Let me make clear that I've only looked at the story you posted and don't know what other media sources are making of it (please don't make me).

The media has grabbed this story because the wife is 12-years-old, never minding the fact that the husband is only 15-years-old. There is the additional fact that this is a royal wedding. Both facts make it genuinely newsworthy, in my opinion.

They also press as fact that she has no choice in the matter, when actually she does. I'd like to hear more about what you mean by her "choice". And what exactly does the father's advisor mean when he says "She has been crying all day, but the marriage will go ahead with or without her,''?

They also forego the fact that this is a Western-Middle East affair (Western-Middle East being a location, not a cultural comparison between West and Middle East) that has little, if anything, to do with the West -- other than the romanticized Western stories of Gypsies and Gypsy lifestyles. It sounded very much to me that they were relating the way things were done in a culture foreign to mine. They certainly let the reader know what culture these folks belonged to. I don't understand what you think was left out of the story.

Most "romanticized" stories I know about the Gypsies have them stealing babies and possessions, murdering people, and moving on. I'm sure these are old-wives-tales, but they don't jive with what I think you are saying about Western tales of the Gypsies.

Is Romany really middle-eastern? I would have guessed it would be called Eastern European. And their culture owing more to Slavic than Semitic traditions. Speaking from ignorance here.

Arranged marriages, btw, have been going on for hundreds of years, and I have been in attendance at such weddings in Italy involving Gypsies -- who are considered outcasts in Italy. My opinion is that we really have no business imposing. A worthy opinion. And if the laws of the land in which the wedding takes place support that opinion, then everyone is happy. Some whacky countries think that they should have laws that define who can marry who, however. But back to the theme, I didn't see where the reporter went out of his way to say the practice is either good or bad. Only that this event happened.

Is the practice backward and archaic? Sometimes. Old-fashioned, I would call it. But I don't have a strong objection to it. I work with folks from India, and they are sanguin about the idea of arranged marriages. It is a system that works. It's got advantages and disadvantages.

The West will, however, probably get further involved with Gypsy beliefs and practices, until the culture is completely stamped out. Sad, but of this I'm pretty sure. After all, the West does greatly outnumber Western-Middle Easterners, so it‘s really just a matter of time. The West has always tried to stamp out Gypsies. And always failed. Maybe globalization will someday succeed where the west has failed. I don't see this wedding or its coverage as any significant milestone along that road, though.

And I still don't see that the reporter was doing any more that covering a story, relating the events that took place, and providing just enough background to make sense.