.
Then again, I am not surprised at all that it happened in the suburb of Sylvania.
And that’s all I’m gonna say about that.
Derek Mar 3rd 2010 at 10:28 am 8
Getting married while visibly pregnant is not exactly “doing the right thing”. Getting married while 9 months pregnant is just asking for trouble. But it’s local news, regional at best.
Elyrest Mar 3rd 2010 at 11:18 am 9
“I’d like to give a shout-out to my cousin here…”
Bill - You’ve left me curious by this statement. Did your cousin do the same thing? Do they live in Sylvania? Did they send you this article? Is this article about your cousin? Too many questions.
Karen (7) mentioned being embarrassed about Toledo, but I have to wonder about the high preponderance of news articles I see about people in Ohio doing something stupid. I’ve lived in six states (Ohio was one of them) and I’ve seen stupid people in all of them, but no state seems to make national news headlines like Ohio. ???
Cidu Bill Mar 3rd 2010 at 12:08 pm 10
Elyrest, eleven years ago my cousin’s plan was to marry his girlfriend several weeks before the twins were due. You know how this ends, right?
That’s why the news article left me unimpressed.
Elyrest Mar 3rd 2010 at 12:30 pm 11
Cidu Bill - Thanks for the answer. Yes, your response makes so much sense now. My niece got married a few years ago when she was rather far along. Since it was summer, the weather was warm and it was an outdoor wedding she decided to wear no shoes. My sister was laughing/crying at her “barefoot and pregnant” daughter bride.
Heather D Mar 3rd 2010 at 12:32 pm 12
My ex’s parents were married back in the 40s or 50s. Their first daughter was born 6 or 7 months later. And wasn’t premature. Nobody asks any questions about the dates…
And “Tova” isn’t a weird name. It’s actually a very common, traditional Jewish name. I’m not Jewish but I’ve actually known several Tovas. I think it’s a lovely name!
paperboy Mar 3rd 2010 at 01:16 pm 13
I agree mostly with Nicole#5, but these “cute human-interest” items have been in the paper as long as I can remember, just to please the people who complain it’s all “bad news”.
Charlene Mar 3rd 2010 at 02:25 pm 14
“name the kid something weird like Tova.”
Because a Jewish name that’s been given to girls for thousands of years is “weird”.
Karen Mar 3rd 2010 at 02:39 pm 15
Is the couple in the article Jewish? Seriously? Jamie Phillips and Mark Phillips. And I’d like to point out that the baby in the article is a boy. So they gave the baby boy a Jewish girl’s name. Sounds like a typical dumb couple who opens up a baby name book, says, “Oooh! Tova! I love that and I love the meaning…oh, it’s a girl’s name? *I* think it’s a boy’s name.” It’s like giving a girl the name “Henry” or “Michael”, though that’s been known to happen. My own dad wanted to name me Ralphina, and no, I am not making that up.
That’s why I said it was weird. I should have clarified. Giving a boy a traditional girl’s name is weird. Setting your wedding date for the week your baby is due is weird (and dumb). Call me a stick in the mud, but if a name is traditionally given to a girl, leave it to the girls. And vice versa.
The Abbot of Unreason Mar 3rd 2010 at 03:43 pm 16
Well, if they use family/maternity leave for the honeymoon, I’ll be impressed.
Dan Mar 3rd 2010 at 04:07 pm 17
Getting married before the baby’s due = good only if you’re doing so on the down-low, i.e., before the lady starts a-showing. Isn’t that the point, that you want to keep secret the fact that she got pregnant before you were hitched?
mkilby Mar 3rd 2010 at 04:21 pm 18
I’ve always had trouble with selecting names, that’s why I ended up using my e-mail ID for my posts here. However, just because they used “Tova” does not mean that they must have derived it from the feminine Hebrew name (although it does seem to be the most likely theory). The thing that I find strangest about it (for a boy) is that it ends in “a”, but there are lots of different customs for vowel endings (not all that surprising in this case, since Hebrew doesn’t have separate letters for most vowels).
I’ve often considered inventing a new posting ID, but I haven’t been able to invent one that I like.
Karen Mar 3rd 2010 at 05:09 pm 19
Actually, come to think of it, I can beat this couple with a relative of mine. Said relative (third cousin on my mom’s side) got married about six months after the baby was born and the mother/bride carried the baby down the aisle and handed it off to the mother of the bride before meeting the groom at the altar. And she wore white. That wedding nearly gave my mom an apoplexy. I don’t know if it was the whole WE HAD SEX BEFORE THE WEDDING issue, or the fact that the reception was potluck and held in the cousin’s mom’s barn. Heh.
furrykef Mar 3rd 2010 at 08:48 pm 20
Would it be too cynical for me to say the news-worthy part is that the couple “wanted to do the right thing”?
Derek #8 already touched on this — isn’t it odd how we say things like “Derek #8″ here? Makes it sound like we have eight Dereks — but I’ll expand upon the point a bit:
I don’t see how it’s the “right thing” at all. It’s arbitrary. Having the wedding before the baby, after the baby, it’s just an arbitrary line in the sand, wherever it is. It’s a symbolic gesture at most, but it has no meaning beyond being a symbol.
Now if we were talking about having the wedding before gettin’ jiggy wit’ it in the first place, I can understand that (though I see no particular virtue in chastity, myself, but I can respect other opinions)…
- Kef
bAT L. Mar 3rd 2010 at 10:33 pm 21
furrykef #20 - I think that may have been where the thought of “doing the right thing” started, but today it seems that it’s much more of a commitment thing. My previous girlfriend got married in a hurry when she got pregnant, but the husband wanted to do this to force them together so she wouldn’t be alone raising a baby. I mean, she still pretty much was, but the thought was … almost there.
Lola Mar 3rd 2010 at 10:42 pm 22
Getting married before the birth does serve to “legitimizes” the child. There are all kinds of legal reasons for doing this, so it could very reasonably be called the right thing.
furrykef Mar 3rd 2010 at 11:53 pm 23
If that’s true, then I guess the law is stupid. But it wouldn’t be the first time.
Powers Mar 4th 2010 at 07:11 am 24
It’s not stupid; the baby doesn’t get a birth certificate, which makes the parentage “official”, until birth.
mkilby Mar 4th 2010 at 12:01 pm 25
The concept of “legitimacy” is heinous prejudice. The legal implications have become virtually insignificant in most jurisdictions, and the financial effects are generally significant only if and when the marriage is later dissolved, rendering the original argument for the advantages of “legitimacy” moot. Anyone who is not willing to stand by their own offspring (or a potential grandchild) because of their own perception of the baby’s “illegitimacy” is not worthy to be a parent and/or grandparent.
Dan Mar 4th 2010 at 12:19 pm 26
But whether the parents are married (to each other), they’re still the parents of the newborn, so I’m not sure what the law has to do with it.
paperboy Mar 4th 2010 at 01:05 pm 27
furrykef #20- “isn’t it odd how we say things like “Derek #8″ here?”. No, it makes it easier to see who and where one is replying to; that’s why I took the initiative in creating this usage.( What I found odd was that use of the “@” sign.)
mitch4 Mar 4th 2010 at 06:35 pm 28
I too thought the at-sign was odd, until I related it to Twitter syntax.
mkilby Mar 8th 2010 at 05:19 am 29
Just as a random coincidence, last night on a German edition of a “funniest home video” show, I happened to see a clip of a wedding ceremony where the bride went into contractions at the altar. It’s amazing what people will do for a token royalties payment and 15 seconds of fame. The bride appeared to be surprised, but not panic stricken, so I assume that she must have been nearly full-term (hard to tell because of the very strategic dress she was wearing).