Posts Tagged ‘new york times’
The Grey Lady has discovered this newfangled thing called “lunch“:
A salad may seem modest, but that dish (and its cult following among trend-attuned New Yorkers like Ms. Bhojwani) is emblematic of a shift in the way that women participate in the crucial information-gathering and idea-generating ritual known as lunch. Wander into ABC Kitchen on any given weekday and the nature of that transformation will be abundantly clear: There’s a new generation of power-lunch spots in downtown Manhattan, and women are the most devoted regulars.
Reports that the poorz eat at midday times as well went unconfirmed at press time.
One is clearly enough to cover what matters:
Further proof that hipsters didn’t invent being insufferable. This Manhattanite was into it before it was cool.
Dylan Byers, on how his anti-Jill Abramson article—the one in which Abramson was cast as icy, exacting, and alienating, while the male staffer who punched a wall in response to a meeting with her was portrayed sympathetically as frustrated—was totally not sexist not even a little:
I therefore did not see it as fitting to inject gender into a story that was, as I saw it, not about gender. (Aside from noting that she is the first female executive editor of the Times, the only reference to gender appears in a quote from Times managing editor Dean Baquet, who says ”the bitchy woman character … is a little bit of an unfair caricature.”)
Welp, we’re done here. It’s a longstanding journalism truth that until “bitch” is used twice in a story about a prominent female figure, you’re on non-gendered territory. And pay no attention to anybody suggesting that ignoring the role gender plays in a power structure is sexism. Those people are just “injecting” gender, and Politico‘s all out of needles.
This, kids, is why you pay for the New York Times: “The White House should have created a war room full of charts with the names of pols they had to capture, like they had in ‘The American President.’”
From the You’re Not Helping file:
Debra Aho Williamson, an advertising industry analyst and devoted coffee drinker, was intrigued by a promotion that popped up on her Facebook page recently. Sign up for a Starbucks loyalty card, it said, and get $5 off.
“When I saw that, I thought, I’m already a member of their loyalty club,” she said. “Why don’t they know that?”
Yeah, what is up with the subpar invasion of privacy to better tailor subliminal advertising, especially in order to further constrict spending habits to major corporations? This definitely warranted a complaint in the New York Times.
The New York Times gets the White House to admit that were it not for Romney’s tone deaf response to the killing of an American diplomat in Libya, the Obama administration would be on the defensive this week. Why?
The upheaval over an anti-Islam video has suddenly become Mr. Obama’s most serious foreign policy crisis of the election season, and a range of analysts say it presents questions about central tenets of his Middle East policy: Did he do enough during the Arab Spring to help the transition to democracy from autocracy? Has he drawn a hard enough line against Islamic extremists? Did his administration fail to address security concerns?
Good questions, I guess. But the first quoted of those “range” of analysts, who casts the Obama administration as naive and complacent, is a former Bush administration official. So is the second of that “range” of analysts that the New York Times quotes. But the second, Richard Haass, apparently didn’t get the memo:
“The reality is the Middle East is going to be turbulent for the foreseeable future and beyond that,” said Richard Haass, president of the Council on Foreign Relations and a former State Department official in the Bush administration. “It’s going to present the United States with any number of difficult choices. It’s also going to be frustrating, because in most instances our interests are likely to be greater than our influence.”
Translation of that last line: there’s not all that much we—read: the West, read: Obama—can actually do to affect the events of the Middle East. Which answers all the questions that this “range” of analysts got the New York Times to helpfully ask for them.
Here’s the New York Times headline for the sentencing of Pussy Riot: “Anti-Putin Stunt Earns Punk Band Two Years In Jail.”
There’s a point at which a “stunt” earns its way into a protest, and I’d say it’s when three women are sentenced to two years in jail for the exercise of speech. I know the Times staff is busy not editing Tom Friedman columns, but I’m sure they could find a moment to consider the coding of their language when writing a headline about people whose very ability to use language is being criminalized to protect a regime.
In an unrelated but simultaneous article, the Times also managed to describe Seattle’s the Stranger as “an alternative newspaper,” as if a) no one had ever heard of it, and b) the writer was taking a used tissue to the trash can. Imagine if I were to go through this post and preface every mention of the Grey Lady with “Jayson Blair’s former rag,”* or “the paper that employed Judith Miller.” When put like that, don’t you kinda want your digital subscription money back?
Both of these instances strike me as examples of the Times either not noticing or not bothering to restrain its viewing of world events through the lens of its own assumptions of preeminence. But given that neither Pussy Riot nor the Stranger has accidentally enabled any Iraq wars that we know of, perhaps they deserve to be taken a little more seriously, and the Times a little less.
* Interesting factoid I discovered while looking up links for this article: Jayson Blair’s Wikipedia page describes him as “an American life coach and journalist formerly with The New York Times.” Wonder who wrote that headline.
Judging on clarity, logic, sentence construction, proper use of metaphor, linearity of thought, and, oh let’s say wisdom, which of these two writers deserves to be a New York Times columnist?
1. I’m deeply sorry for the hurt and embarrassment I’ve caused to those close to me and everyone this has affected. This momentary indiscretion has jeopardized the most important thing in my life, the person I love and respect the most, Rob. I love him, I love him, I’m so sorry. (via)
2. You can’t go from Saddam to Switzerland without getting stuck in Hobbes — a war of all against all — unless you have a well-armed external midwife, whom everyone on the ground both fears and trusts to manage the transition. In Iraq, that was America. The kind of low-cost, remote-control, U.S./NATO midwifery that ousted Qaddafi and gave birth to a new Libya is not likely to be repeated in Syria [...] Without an external midwife or a Syrian Mandela, the fires of conflict could burn for a long time. (via)
Maybe they should switch bodies!