I have two questions for the New York Times about Peter Baker's article, "A Real Fairy-Tale Wedding."1. Why is a piece about the media furor surrounding a rumor about Chelsea Clinton's wedding filed under politics, when stories about domestic violence, stalking, sexual harassment, and rape are filed in the "Fashion & Style" section?
2. What the fuck is this paragraph doing in the piece?
The persistence of the rumor [that Chelsea Clinton would be married in August in on Martha's Vineyard in a glitzy wedding attended by the president] despite the lack of tangible evidence says something about today's free-for-all Internet media culture, where facts sometimes don't get in the way of a good story. It also says something about the Clintons and the mistrust they have engendered over the years that so many people do not take them at their word, even over a question like this.Seriously?! SERIOUSLY?!
I mean, it's nice to see you admitting that you consider an unsubstantiated and resoundingly-denied rumor about the wedding of someone whose personal life is none of our business "a good story" and all, but, uh, why is it, exactly, that you consider an unsubstantiated and resoundingly-denied rumor about the wedding of someone whose personal life is none of our business "a good story" again?
And WTF with the unwarranted swipe at the Clintons? The Gray Lady sure is a petty asshole these days.
Contact the New York Times' Public Editor here.
Shakesville is run as a safe space. First-time commenters: Please read Shakesville's Commenting Policy and Feminism 101 Section before commenting. We also do lots of in-thread moderation, so we ask that everyone read the entirety of any thread before commenting, to ensure compliance with any in-thread moderation. Thank you.
blog comments powered by Disqus