I don't read the NY Post - why would I? But as a subway commuter, I feel like it is my God given right on mornings when I have to stand for an 45 minutes to use that time read the headlines of the Post upside down on the laps of the fortunate commuters who managed to get a seat on the train (most likely by boarding in a place called "New Lots"). So, last Friday I saw a headline in the Post that got me very excited. In the tabloid's very understated style it read "WHY DOES THE NY TIMES HATE KIDS?"
Oh boy, I thought. Why does the New York Times hate children? I like children, I like the New York Times; what gives? Have the "journalists" at the Post discovered a secret underground lair where they harvest that powdery scent from infants to dust across the pages of the Gray Lady to give the weekend edition that satisfying matte feeling? But then I looked a little closer to the lap of the stranger sitting directly below me and read the sub-head "Review spoils Harry Potter".
Oh. So, the Post is claiming that by publishing a review of the last J.K. Rowling book, reviewer Michiko Kakutani ruined the ending and therefore destroyed the lives of children everywhere. Now, unfortunately I am a discredit to my demographic and unlike other 26 year-old graduates of liberal arts colleges, I could give a shit about Harry Potter (but you all enjoy yourselves), so I promptly forgot about the matter.
Until Sunday when I was having some coffee and reading my morning paper when I remembered, Oh yeah! The NY Times hates children! Let's get some more on that front from a rational, well-reasoned commentator over at the NY Post. Boy, am I glad I took the 15 seconds necessary to Google that editorial. You'll want to read the brief but inspired piece here.
According to the Post's Andrea Peyser, "[t]he Newspaper of Record has done nothing less than perpetrate a fraud against the children of Planet Earth." Yeah, so suck it up all you whiny Darfur babies! Although Times Book Editor Rick Lyman said "We took great care not to give away the ending, nor to give away significant details about who lives and who dies," Peyser writes that Kakutani's review was "blatantly designed to spoil the most-anticipated publication since the Ten Commandments." It's true - the Ten Commandments were very highly anticipated, some people couldn't wait and they made fake tablets, but then Moses showed them the error of their ways and they all agreed to be patient and never worship false idols again and they killed the golden calf. That's why the Jews have a holiday called Shavuot. I learned that from my friend.
Oh, and also Peyser likens this transgression to the Jayson Blair affair. Then, just for fun, she repeats what spoilers were in Kakutani's review in her own column. I believe in the land of Muggles, that person is known as a bitch. But then again, I'm no expert.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Funny. I, too, as a 27 year old woman with a liberal arts degree could give two shits about Harry Potter. He's like the summer olympics, I just wait for the buzz to go away so that I can start caring about the news again.
What a weird op-ed. Her tone is so outrageously overblown that you'd think she was satirizing herself. And yet.
I also love that she had to squeeze in 'left-listing.'
1. The NY Times hates children? Awesome, sign me up for a lifetime subscription.
2. That was a pretty obnoxious NY Post piece, but the Post is a pretty obnoxious publication.
3. I'm also not a Harry Potter "d**krider" (literally or figuratively) and I'm not all that fond of children either.
I just love the idea that hordes of children are eagerly pouring over the New York Times. It's like the literary version of Pokemon.
Post a Comment