I subscribe to the Slatest. It’s a news aggregator from the WaPo’s cooler sibling Slate and it’s mostly the first thing I look at after I wake up and let my dog out to pee.
I get past highlights from the State of the Union, cringe through more Haitian unrest, ignore the iPad maelstrom, falter towards the Onion and eventually I am led to the Huffington Post, where it gets kinda gossipy and weird. I couldn’t help but notice a piece that slams a NYT blogger for calling certain actress’ fatties. I follow the link to the guilty poster and the comments section is hilarious and inspiring at once.
The readers that commented were mostly astonished and strangely disappointed that someone called out Jennifer Aniston’s upper arms:
Face it, the NY Times will never be the same as the trashy, horrible tabloid paparazzi garbage that is US, Star, etc. So, please, stop trying to be some odd high brow version…
I am especially shocked & sickened that this is published by the NYT…
this is disgusting. to be perfectly honest, I’d thought more of the TImes’ journalistic integrity
Really? I can’t believe this on the NY Times website. Truly stupid.
You know why? Because the New York Times is a brand. It is a brand as much as Crayola, Motorola and Toyota are. People expect an array of crayons and markers, innovative technology and annoying ringtones, or non-gas pedal sticking vehicles; and that’s what they get (minus you, Toyota! Okay bad example but it rhymed.)
NYT loyalists will disparage an article and threaten dissent, but it’s done like tough love, like getting your car keys taken away from you because you broke curfew the night before in 10th grade.
People feel compelled to become de facto content editors on NYT articles because they relate part of their identity with it and when it strays too far from the brand, it is as if their names are slandered. What a strange yet very common thing to realize: that society relates much of their personal mores and ideals with the media. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, media is strong and I am weak.
Even though I feel like this was a fluke article and won’t actually hurt the NYT, I want to play devil’s advocate:
With the advent of the iPad, which I tried to ignore after its unveiling yesterday because I honestly don’t see myself getting one, the NYT will have a lot to prove content-wise. Yesterday they had a presentation of its nytimes.com site on the iPad, which everyone reported looks just like their current website and had a lot of empty plugin icons (no Adobe flash still? Ever?) But remember how their pay metered site also just went through a media round? If there was ever a time to flaunt what they got, it is now. Very soon readers will have a popular tech-tool with which to access their paid-for content, but with comments like these:
On the upside, the “article” did help me decide not to pay for content on this site.
I worry more about the success of their metered plan.
If the question becomes “How does the NYT remain relevant in our increasingly vapid culture while preserving the NYT brand for their loyalist readership?” My answer is: I don’t think a “middle brow,” somewhere between Perez Hilton and the New Republic, can exist without either end of the spectrum losing credibility because of its juxtaposition. They need to just stick to their established reputation because the readers willing to pay are looking for stories in the traditional vein of you know, actual journalism. Stop focusing on saving the news and figure out how to make the actual news worth saving.
Oh and don’t call beautiful, skinny, wealthy, successful, famous women fat because actual normal people will think you’re calling them fatter than fat, and have you ever called someone a fatty and then asked them for money? Take a lesson, NYT!