Humanity on Parade: The New York Times Takes on the Obama Marriage

Two weeks ago, the New York Times published the tale of two young lawyers who fell in love when she was in charge. Now, with their careers and lives taking them in new and, perhaps, unexpected directions, he seems to be one with, arguably, a bit more responsibility.

By the time I got around to reading the tale of the Obamas' Marriage, earlier this week, it was still on the list of the most emailed articles in the Times. Though New York Times readers may not represent the best cross-section of America, it's clear, that politics aside, America has fallen for the marriage of Barack and Michelle. The article takes a personal look at the first couple's marriage, how they relate to each other, what she's had to give up, and how they are actually spending more time together now than ever before in his political career. It's a great article that does an excellent job of portraying the very human relationship between these two smart cookies (as my mom would say), but as an student of the way the New York Times writes about weddings, my curiosity lies in what draws us to the Obamas as a nation and how the Times advertises their marriage.

Don't get me wrong. I think that the union of the Obamas is a happy one. While the article makes allusions to the Clintons, I am crossing my fingers that mistresses aplenty don't reveal themselves in the coming years. It just doesn't seem like his style. Their legitimate and real happiness aside, I do believe that there is somewhat of a calculated public image and I don't mean that in a bad way. I just believe that they are too smart and value their marriage too much to put all of it out there for all to see. But I think what draws us to them is that they give us enough of their humanity to see ourselves in their marriage. This article portrays them, particularly Michelle, as real people with valid concerns about diving face first into public office - and a public personal life. This is what makes them so brilliant: they still look like real people, despite being in a position most of us will never be in.

And it's an example of what the New York Times does so well. Turning people who have lives that are completely foreign from what most of its readers know into real people who we can empathize with is no small feat. And they said education was the great equalizer. For now, though, I'm giving the credit to the Obamas, because I've seen less endearing and more regular folks in the Vows columns who come out with a little bit less of my empathy. The best writers may be able to bring out the humanity of their subjects, but there's got to be some there to start with.

This Married Life - Some Secrets Aren't Meant for Sundays

For all of those who think that I'm the only one obsessed with the glorious wedding announcements (though I'm guessing if you're reading this blog, you probably are right with me on that one) and their role in society, check out this week's This American Life, the show adored by newshounds and public radio hipsters alike (and hipster-newshounds).

This week's episode frames its discussion of infidelity with the dissection of the Vows Column that many readers found so appalling a few weeks back (and that I blogged about with a little bit too much gusto). The episode brings out some big questions about the nature of wedding announcements. What makes the New York Times wedding announcements so appealing to a lot of readers, are its one-sided, happy-ending filled narratives. Anyone who is or has been in a relationship knows that true fairy tales don't exist (though I did manage to make it into my carriage before it turned into a pumpkin this Halloween) and often the Times does a great job of turning normal relationships into fairy tales whose trouble-free happy endings stand by virtue of the simple fact that we won't see what happens to couples after they say their vows, and the Times runs its "Vows." And even more so, the Times gives us only a cursory overview of how they got to the altar, glossing over infidelities or hinting at difficult points in the relationship that the couple seem destined to overcome. In the cases of infidelity, there's no input from the scorned partner or even an overt mention of the affair, as the contributor to This American Life says, in the narrative that ends in the altar, it's only a speed bump in the couple's journey. The show then goes on to ponder why those who don't have to profess their infidelity to the world, unlike exposed Governors or presidential candidates, choose to do so, especially when they include a cheating wife who stole away to Paris to be with a member of Il Divo.

Personally, I think it's best to keep it all inside. While I'm always curious for more details about the lives of those featured on these hallowed pages - in fact I think it's the teaser into the often imponderable lives of others that keeps me coming back - I believe that there's a time and a place for everything. As the This American Life segment went onto explore, the chances that a relationship between the cheaters will last is indeed slim. Is this, marriage makers who got to the altar after cheating on a significant other, how you want to be remembered by people like me, as the one downer in an otherwise glowing Sunday? I think not. However, some parts of interwoven narratives are impossible to extract from one another and, as a believer that the truth is always better than lies, if this is what the relationship is, perhaps it's best to own it.

My question then becomes: when do moral issues start to affect what announcements are featured on the pages? Is there even a place for that sort of thing? Say, if Elliot Spitzer married his prostitute, would that be a Vows column? Who gets a say in that? Should we care? I say, do what you want New York Times, because I'll always be back for more. As for the cheaters, well, I learned in kindergarten that those never prosper but if you've made yours prosperous than who am I to stand in the way, judging you as you make my Sunday glee a little less gleeful.

This Sunday's Pick Me Up: Better than Bollywood: Two Documentarians Overcome Obstacles, Find Love on Set

A friend who dated a white Bollywood producer once told me that the one romantic issue that Bollywood films never seem to touch on is relationships between Indians and the white people who love them. These stories, thankfully, aren't in short supply in the NYTimes wedding announcements. But This is the first vows column featuring such a romance that I can recall. Aron Gaudet and Gita Pullapilly are no strangers to the Times. I remember reading articles and reviews about their documentary film, "The Way We Get By," which follows the groom's mother and several other elderly Maine folk who welcome home from and send local troops off to service. And the Times' familiarity with its subjects shows. It deals with the couple's issues (career uncertainty, her family's reluctant and eventual approval, and the poverty inherent in choosing to do what they love) with grace. The "It's a Wonderful Life" moment where the town pulls together a wedding for them is priceless, heartfelt, and, while the cynic in me says that two starving artists featured in the New York Times more than once could probably afford their own wedding, the romantic in me loves the real-life, poetic, happy-ending. While I'm sure they, like all couples, will face inevitable speed bumps, it's nice to think that there is a bit of movie magic in the end of one chapter and the beginning of another.