by Karl J. Paloucek
The Kim Kardashian® wedding is this weekend, in case you haven’t heard it enough times already. It’s been speculated that a considerable number of famous people have been invited. Were we? Take a look at the picture at left. (Note the cover story we gave her that could have been responsible for the invite. Or it could have been an accident. Whatever.) Media outlets the world over are, at this very moment, likely trying to ascertain the location of the big event and martial their helicopters for a bin Laden-style assault.
Us? Well, I’m sitting in my kitchen as I write this. It’s too big an event in the world of reality television to ignore, but frankly, as our editorial staff talked about covering the event, there was a detectable air of “meh” to the discussion. Not that we’re not happy for Kim, her NBA representative and their respective merger, but it just seemed a little disingenuous to show up at an event when we don’t really know either of them personally, and we certainly can’t afford anything on their guest registry. (I also have to say that the “black tie” thing really put us off, though it wasn’t unexpected.) Plus, I just couldn’t get around to booking the flight, what with writing and reviewing descriptive copy about Rat Busters, Hillbilly Handfishin’ and whatever else that’s competing for viewers with the Kardashian brand. Really, the Kim Kardashian wedding just wasn’t the priority for us that it is for others who wish they’d been invited to the Kim Kardashian wedding. Maybe we just got to the point early at which even people in the media have had enough.
And that brings me to a salient point: Let’s face it — like so many others’, the Kim Kardashian publicity train always was and continues to be one of a parasitic nature, driven by a zeal for Google hits and TV ratings, and we’re as happy as any to exploit the Kim Kardashian wedding by using the words “Kim Kardashian wedding” as many times as we feel necessary in a piece about the Kim Kardashian wedding if it’ll help secure us a few more viewers. (Hey — at least we’re honest about our motives here at channelguidemag.com. We already put her on our cover; we don’t think she’d mind a little extra exploitation of the Kim Kardashian wedding.) And if by using the Kim Kardashian wedding and its attendant description of “Kim Kardashian wedding” over and over again helps to push the Google searchers looking for info on the Kim Kardashian wedding a little closer to the saturation point at which they have to stop searching for anything related to the Kim Kardashian wedding, well, then that’s neither here nor there. The Kim Kardashian wedding is going to come and go, but blog posts like this one will continue to attract the attention of those looking for Kim Kardashian wedding information, Kim Kardashian wedding photos and whatever other Kim Kardashian wedding minutiae might crop up in the wake of the actual Kim Kardashian wedding. And if we can benefit from gratuitous saturation of the phrase “Kim Kardashian wedding,” well, then so be it.
Finally, a quick note for the bride-to-be: Rest assured, Kim, we’re sorry that we can’t be there to celebrate your special day. We do hope it’s the magical event that it’s been built up to be, and despite the well-documented expenses, we’re sure you’ll emerge from the Kim Kardashian wedding in the black — especially with the much-ballyhooed coverage of the brand-reinforcing Kim Kardashian wedding that will premiere on E! in October.
PS: Kim Kardashian wedding! Kim Kardashian wedding! Kim Kardashian wedding!
PPS: Kim Kardashian wedding! (We know … the height of maturity … but then again …)
Photo: Karl J. Paloucek